In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

I was initially against this idea, thinking that taking the additional
written
element should be a requirement. However, I've read Ed Hare's excellent
*personal, not ARRL policy* comments on this from eham, and find that
they make sense to me - a compelling case for a "one-shot adjustment" to
make things clean in a way that nobody loses anything.

Once upon a time you also wrote:

I do not, and never will support the elimination or watering down
of the written tests. I have stated over and over again that I
personally feel they could be made better (where "better" and
"more difficult" are not necessarily synonymous ...).

Doncha just love Google?

(remember to point out that your quote is about the written tests, not
giving around 60 percent of US Hams a free upgrade) Same difference.

A one time adjustment? That really has to rank as one of the worst
ideas that ever came down the pike!

Not if there's a good reason for it - but so far I haven't seen a good reason.

If the Technicians/now Generals can even be considered to receive the
same privileges as the present Generals, how *Dare* the ARS or FCC even
*think* of not making it a permanent thing? That isn't even slippery
slope thinking either. The next batch of prospective hams will want to
know why THEY can't get the privileges that the OTHERS got by simply
being in the right place at the right time. What happens then?

A lot of bad feelings, for one thing. To my knowedge there is no precedent for
this sort of thing.

And the primary question - what is the problem without the freebies?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

Although new versus old does cause friction, the balance is still needed.
The new bring fresh enthusiasm and new ideas. The old have the
experience
to weigh these ideas and modify them so they will work or to spot ideas
that
have been tried in the past and known to fail. We need both old and new.

Well said, Dee!

There's also the need to recognize that newer is not always better, yet if
you never try anyhting different you may never get anything different.

"The art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve
change
amid order." - Alfred North Whitehead

73 de Jim, N2EY

The quote says it even better though.

Agreed. That's why I included it.

You would probably not believe where I first heard that quote, btw.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"The art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve
change amid order." - Alfred North Whitehead

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Let's see - as of January 15, 2004:

Novice - 32,718
Technician - 259,949
Technician Plus - 62,714
General - 141,443
Advanced - 81,961
Extra - 104,946
Total - 683,731

Total Technicians and Pluses: 322,663

322,663/683,731 = about 47.2% of existing hams getting a free upgrade to
General
81,961/683,731 = about 11.9% of existing hams getting a free upgrade to
Extra

Total of about 59.1% getting a free upgrade - wow!

Too bad no one saw that coming, eh?

I'm sure it's a big part of the plan.

The message ARRL sends with this proposal is "our General (and Extra)
qualifications" are more strenuous than need be. Such a free-pass would
establish that all these hundreds of thousands of licensees have been
qualified for General (or Extra) all along. At that moment it is
established, ipso facto, that the current Technician examination is
sufficient for the 'new General' and that the last Advanced examination
is sufficient for the 'new Extra'.

I agree 100%. And that's not the only message. Such giveaways also say that
the tests are so difficult that existing hams cannot be reasonably expected
to pass them on their own - but new hams have to!

"Do as I say, not as I do"

Up until now I have never raised the cry of "dumbing down", but such a
mass give-away would set a new lower bar for all future qualification
levels in the Amateur Radio service, and your position allegedly in
support of strenuous technical qualification standards rings hollow
indeed.

Remember what I was talking about some weeks back, Hans - and Carl asked
me to be quiet in case someone got the idea?

Way to GO, Jim! *You* gave people that idea, and now you made a real
mess for us! ;^) Wait, that really isn't funny, is it?

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!

Actually, it wasn't my idea. I'm simply the messenger. Others though it up long
before me.

There's no good reason I can see to give existing Techs, Tech Pluses and
Advanceds a bye on the writtens for the next license class.

No there isn't. But the reasons don't have to be good ones do they?

Exactly.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"JJ" wrote in message
...
Bert Craig wrote:


Funny you should say that. I was just looking at his QSL card wondering
how
he is. I sent him a few e-mails to both addresses known to work...and no
reply. Hope he's ok.

Speaking of QSL cards, I just received one today from the 5 land qsl
burro from an OH station in Finland I worked on September 26, *1981*.
Better late than never I suppose.

Wow, and I just recently received one from a 2/03 QSO...and I thought THAT
was an unreasonably long time. hihi

73 de Bert
WA2SI

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


I was initially against this idea, thinking that taking the additional
written
element should be a requirement. However, I've read Ed Hare's excellent
*personal, not ARRL policy* comments on this from eham, and find that
they make sense to me - a compelling case for a "one-shot adjustment" to
make things clean in a way that nobody loses anything.

Once upon a time you also wrote:


I do not, and never will support the elimination or watering down
of the written tests. I have stated over and over again that I
personally feel they could be made better (where "better" and
"more difficult" are not necessarily synonymous ...).


Doncha just love Google?


You betchya! Everyone slips up from time to time, and I don't like to
use it to catch people in little mistakes, but this one is right from
Burger King! A Whopper!

(remember to point out that your quote is about the written tests, not
giving around 60 percent of US Hams a free upgrade) Same difference.

A one time adjustment? That really has to rank as one of the worst
ideas that ever came down the pike!


Not if there's a good reason for it - but so far I haven't seen a good reason.


If the Technicians/now Generals can even be considered to receive the
same privileges as the present Generals, how *Dare* the ARS or FCC even
*think* of not making it a permanent thing? That isn't even slippery
slope thinking either. The next batch of prospective hams will want to
know why THEY can't get the privileges that the OTHERS got by simply
being in the right place at the right time. What happens then?


A lot of bad feelings, for one thing. To my knowedge there is no precedent for
this sort of thing.

And how! I would not feel any resentment toward hams that came on board
sans Morse code testing. After all they were just taking the tests that
were taken when they upgraded.

But to have the equivalent of a General with just the technician test?
For almost 60 percent of Hams to get the free upgrade?

I make this suggestion in dead seriousness. ARRL needs to consult with
a licensed psychologist stat, if not put one on staff retainer. Perhaps
he or she could explain why this is such a stupid idea.

And the primary question - what is the problem without the freebies?

How about this scenario:

ARRL is scared witless about the BPL problem. Their (somewhat
necessary) paranoia about these things caused someone at HQ to muse
"yaknow, if all these Technicians were Generals, we could show up at the
FCC with much more impressive numbers of the Hams that would be
negatively impacted by BPL or other spectrum threats". Right now, they
don't have much HF access, so giving it to them allows us to jack those
numbers up by a lot!" It bounces off the restructuring committee, and
viola! A plan that not only P****s off those who came before, but also
those who will come afterward.

It will also make an incredibly good case for - dare I say it?
indisputable running numbing dumbing down of the ARS.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...
"JJ" wrote in message
...
Bert Craig wrote:


Funny you should say that. I was just looking at his QSL card
wondering
how
he is. I sent him a few e-mails to both addresses known to work...and
no
reply. Hope he's ok.

Speaking of QSL cards, I just received one today from the 5 land qsl
burro from an OH station in Finland I worked on September 26, *1981*.
Better late than never I suppose.

Wow, and I just recently received one from a 2/03 QSO...and I thought THAT
was an unreasonably long time. hihi

73 de Bert
WA2SI



When I read about QSL'ing (I think in the Now You're Talking Book) before I
got my ticket, the idea sounded grand. But, I quickly became disinterested
when the reality of how long it takes, coupled with the added aggravation of
having a bureau, etc. I understand the idea of handling costs, etc. But,
it's just too much aggravation for me. There's supposedly some QSL cards
waiting for me somewhere up in OK, I think at a QSL Manager or something.
Someone posted the information here in the newsgroup one time. They'd
probably mean nothing to me any more because I wouldn't even remember the
contact! LOL

But, for DXers and paper chasers, it's probably a nicely organized
rigmarole. Do you mind the wait, Bert? You must be "into" DXing and
contesting, eh?

Kim W5TIT

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

I make this suggestion in dead seriousness. ARRL needs to consult with
a licensed psychologist stat, if not put one on staff retainer. Perhaps
he or she could explain why this is such a stupid idea.


Ha! The ARRL is about nothing but marketing anymore. This is a great
marketing effort to them: become the good cop and get hundreds to join, or
something along those lines.

Kim W5TIT

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

While I've stated many times that I would not support wholesale
proliferation of SSB/SSTV to the detriment of CW/digital modes,
the "refarming" of the (largely unused) "Novice bands" as proposed,
is modest and I can tolerate it ... if it doesn't happen, the proposal
can be tweaked a bit to allow for the increased access to HF for
the "new Novices".



Carl, I don't think it matters how many times you've stated *that* anymore.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Carl, I don't think it matters how many times you've stated *that* anymore.

- Mike KB3EIA -

I think that was a given from the start. Karl the HEAD CBplusser cant be
trusted. I think the "CBRRL" is run by morons like Karl.

When they came out with incentive licensing, there was a vocal
minority complaining. When they came out with the No code tech license
there was a vocal minority complaining. Now they are doing away with
most of the CW requirement and there is a vocal minority complaining.

WAyyyy back there used to be the class separation and then they did
away with it to the point where the General class had full privileges.
Then incentive licensing, then the new structure with code free techs
on VHF, then they lowered the CW speed and now they are doing away
with most of the CW requirements which are there due to international
agreements.

"To me" it matters little whether they make the requirements tech
heavy, procedure heavy, or require CW. It has little to do with the
character of those coming into the service.

Each change has brought out the "gloom and doom" element proclaiming
this will be the straw that broke the camel's back and the end of
Amateur Radio.

Maybe in addition to the technology and procedure testing we should
run a test on character traits? :-)) If we had been doing such
there would be a number of current hams who would have failed.

I have gone the whole route and yes, I passed 20 wpm to get my
license, but I don't see that need be a requirement for future
applicants.

It really doesn't matter how we test, there is always going to be a
mix of character traits and groups who oppose the way each other
operate. There will also be a small percent who will not be satisfied
no mater what is done.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com