an old friend wrote:

some snippage

Enforcement seem a far biiger problem to me than education or the lack
of it so in that example i support trading educatio requirements for
increased enforcement, if that is possible

Not a bad point at all Mark.



Negative. They are happy to take some credit for the situation. With
credit comes responsibility.


what credit are they taking? They proposed something that the FCC
regcted and you want to hold them accountable for even proposing it.
that is pretty twisted

It is just how things work.

Make you decisions and live with 'em.



Unless of course they are Republican. In that case they are not
responsible....


this is not a partisan issue, in the 2000 campiagn cycle I had contact
and Gore and Bush people indacated they would support ending code
testing in the itu treaty lang

That was a joke, Mark. NO question that politicians on both sides of
the fence hardly know enough about ham radio to make an informed
decision about it.

- Mike KB3EIA -

KØHB wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote


KØHB wrote:

"an_old_friend" wrote


In any change in the system there is the clear poetencail
for large scale adjustment of the licensesure of those involved

False! Absolutely false!


True absolutely ture


Wrong again.

You said "In any change in the system".

I showed you an example of a change with NO POTENTIAL for large scale
adjustment, disproving your statement on it's face. Them is the facts!

73, de Hans, K0HB


For goodness sakes, don't confuse the idiot with facts. He can't handle
facts. Lets see, he did manage to get most of the letters in the word
POTENTIAL, now if he just had enough brains to get them in the right order.

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote


The support is/was for ONE-TIME free upgrades as proposed by
the ARRL petition and one or two others. No support was
given to any permananent relaxation of written tests by NCI.


Under this NCI-endorsed plan, 345,802 current hams (using Jim's July 15th
census) would receive a PERMANENT relaxation of the requirement to test
for General and another 75,730 would receive a PERMANENT relaxation of the
requirement to test for Extra. That's means that 421,532 individuals, or
63.4% of the existing hams, would suddenly hold licenses for which they
had not passed the current written examination. Trying to trivialize that
as a simple "one-time" adjustment is intellectually dishonest and a
cop-out. By any reasonable measure, NCI and ARRL both officially are on
record as supporting a lowering of the qualification requirement for
General and Extra.

In your opinion that is.

Hans, we covered all the same territory in this newsgroup
when NCI filed its own petition and also filed responses
to others. For now, anyway, it is a mute point since the
FCC didn't go with the ARRL free upgrades anyway.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill:

Darn arrl is worse than a pervert with a box of lollypops around the kids...

Attempting to fool the poor dumb cb'ers into thinking they helped 'em get free
upgrades so they'd buy a membership, it is evil I tell you, evil! Those NC
techs would probably have fallen for it too...

John

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
nk.net...

"KXHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote


The support is/was for ONE-TIME free upgrades as proposed by
the ARRL petition and one or two others. No support was
given to any permananent relaxation of written tests by NCI.


Under this NCI-endorsed plan, 345,802 current hams (using Jim's July 15th
census) would receive a PERMANENT relaxation of the requirement to test for
General and another 75,730 would receive a PERMANENT relaxation of the
requirement to test for Extra. That's means that 421,532 individuals, or
63.4% of the existing hams, would suddenly hold licenses for which they had
not passed the current written examination. Trying to trivialize that as a
simple "one-time" adjustment is intellectually dishonest and a cop-out. By
any reasonable measure, NCI and ARRL both officially are on record as
supporting a lowering of the qualification requirement for General and
Extra.

In your opinion that is.

Hans, we covered all the same territory in this newsgroup
when NCI filed its own petition and also filed responses
to others. For now, anyway, it is a mute point since the
FCC didn't go with the ARRL free upgrades anyway.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote

For now, anyway, it is a mute point since the
FCC didn't go with the ARRL free upgrades anyway.

It was a moot point, until you tried to distance yourself and the other
Directors from your enthusiastic support of those free upgrades ("none of them
want relaxation of test requirements for written").

Clearly they DID want such relaxation, to the tune of almost 2/3 of all hams
getting "relaxed" right up to the next class of license.

Cheers to you also,

de Hans, K0HB

From: Michael Coslo on Jul 28, 10:31 am


K=D8=88B wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote

The support is/was for ONE-TIME free upgrades as proposed by
the ARRL petition and one or two others. No support was
given to any permananent relaxation of written tests by NCI.

Under this NCI-endorsed plan, 345,802 current hams (using Jim's July 15th
census) would receive a PERMANENT relaxation of the requirement to test =
for
General and another 75,730 would receive a PERMANENT relaxation of the
requirement to test for Extra. That's means that 421,532 individuals, or
63.4% of the existing hams, would suddenly hold licenses for which they
had not passed the current written examination. Trying to trivialize th=
at
as a simple "one-time" adjustment is intellectually dishonest and a cop-=
out. By any reasonable measure, NCI and ARRL both officially are on rec=
ord as
supporting a lowering of the qualification requirement for General and E=
xtra.

Frankly, I view one time adjustments in about the same vein as I do
temporary taxes.

Imagine the howls when Operator #1 tests the day before the One ti=
me
free upgrade, and operator #2 tests the day after, and gets much less
privileges.

Is that fair? If they both pass the same test, why is one getting
preferential treatment?

There is NO "preferential treatment." A change in LAW has to take
place at a specified time and date. Either fit the LAW or get out.

All it does is substitutes another problem for the perceived first=
problem.

So, how would YOU "fix" it? :-)

Hans, intellectually dishonest is an understatement! It works on s=
o few
levels. I'll be howling on both sides. People should *not* get free
upgrades, and they should *not* be punished for the date on which they
took the test.

What are you going to do? Retroactively enforce something in
disregard of the LAW? Tsk, tsk, not a good thing.

Perhaps they could reduce administrative burden, and do all manner=
of
other wonderful things by simply having a one time adjustment of
everyone to Extra?

Tsk, tsk, tsk. If we've told you once, we've told you a million
times...don't exaggerate!!!

Your technique of non-argument is just "reducto ad absurdum," just
reducing things to an absurd level.

If the LAW changes then all law-abiders should adjust to the
changes. If they don't, they are law-breakers. Simple.

If you can't adjust to change, then seek another venue for your
hobby. Try ballooning to the "edge of space" or something
equally dramatic.=20

yin yan

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote

For now, anyway, it is a mute point since the
FCC didn't go with the ARRL free upgrades anyway.

It was a moot point, until you tried to distance yourself and the other
Directors from your enthusiastic support of those free upgrades ("none of
them want relaxation of test requirements for written").

One time vs permananent. We obviously differ as to
what that translates too. For now, again, it is a mute
point.

Clearly they DID want such relaxation, to the tune of almost 2/3 of all
hams getting "relaxed" right up to the next class of license.

We supported ONE-time upgrades...NOT a permanent
change in testing going forward. Again, we will just have
to disagree as to what that translates to. You are
entitled to your opinion, as am I.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote


We supported ONE-time upgrades...NOT a permanent
change in testing going forward. Again, we will just have
to disagree as to what that translates to. You are
entitled to your opinion, as am I.


A trip down memory lane, Bill. A few years ago, while he was Executive Director
of NCI, we saw this regarding Fred Maia.

Lee Blaske writes: (about W5YI)

I found one of his opinions quite interesting. He feels that since people who
acquire entry level ham tickets invariably purchase their equipment assembled
these days, they no longer need to possess the knowledge needed to
"home-brew." Because of this fact, he thinks that the majority of questions
regarding math and theory (knowledge mainly needed to build equipment) should
be removed from entry level tests, and simply replaced with questions on
operating technique and regulations. If he had his way, math and theory
questions would only be part of the Advanced and Extra Class license tests.

In other words, theory and math questions would be removed from the Technician
examination.

I think Fred is still a Director at NCI, and even more scary, has influence on
the makeup of examinations through NCVEC and his association with W5YI-VEC.

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote


We supported ONE-time upgrades...NOT a permanent
change in testing going forward. Again, we will just have
to disagree as to what that translates to. You are
entitled to your opinion, as am I.


A trip down memory lane, Bill. A few years ago, while he was Executive D=
irector
of NCI, we saw this regarding Fred Maia.

Lee Blaske writes: (about W5YI)

I found one of his opinions quite interesting. He feels that since peop=
le who
acquire entry level ham tickets invariably purchase their equipment ass=
embled
these days, they no longer need to possess the knowledge needed to
"home-brew." Because of this fact, he thinks that the majority of quest=
ions
regarding math and theory (knowledge mainly needed to build equipment) =
should
be removed from entry level tests, and simply replaced with questions on
operating technique and regulations. If he had his way, math and theory
questions would only be part of the Advanced and Extra Class license te=
sts.

In other words, theory and math questions would be removed from the Techn=
ician
examination.

I think Fred is still a Director at NCI, and even more scary, has influen=
ce on
the makeup of examinations through NCVEC and his association with W5YI-VE=
C=2E

I think Fred's very "unique" ideas about Amatuer Radio and VE
testing are no doubt part-and-parcel of the inordinately high number of
people who require re-test by the FCC.

He should be ashamed.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Allow to point out the flaw in your reasoning

Fred W5YI has his opinions, Bill has his opinion (I am sure not all of
which are the same) I have mine which other than supporting the end of
code testing deverge as well

NCI's opinion and action are based on the common threads of the
membership and BoD

Fred and Bill and I are all free to have opinions on other subjects

This line of attack makes no more sense than saying NCI hates code use,
because some of it memeber, like myself, think (and express) the ARS
would be better off if the ARS abandoned Morse code USE

NCI is colaition with members holding a wide range of opinions

K=D8HB wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote


We supported ONE-time upgrades...NOT a permanent
change in testing going forward. Again, we will just have
to disagree as to what that translates to. You are
entitled to your opinion, as am I.


A trip down memory lane, Bill. A few years ago, while he was Executive D=
irector
of NCI, we saw this regarding Fred Maia.

Lee Blaske writes: (about W5YI)

I found one of his opinions quite interesting. He feels that since peop=
le who
acquire entry level ham tickets invariably purchase their equipment ass=
embled
these days, they no longer need to possess the knowledge needed to
"home-brew." Because of this fact, he thinks that the majority of quest=
ions
regarding math and theory (knowledge mainly needed to build equipment) =
should
be removed from entry level tests, and simply replaced with questions on
operating technique and regulations. If he had his way, math and theory
questions would only be part of the Advanced and Extra Class license te=
sts.

In other words, theory and math questions would be removed from the Techn=
ician
examination.

I think Fred is still a Director at NCI, and even more scary, has influen=
ce on
the makeup of examinations through NCVEC and his association with W5YI-VE=
C=2E
=20
73, de Hans, K0HB