"Dee Flint" wrote in
:


"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Brian Hill" wrote in :


"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once

But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once.

proving that one has little to do with the other.

And that you have little to do with this conversation.

You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be
gone sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys
but it's just the sign of the times.

BH


We have to keep trying to save Ham radio while we still can because
once it's all the way in the ****ter it will be even harder to pull
back out & clean up.

A Ham who'll stand for nothing will sit for anything. I won't accept
more dumbing down.


Help save Ham radio:


1- No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all
elements required for their license class every ten years.


No reason to. This has never existed in the history of amateur radio
and there is no reason to think it would improve things.


Yah friggen right, NOT! Continuing to stay knowledgable and re-testing
won't improve things? Sheesh!! What's your problem then, If licensees
remembered what was on their exams ten years ago passing the exams again
should be a breeze. Of course, if they don't rememeber, they'll have to
study again. This will make better hams. And the fact that this
requirement has never existed in the history of ham radio doesn't make it
a bad idea. You're just Lazy.



2- The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.


Might be OK.


Thank you.



3- Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.


Probably wouldn't make a real difference either way.


It DOES make a difference. It maintains the number of ways we can
exchange information, and as a filter to keep out some of the riff-raff
allowing you better enjoyment of the service.



4- Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.


Probably wouldn't make any difference.

Of course it WILL make a difference! It creates an incentive to keep
studying and building on radio knowledge & skill by requiring an upgrade
after a year. And we end up with more knowledgable hams. How can that be
bad?



5- Cancel your ARRL membership until they decide to work to improve
things and stop them from proposing ham radio that is like CB.


Terrible idea. The only way to get ARRL to change is to get involved in
the politics of ARRL and work to try to effect the changes that you
want.


The ARRL knew what it's members wanted before restructuring through
surveys of the membership, then did you read the proposal that came out
with? Totally opposite of the feeling of the membership. Google it, we
discussed it long and hard years ago when RRAP groupies actually argued
policy. The ARRL is only interested in padding the corporate bank
account, they don't care about the quality of amateurs getting licensed.
Our HF bands can sound like CB if means the ARRL can get more money. The
ARRL BOD stapped Hiram Percy Maxim in the back. The ARRL doesn't care if
you know anything about radio.

Slow Code wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote in
:



Terrible idea. The only way to get ARRL to change is to get involved in
the politics of ARRL and work to try to effect the changes that you
want.


The ARRL knew what it's members wanted before restructuring through
surveys of the membership, then did you read the proposal that came out
with? Totally opposite of the feeling of the membership. Google it, we
discussed it long and hard years ago when RRAP groupies actually argued
policy. The ARRL is only interested in padding the corporate bank
account, they don't care about the quality of amateurs getting licensed.
Our HF bands can sound like CB if means the ARRL can get more money. The
ARRL BOD stapped Hiram Percy Maxim in the back. The ARRL doesn't care if
you know anything about radio.
you mean the ARRL gave in and tired to make a grab for what it thought
it could get (coded extra) and failed opening to door for our final
victory

"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Dee Flint" wrote in
:


"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Brian Hill" wrote in :


"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once

But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once.

proving that one has little to do with the other.

And that you have little to do with this conversation.

You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be
gone sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys
but it's just the sign of the times.

BH


We have to keep trying to save Ham radio while we still can because
once it's all the way in the ****ter it will be even harder to pull
back out & clean up.

A Ham who'll stand for nothing will sit for anything. I won't accept
more dumbing down.


Help save Ham radio:


1- No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all
elements required for their license class every ten years.


No reason to. This has never existed in the history of amateur radio
and there is no reason to think it would improve things.


Yah friggen right, NOT! Continuing to stay knowledgable and re-testing
won't improve things? Sheesh!! What's your problem then, If licensees
remembered what was on their exams ten years ago passing the exams again
should be a breeze. Of course, if they don't rememeber, they'll have to
study again. This will make better hams. And the fact that this
requirement has never existed in the history of ham radio doesn't make it
a bad idea. You're just Lazy.



Not hardly. Every time they change the pool, I get an up-to-date study
guide just to keep current and see what's new. Could pass the test any day
of the week and twice on Sunday. By the way the exam has changed in 10
years. There is some common stuff but there is also new stuff.

However, the biggest problem would be manpower for conducting the tests.
Based on the current number of hams, that would be over 60,000 people
retesting every year. The existing test system (and the prior systems when
things were administered by the FCC) were all designed around the single
testing concept. Essentially, it would mean almost every VE team would need
to conduct test sessions weekly or hold huge test sessions monthly. There
just aren't enough of us to do that. Plus many facilities now charge for
the use of the facility. And the bigger the room, the higher the fee.


2- The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.


Might be OK.


Thank you.



3- Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.


Probably wouldn't make a real difference either way.


It DOES make a difference. It maintains the number of ways we can
exchange information, and as a filter to keep out some of the riff-raff
allowing you better enjoyment of the service.


I believe in keeping a basic test simply because a person can't determine if
they will like code until they've tried it. Plus it is one of the basics of
radio. If they have the basics and have thus learned it is not a big, scary
hurdle, they will be willing to pursue it in the future since they already
know it at a basic level.

The filter argument, I consider totally bogus.

Code is either a basic part of ham radio or it is not. That should be the
criteria for determining if it should be tested.



4- Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.


Probably wouldn't make any difference.

Of course it WILL make a difference! It creates an incentive to keep
studying and building on radio knowledge & skill by requiring an upgrade
after a year. And we end up with more knowledgable hams. How can that be
bad?


In today's climate, it will not be an incentive. Those who want to upgrade
don't need the non-renewability clause. The rest will simply let their
licenses lapse. Those who would let it lapse aren't on the air enough to
contribute anyway.



5- Cancel your ARRL membership until they decide to work to improve
things and stop them from proposing ham radio that is like CB.


Terrible idea. The only way to get ARRL to change is to get involved in
the politics of ARRL and work to try to effect the changes that you
want.


The ARRL knew what it's members wanted before restructuring through
surveys of the membership, then did you read the proposal that came out
with? Totally opposite of the feeling of the membership. Google it, we
discussed it long and hard years ago when RRAP groupies actually argued
policy. The ARRL is only interested in padding the corporate bank
account, they don't care about the quality of amateurs getting licensed.
Our HF bands can sound like CB if means the ARRL can get more money. The
ARRL BOD stapped Hiram Percy Maxim in the back. The ARRL doesn't care if
you know anything about radio.


So why don't you go run for office and promote your platform? Or form your
own lobbying group? Complaining here won't get it done. If you want your
platform to prevail, the YOU have to do the work to convince people. While
the ARRL proposal was not what I wanted, it did indeed reflect some of the
things that a significant percentage wanted.

As far as the ARRL padding the corporate bank account, if that is true, then
you need to report them to the IRS as non-profit organizations are not
allowed to do this.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Dee Flint" wrote in
:


It DOES make a difference. It maintains the number of ways we can
exchange information, and as a filter to keep out some of the riff-raff
allowing you better enjoyment of the service.


I believe in keeping a basic test simply because a person can't determine if
they will like code until they've tried it. Plus it is one of the basics of
radio. If they have the basics and have thus learned it is not a big, scary
hurdle, they will be willing to pursue it in the future since they already
know it at a basic level.
meaning you basicaly belive that the Mode must be forced on everyone
as mode welfare

The filter argument, I consider totally bogus.
because

Code is either a basic part of ham radio or it is not. That should be the
criteria for determining if it should be tested.
Dee do you seriously support the implied postion that if we end Code
tesing we should indeed end Code USE?



4- Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.


Probably wouldn't make any difference.

Of course it WILL make a difference! It creates an incentive to keep
studying and building on radio knowledge & skill by requiring an upgrade
after a year. And we end up with more knowledgable hams. How can that be
bad?


In today's climate, it will not be an incentive. Those who want to upgrade
don't need the non-renewability clause. The rest will simply let their
licenses lapse. Those who would let it lapse aren't on the air enough to
contribute anyway.

thanks a lot btch

"Sal M. Onella" wrote:


I wonder: Did the radio amateur community go through anything like this for
the transition away from spark?


Yes, they did.


--
73, Eric F. Richards, KB0YDN,
"A few old diehards still blazoned 'Spark Forever!' on their QSL cards..."
- from "200 Meters & Down", copyright 1936, ARRL

On 25 Jul 2006 21:10:13 -0700, "an old feind"
wrote:

Dee Flint wrote:

I believe in keeping a basic test simply because a person can't determine if
they will like code until they've tried it. Plus it is one of the basics of
radio. If they have the basics and have thus learned it is not a big, scary
hurdle, they will be willing to pursue it in the future since they already
know it at a basic level.

meaning you basicaly belive that the Mode must be forced on everyone
as mode welfare

As opposed to making a ham license something anyone can get merely by
asking for one - because, like you, they don't have the intelligence
to pass a real test.

Al Klein wrote:
On 25 Jul 2006 21:10:13 -0700, "an old feind"
wrote:

Dee Flint wrote:

I believe in keeping a basic test simply because a person can't determine if
they will like code until they've tried it. Plus it is one of the basics of
radio. If they have the basics and have thus learned it is not a big, scary
hurdle, they will be willing to pursue it in the future since they already
know it at a basic level.

meaning you basicaly belive that the Mode must be forced on everyone
as mode welfare

As opposed to making a ham license something anyone can get merely by
asking for one - because, like you, they don't have the intelligence
to pass a real test.
no one hass advocated giving a license away except of course procoders
like yourself
Funny I can mange ee qso's (second one last night) and yet you inist I
am unintelgent based on my inabilty to serve as a modem, a machine
funtion