ad: ProAudio-1

ARRL Proposes New Entry Level License Class w/ HF

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by N1YZ, Jan 20, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
  1. K3DAV

    K3DAV Ham Member QRZ Page

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb0uzr @ Mar. 04 2004,02:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When the test is difficult to pass, then only the dedicated,,the disciplined, and quality people that have pride are going to go through all that to want to get there.

    It's about the survival of the core and integrity of ham radio.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Yes I have heard all of the cursing and belching, and sound effects from those "dedicated, the disciplined, and quality people that have all that pride, on 40 and 75/80 meters. Yep! The code made them wonderful operators.</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's not about a mode of transmission..

    You are stuck on that, and others tried to explain as well. That this about the heart of ham radio.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'> It's partially about a mode of transmission. The other part is bruised egos. "I HAD TO DO IT, SO YOU SHOULD TOO". There is another thread on QRZ that has generals and extras admitting it left and right. That's not my opinion, it's their own words. The only thing I'm stuck on is the truth.

    N0KLU is 100% right as even you admit to. We Tech's didn't ask for this, your own fellow General's and Extra's did.

    I am all for the ARRL proposal, but you are dumping on all of us Tech's, as if we wrote the danged thing.

    Daaa! If you don't understand by now, you're not going to.....
     
  2. W0UZR

    W0UZR Ham Member QRZ Page

    You're right, and score a point, and I'm right and score a point.

    If I were still a novice, or was a tec, I'd get to a testing session before this proposal comes about. (if it does).

    I got too much pride.


    ps. I was just kidding about hating klu
     
  3. K6IRP

    K6IRP Ham Member QRZ Page

     Yes I have heard all of the cursing and belching, and sound effects from those "dedicated, the disciplined, and quality people that have all that pride, on 40 and 75/80 meters.  Yep! The code made them wonderful operators.</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's not about a mode of transmission..[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Dave--Wrong again---at least you're consistant....

    40,80 and even vhf while surely going downhill are nothing like what cb is like and all of this will one day be as we lower our standards to zero------by the way----I'm blaming no one----but the arrl leadership...not the techs as a group --hell--I was one for a long time-------there are good and bad in every group---I think many techs in fact have the personal pride to want to advance with a little effort....adios amigo
     
  4. K3DAV

    K3DAV Ham Member QRZ Page

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ke6irp @ Mar. 05 2004,13:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dave--Wrong again---at least you're consistant....

    40,80 and even vhf while surely going downhill are nothing like what cb is like and all of this will one day be as we lower our standards to zero------by the way----I'm blaming no one----but the arrl leadership...not the techs as a group --hell--I was one for a long time-------there are good and bad in every group---I think many techs in fact have the personal pride to want to advance with a little effort....adios amigo[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    You're pretty consistant yourself.

    No one is saying that 40/80 meters is as bad as CB. It is just a point that proves that the CW requirement does not work to keep them out. They are there, and they passed the CW requirement. 2+2=4 Very obvious and simple.

    Most of your comments are based on your assumption that they are lowering the standards to ZERO, and that is just not true. The ARRL proposal just drops the CW requirement to upgrade to General, and grandfathers Techs to General. THAT'S ALL.

    When you think about it, the written exam for General is not that much harder than the tech exam. I passed it, (Element 3) with a little studying. What knowledge that is gained from it is not that different from the Tech exam. So the grandfathering makes sense.

    CB was doomed from the beginning. They NEVER had testing of any kind. The standard for CB was always ZERO. It just took a while to show it as more and more people got into it. So from day 1, anybody and their brother could just buy a CB, mail in the application, plunk down the license fee, and get on the air. That's why CB is like it is, and amateur radio is NOT, and never will be.

    Chris. The only way amateur radio would become just like CB is, if the FCC dropped the licensing completely and forever, without any more enforcement of any kind. And that is just not ever going to happen. It is absolutely foolish to even assume so. Amateur radio is now, and always will be, a cut above. And the HF bands will be just fine. The ARRL has our best interest at heart. We are just doing what the rest of the planet seems to know is right. And not all, but most of the General's and Extra's I speak to (Off the forums), seem to agree.

    Take care Chris.
     
  5. N0KLU

    N0KLU Ham Member QRZ Page

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb0uzr @ Mar. 05 2004,04:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You're right, and score a point, and I'm right and score a point.

    If I were still a novice, or was a tec, I'd get to a testing session before this  proposal comes about. (if it does).

    I got too much pride.


    ps. I was just kidding about hating klu[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Already have, I took the exam and passed the general back on Feb 7th, also took a shot at Extra I got 50% with no study.

    I also have a certain amount of pride in what I do, although remember:"Pride goeth before a fall". So some humility should also be in order. [​IMG]
     
  6. W0UZR

    W0UZR Ham Member QRZ Page

    Hahahaha I figured someone would have said that a long time ago. I wasn't referring to you though. I was referring to a certain someone else. And I was calling that, the 'Point" that I had.

    And congratulations. So if that's the case that you already passed the written, then why were you working that hard on that post that had me check mated? You should have been agreeing with me. And it doesn't take that much work to get the code enough to pass 5wpm. I didn't even learn the punctuations until after I took the 5wpm. And I still passed.
     
  7. K6IRP

    K6IRP Ham Member QRZ Page

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3DAV @ Mar. 06 2004,03:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ke6irp @ Mar. 05 2004,13:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dave--Wrong again---at least you're consistant....

    40,80 and even vhf while surely going downhill are nothing like what cb is like and all of this will one day be as we lower our standards to zero------by the way----I'm blaming no one----but the arrl leadership...not the techs as a group --hell--I was one for a long time-------there are good and bad in every group---I think many techs in fact have the personal pride to want to advance with a little effort....adios amigo[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    You're pretty consistant yourself.

    No one is saying that 40/80 meters is as bad as CB.  It is just a point that proves that the CW requirement does not work to keep them out.  They are there, and they passed the CW requirement.  2+2=4  Very obvious and simple.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Dave--Problem is it's hard to prove a negative---vis---that hf will go in the toilet withpout a good gatekeeper test......however--I think it's just intuitive that the cw test is a hurdle that keeps out all but the dedicated because it is a skill to learn that does not happen overnight....I also think that the skill , while old   , is at a very basic level part of the fundimental nature of radio and of course the hobby. Like --cable cars in San Francisco---sure--there is better transportation but why on earth remove the soul of the city?[​IMG]  Same for code---keep it alive for the soul of the hobby and its intrinsic gatekeeper value------let the no coders have a band or two ---if that does not make you all happy then to be honest you are showing your true colors----Best--Chris
     
  8. K3DAV

    K3DAV Ham Member QRZ Page

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ke6irp @ Mar. 08 2004,13:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dave--Problem is it's hard to prove a negative---vis---that hf will go in the toilet withpout a good gatekeeper test......however--I think it's just intuitive that the cw test is a hurdle that keeps out all but the dedicated because it is a skill to learn that does not happen overnight....I also think that the skill , while old   , is at a very basic level part of the fundimental nature of radio and of course the hobby. Like --cable cars in San Francisco---sure--there is better transportation but why on earth remove the soul of the city?[​IMG]  Same for code---keep it alive for the soul of the hobby and its intrinsic gatekeeper value[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    OK Chris, I will concede to one of your major points. The CW requirement has kept SOME of the bad boys from the HF bands. Bad boys that would have been on the HF bands without, what you call, "The Gatekeeper". The written exams have also kept many bad boys out of amateur radio completely, but that part is fair to everyone. Learning knowledge is possible for those who want to just read the text. But learning CW is like learning Chinese. It is not based on what you already know. It is something brand new to the mind. And not everyone can do that. You can say it is easy, but that's because it was easy for YOU.

    Now look at it from the other side of the coin. I am one of many thousands of people, that is a dedicated, good operator with a high respect and love for radio. I can NOT hear the difference between a "di" or a "Da". They all sound the same to me. While your "Gatekeeper" is keeping out a few bad boys, it is also preventing the thousands of good guys from advancing in their license.

    If the cable cars in San Francisco were hampering the way of life for the majority, I will bet you a weeks pay, that they would become history. But they are not doing that, so they are kept as a historical, and traditional part of the city.

    The CW requirement has outlived it's purpose. It is no longer a "Gatekeeper". Times and attitudes have changed, with those who are already on HF. Your "Gatekeeper" is no longer keeping out bad boys, but it IS keeping out the good guys.</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">------let the no coders have a band or two ---if that does not make you all happy then to be honest you are showing your true colors----Best--Chris[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>That statement, and the use of the word, "Gatekeeper", only gives the tone a flavor of someone who's personal opinion should be the rule. It sounds as if we should need your permission, and what the rest of the world thinks on the matter, has no meaning. That was not meant as an attack, rather a perception.

    CW is not a "Gatekeeper". It is a mode of transmission, a language, and a long time wonderful tradition that many enjoy. That part never has to change. But as a requirement to advance ones license, just to talk on a different part of the amateur frequency spectrum, makes no sense. That's like saying, anyone can get a drivers license and operate a car. But you must become a mechanic to drive at night. In other words, one has nothing to do with the other.

    Take care Chris. [​IMG]
     
  9. K0ZZE

    K0ZZE Ham Member QRZ Page

    oh my god!!!!!! this crap is still going on? well i went back on my words but i just had to say that. no more posting for me,dont worry guys i will still be reading from time to time. [​IMG]
     
  10. K6IRP

    K6IRP Ham Member QRZ Page

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3DAV @ Mar. 08 2004,16:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now look at it from the other side of the coin.  I am one of many thousands of people, that is a dedicated, good operator with a high respect and love for radio.  I can NOT hear the difference between a "di" or a "Da".  They all sound the same to me.  While your "Gatekeeper" is keeping out a few bad boys, it is also preventing the thousands of good guys from advancing in their license.

     It sounds as if we should need your permission, and what the rest of the world thinks on the matter, has no meaning.  That was not meant as an attack, rather a perception.

    CW is not a "Gatekeeper".  It is a mode of transmission, a language, and a long time wonderful tradition that many enjoy.  [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    dave---This isn't personal friend--relax---You do need to ask someone's permission to enter hf--although not mine--welcome to the world--like driving, flying a plane, diving etc--it's a privlege------it was not easy for me to learn cw as you suggest--but I did it----As for guys like you who claim they can't learn it---cool--no sweat--welcome to hf---have a band or two but to give it all away is dumbing down the hobbty to the detriment of all of us---you guys can never respond to that point that makes any sense??? God Bless you Dave---you say the same thing in every post!---Best of luck to you--either with your basically easy no code license or--if you can ever conquer cw!---see ya out there----it's a great hobby isn't it?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page