Better written tests? (was Re: FAA vs FCC licensing)
LCC
<10352...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>>That's where you (lose) it Vince...
>>You now try to translate what I said into
>>something else because I was able to pass a
>>test using rote memorization some 50 years
>>ago.
>
>Wrong, Mr. Logic. You CLAIMED you passed
>the test in that way. That doesn't make it so. In
>point of fact, as we've posted before, all the study
>guides work against your claim, stating right within
>their pages that the questions are of the type that might
>appear, not the exact (technical) questions. If they could
>have said "exact questions that appear on the test found
>inside" they would have.
Yet they didn't, since they weren't the eaxct Q&A's. Yet people did
pass them after studying these comprehensive guides.
Any study guide that let's you cover enough of what might be on the
exam is doing exactly that. Were there schematic diagrams in these
guides?
In point of fact again,
>regulations didn't allow it. In addition, the QST
>article in '66 specifically drives that point home.
>So you've been caught there by three separate sources.
>
>Thus, given that your claim rings hollow, the conclusion
>to draw is that you've created a smoke-screen (and a poor
>one at that) to mask your no-code and general deregulation
Blame the FCC, not NCI.
>bent, irrespective of what you may SAY regarding your desire
>to maintain "theory" testing.
A closed Q&A is about as easy to pass as an open Q&A, if you have a
good, quality study guide to back you up.
>>(....no cheers for you...)
>
>Three Cheers to you, then.
>
>Regards,
>Vince, WB2EZG
Vincent Biancomano
<10352...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
VB>>Wrong, Mr. Logic. You CLAIMED you passed
VB>>the test in that way. That doesn't make it so. In
VB>>point of fact, as we've posted before, all the study
VB>>guides work against your claim, stating right within
VB>>their pages that the questions are of the type that might
VB>>appear, not the exact (technical) questions. If they could
VB>>have said "exact questions that appear on the test found
VB>>inside" they would have.
H>Yet they didn't, since they weren't the eaxct Q&A's. Yet people did
H>pass them after studying these comprehensive guides.
Not a good enough claim. You've now got to prove they used ONLY
the study guide; no Handbook, no practical experience, no Elmer,
nothing. In addition, you've also missed the point that Bill's original post
on the subject (and a few others) said the Q and A in the guide was EXACT;
they only modified those statements when challenged. So that calls into
question their memories (and agenda) on the subject.
VB>>In point of fact again, regulations didn't allow it. In addition, the QST
VB>>article in '66 specifically drives that point home.
VB>>So you've been caught there by three separate sources.
VB>>Thus, given that your claim rings hollow, the conclusion
VB>>to draw is that you've created a smoke-screen (and a poor
VB>>one at that) to mask your no-code and general deregulation
H>Blame the FCC, not NCI.
Blame anyone who called for easing of requirements. NCI doesn't
get off. You've forgotten that old Fred was part of NCI, and he led
the call for getting rid of those pesky technical questions.
H>A closed Q&A is about as easy to pass as an open Q&A, if you have a
H>good, quality study guide to back you up.
If that were the case, ARRL wouldn't have threatened court action
against Dick Bash in 1980, for one thing. Secondly, if that were the case,
we wouldn't have so many hams who (1) don't know how to apply
Ohm's Law and (2) freely admit it. Closed Q&As tend to push you
to learn the material, whether you want to learn it or not.
Regards,
Vince, WB2EZG
Vincent Biancomano
Paul W. Schleck
>On 30 Oct 1999 16:18:23 GMT, Vincent Biancomano
><10352...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>VB>>Wrong, Mr. Logic. You CLAIMED you passed
>VB>>the test in that way. That doesn't make it so. In
>VB>>point of fact, as we've posted before, all the study
>VB>>guides work against your claim, stating right within
>VB>>their pages that the questions are of the type that might
>VB>>appear, not the exact (technical) questions. If they could
>VB>>have said "exact questions that appear on the test found
>VB>>inside" they would have.
>H>Yet they didn't, since they weren't the eaxct Q&A's. Yet people did
>H>pass them after studying these comprehensive guides.
>Not a good enough claim. You've now got to prove they used ONLY
>the study guide; no Handbook, no practical experience, no Elmer,
>nothing. In addition, you've also missed the point that Bill's original post
>on the subject (and a few others) said the Q and A in the guide was EXACT;
>they only modified those statements when challenged. So that calls into
>question their memories (and agenda) on the subject.
Hey Vince,
I finished another "proof" assignment you sent me on a few years
earlier. I found the guy who assembled your '52 Studebaker at the South
Bend, Indiana facility. He's in a retirement home now, but he remembers
your car quite clearly. As I asserted, the suspension bushings were
*rubber*, and not nylon. So, I've now fully documented all of the parts
that went into your car, made almost 50 years ago. This should lend a
lot of important information to the earlier debate over whether or not
the '52 Studebaker was the best car ever made.
You can find the full story at http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/vince/
--
Paul W. Schleck, K3FU
psch...@novia.net
http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/ ICQ# 44218003
Finger psch...@novia.net for PGP Public Key
Bill Sohl
>
> On 30 Oct 1999 16:18:23 GMT, Vincent Biancomano
> <10352...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>
> >>You now try to translate what I said into
> >>something else because I was able to pass a
> >>test using rote memorization some 50 years
> >>ago.
> >
Same old VB bull.
How many different ways can a question that
asks "What is the unit of electrical currnet?"
Simple...i.e. rote answer is Ampere.
THAT is what LCC, Cecil, Ed H and myself have
commented on repeatedly. Vince lives in a
literal world which leaves no room for
common sense and common understandings.
> >stating right within
> >their pages that the questions are of the type that might
> >appear, not the exact (technical) questions.
So what? That in no way eliminates the prospect of
rote memorization being used to retain the details
needed to answer the questions which were on the
tests (Novice & General).
> >If they could
> >have said "exact questions that appear on the test found
> >inside" they would have.
What they said were that they were similar to be sure
BUT that they were not necissaily the identical questions
since the producers of those guides had no way to
quarantee that the questions were the same.
> Yet they didn't, since they weren't the eaxct Q&A's. Yet people did
> pass them after studying these comprehensive guides.
Exactly...as Cecil, Ed H and I have repeatedly stated.
> Any study guide that let's you cover enough of what might be on the
> exam is doing exactly that. Were there schematic diagrams in these
> guides?
14 circuit diagrams were in my study guide for General
and 5 of those were specifically on the test.
> >In point of fact again,
> >regulations didn't allow it.
That has been stated before but it has never
been truly answered and, if it was true or
enforcable, the reguulations were never used.
Claims have been made that Dick Bash violated
those regs...BUT as history shows, no public
legal effort was made to ever take federal
action against Dick Bash.
> >In addition, the QST
> >article in '66 specifically drives that point home.
> >So you've been caught there by three separate sources.
QST? The ultimate arbiter of legalopinion and
or Vince's arguments? QST is entitled to
publish any opinions it wants...that doesn't
change the nature of QST comments beyond being
nothing but opinion.
> >Thus, given that your claim rings hollow, the conclusion
> >to draw is that you've created a smoke-screen (and a poor
> >one at that) to mask your no-code and general deregulation
The sky is falling again for Vince.
> >bent, irrespective of what you may SAY regarding your desire
> >to maintain "theory" testing.
More Vince's over reaching opinion only.
> A closed Q&A is about as easy to pass as an open Q&A, if you have a
> good, quality study guide to back you up.
Exactly, but Vince dares not admit that or
his arguments fall apart.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Vincent Biancomano
>BUT that they were not necissaily the identical questions
>since the producers of those guides had no way to
>quarantee that the questions were the same.
BUT nothing. Same old Bill B.S. The study guides didn't have
exact q and a on the questions you'd see in the actual exam.
That's the statement in the study guides. Period. If they could
have said "exact q and a on the questions you'll see in the
exam," they would have. Your original statement on this said the
guides had exact q and a. Until you were challenged. Get over it.
>(QST)
The QST article wasn't an opinion piece. It was a statement
of fact giving some guidance on the Extra Class exam. If it had
been an opinion piece, QST would have stated it as such.
Regards,
Vince, WB2EZG
Vincent Biancomano
keep hoping for any assignment I might give you, if even just to
keep you busy. As I've noted previously, your fixation with me
has not gone unnoticed. I believe it's in your best interest to
see a doctor, get rid of it.
Regards,
Vince, WB2EZG
Vincent Biancomano
never knew I never drive a car more than 10 years
old. Now find the data on the exact 1965 Mustang
I had, and we'll see if we can upgrade you to
third-class debater.
Regards,
Vince, WB2EZG
Bill Sohl
> Bill Sohl wrote:
> >What they said were that they were similar to be sure
> >BUT that they were not necissaily the identical questions
> >since the producers of those guides had no way to
> >quarantee that the questions were the same.
>
> BUT nothing. Same old Bill B.S. The study guides didn't have
> exact q and a on the questions you'd see in the actual exam.
> That's the statement in the study guides. Period. If they could
> have said "exact q and a on the questions you'll see in the
> exam," they would have. Your original statement on this said the
> guides had exact q and a. Until you were challenged. Get over it.
More that YOU should get over it. Seems
you are the one hung up on this as it is always you
that drags the issue out again. In your
hang-up on literal (vs common sense) you
believe that I intended to clearly state that
the exact Q&A was being printed. Whatever
mis-statement I have made on that point is long
since a dead issue (long being equal to
several years now). For the current record
and edification of any new readers here, what
I do declare and still declare is that the
study guides contained questions that were
certainly close enough to those found on the
test that rote memorization was possible
Aditionally, the study guides DID contain SOME
questions that were EXACTLY as found on the test.
A specific set of such questions were of the
type: "draw a diagram of...." There were 14 such
diagrams in the study guide I used and there were
5 questions that were exactly that on the test
I took for General written.
> >(QST)
>
> The QST article wasn't an opinion piece. It was a statement
> of fact giving some guidance on the Extra Class exam. If it had
> been an opinion piece, QST would have stated it as such.
Well, there we have it. I guess anything in print not
labeled opinion is fact according to Vince. Frankly,
I don't recall seeing much that is ever so labeled as opinion,
in the pages of QST as well as most other publications one
reads. Even what Vince might believe is pure
reporting is still to some degree the opinion of
the reporter as to what happened...and it is not
unusual for subsequent details that surface to
ultimately change what was initially reported.
I now return Vince to his crusade against a
world order or whatever.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Paul W. Schleck
Well, I didn't say you bought it new! Sheesh!
Bill Sohl
<10352...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>H>Blame the FCC, not NCI.
>
>Blame anyone who called for easing of requirements. NCI doesn't
>get off. You've forgotten that old Fred was part of NCI, and he led
>the call for getting rid of those pesky technical questions.
Yeah, we're all part of the secret world order. Maybe we should
also have a secret handshake. As to NCI ever calling for any
end to "those pesky technical questions." well that is just
bull on Vince's part.
>H>A closed Q&A is about as easy to pass as an open Q&A, if you have a
>H>good, quality study guide to back you up.
>
>If that were the case, ARRL wouldn't have threatened court action
>against Dick Bash in 1980, for one thing.
On what basis would ARRL have to threaten any court
action against Bash?
Even assuming that there is/was some possible federal
law that may have been used against Bash, the ARRL would have
had no standing in using it because the ARRL is not and was
not the federal gov't.
>Secondly, if that were the case,
>we wouldn't have so many hams who (1) don't know how to apply
>Ohm's Law and (2) freely admit it.
Other than the fact that there are probably more than a
handful of college grads that can't do it either, what's
the point. You appear to expect permanent retention
of all learned (rote learned or not) information needed
to pass a ham test. That has never been the case.
I am quite sure that there are more than a handful of
examples of Generals, Advanced and Extras that
were originally licensed 40 or 50 years ago who
no longer know ohm's law or can apply it.
>Closed Q&As tend to push you
>to learn the material, whether you want to learn it or not.
Only to the extent that rote memorization can't
be applied. We have already noted (although you
still disagree) that there are and were many aspects
of ham knowledge that always could be rote memorized
to pass the tests. That is true today as well as it was
true in the past.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Vincent Biancomano
>you are the one hung up on this as it is always you
>that drags the issue out again.
Wrong (again). Talk to your troll buddy H, who brought
out the issue, out of nowhere, from last October! I simply
responded to the troll he generated. Then, like all trolls,
he disappeared, like a thief into the night, raising the curtain
for....Bill Sohl!!! Oh, this is too magical!
>In your hang-up on literal (vs common sense) you
>believe that I intended to clearly state that
>the exact Q&A was being printed.
You said exactly that.
>Whatever mis-statement I have made on that point...
And now you admit that. Exactly. You're starting
to go off the deep end again, old fog.
>...is long since a dead issue (long being equal to
>several years now).
It WOULD and SHOULD have been had you not had
your troll buddy working against you. I let the issue ride.
He didn't. Now you'll have to try to beat HIM up.
>Well, there we have it. I guess anything in print not
>labeled opinion is fact according to Vince.
Absolutely correct, when it came to that article, which
discussed the pitfalls in taking the Extra exam. It was
basically a "how to" piece.
Regards,
Vince, WB2EZG
Vincent Biancomano
>also have a secret handshake. As to NCI ever calling for any
>end to "those pesky technical questions." well that is just
>bull on Vince's part.
For whatever reasons (which you know), Fred's linked to NCI
forever. Too bad.
>On what basis would ARRL have to threaten any court
>action against Bash?
Ask the ARRL. _They_ made the noise.
Regards,
Vince, WB2EZG
Bill Sohl
>
> >Yeah, we're all part of the secret world order. Maybe we should
> >also have a secret handshake. As to NCI ever calling for any
> >end to "those pesky technical questions." well that is just
> >bull on Vince's part.
>
> For whatever reasons (which you know), Fred's linked to NCI
> forever. Too bad.
Well DUH!
Just because Fred was and still is an NCI
director does NOT mean that what Fred individually
might suggest is automatically the creed of
NCI as an organization. That is NO different
than having two or more viewpoints on a subject
within the directorship of ARRL. Just because
one ARRL director takes a certain position doesn't
mean that his is THE ARRL official position.
I'm a Republican myself and a nocode test advocate.
Does that make the Republican party nocode advocates.
> >On what basis would ARRL have to threaten any court
> >action against Bash?
>
> Ask the ARRL. _They_ made the noise.
Your the one that claimed this was FACT not
opinion. Frankly the LACK of any such
ARRL action against Bash tells the whole
story...which is that ARRL had NO case
against Bash and the ARR:'s comments were
nothing more than opinion.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Bill Sohl
>Bill Sohl wrote:
> >Well, there we have it. I guess anything in print not
> >labeled opinion is fact according to Vince.
>
> Absolutely correct,
Sure hope you don't subscribe to the National
Enquirer. You'd be a basket case if you believed
all those stories.
>when it came to that article, which
> discussed the pitfalls in taking the Extra exam. It was
> basically a "how to" piece.
How to...in the opinion of ARRL anyway.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Vincent Biancomano
>Just because Fred was and still is an NCI
>director does NOT mean that what Fred individually
>might suggest is automatically the creed of
>NCI as an organization.
It doesn't mean it wasn't automatically the
creed, either. And given Fred's bent, NCI knew they
were getting a no-theory guy when they put him on
their Board. Given that we have eased requirements
on the theory side (that's why there's a petition
for reconsideration), NCI got in over its head,
like it or not, in taking Fred on. Now NCI has
to live with it's no-code, no-theory reputation,
like it or not.
"Face it, Vince, deregulation is a fact of life."--Bill Sohl
Remember that, Bill? That again shows you're a no-code,
no-theory advocate. I say NCI is full of them.
Regards,
Vince, WB2EZG
W1RFI
>And given Fred's bent, NCI knew they
>were getting a no-theory guy when they
> put him on their Board. Given that we
> have eased requirements on the theory
> side (that's why there's a petition for
> reconsideration), NCI got in over its
> head, like it or not, in taking Fred on.
NCI's comments to the FCC did not call for a decrease in the technical content
of the exams.
> Now NCI has to live with it's no-code,
> no-theory reputation, like it or not.
A reputation that you are working hard to create, in spite of NCI's not asking
the commission to reduce the requirements.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Bill Sohl
>
> >Well DUH!
>
> >Just because Fred was and still is an NCI
> >director does NOT mean that what Fred individually
> >might suggest is automatically the creed of
> >NCI as an organization.
>
> It doesn't mean it wasn't automatically the
> were getting a no-theory guy when they put him on
> their Board. Given that we have eased requirements
> on the theory side (that's why there's a petition
> for reconsideration), NCI got in over its head,
> to live with it's no-code, no-theory reputation,
> like it or not.
According to you I guess...and your opinion here
hasn't held any regard with any significant (or insignificant)
number of hams. Believe whatever your fantasy
world imagines.
> "Face it, Vince, deregulation is a fact of life."--Bill Sohl
>
> Remember that, Bill? That again shows you're a no-code,
> no-theory advocate. I say NCI is full of them.
It does? Could have fooled me. It is only YOU
that makes a quantum leap to no-theory jsut
because it suits your own mindeset. As stated above...
believe whatever makes you happy.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Bill Sohl
>
> >From: Vincent Biancomano
> >And given Fred's bent, NCI knew they
> >were getting a no-theory guy when they
> > put him on their Board. Given that we
> > have eased requirements on the theory
> > side (that's why there's a petition for
> > reconsideration), NCI got in over its
> > head, like it or not, in taking Fred on.
>
> decrease in the technical content of the exams.
Ed,
Vince doesn't want to be confused by facts. He
lives for his conspiracy theories as we have all
seen in this newsgroup.
> > Now NCI has to live with it's no-code,
> > no-theory reputation, like it or not.
>
> A reputation that you are working hard to
> create, in spite of NCI's not asking
> the commission to reduce the requirements.
Well he can try. Its an old propaganda
trick...say the same thing over and over
and someone will believe it. That's the reason
Vince's rants can not go unchallenged.
Cheers and thanks,
Bill K2UNK
> 73,
> Ed Hare, W1RFI
Bill Sohl
>
> >Well DUH!
>
> >Just because Fred was and still is an NCI
> >director does NOT mean that what Fred individually
> >might suggest is automatically the creed of
> >NCI as an organization.
>
> It doesn't mean it wasn't automatically the
> were getting a no-theory guy when they put him on
> their Board.
I guess if Fred is pro-life and against
the death penalty that makes NCI pro-life
and against the death penalty too.
>Given that we have eased requirements
> on the theory side (that's why there's a petition
> for reconsideration),
And we have seen how much the FCC has given any
creedence to that petition.
>NCI got in over its head,
> like it or not, in taking Fred on.
NCI is quite pleased to have Fred on board.
What you fail to believe is that the individual
opinions of all NCI directors on other than
the code issue do NOT rule the day or set
the policy for NCI on such matters as theory
tests, etc. That you even belive the contrary
to be true is amazing. How do you judge the
policy positions of any organization where two
or more directors or members have differing
opinions on the same suject...yet the organization
has not taken any specific stand on that subject itself?
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Vincent Biancomano
>creedence to that petition.
I wouldn't either, if I were a member of FCC
and just completed the effort to convert to
a personal radio service. I'd get out of there
as fast as I could.
VB>>NCI got in over its head,
VB>>like it or not, in taking Fred on.
>NCI is quite pleased to have Fred on board.
I'm happy to see NCI agrees that it's good to
have a no-theory advocate on Board. Exactly
what I'd expect from them.
Regards,
Vince, WB2EZG
James Rosenthal
: Vincent Biancomano wrote:
Not much of importance.
[snip]
: to be true is amazing. How do you judge the
: policy positions of any organization where two
: or more directors or members have differing
: opinions on the same suject...yet the organization
: has not taken any specific stand on that subject itself?
: Cheers, Bill K2UNK
Sounds like the typical political conventions of way back then...... :)
(Not the whitewashed ones we have now.)
"I'm not a member of any organized political party,,,, I'm a Democrat"
:Will Rogers
--
Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
W1RFI
>I'm happy to see NCI agrees that it's good to
>have a no-theory advocate on Board. Exactly
>what I'd expect from them.
I expect that NCI is also pleased to have Carl Stevenson on board. Carl is
about as far from anti-theory as one can get. :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Vincent Biancomano
>board. Carl is about as far from anti-theory as one can get.
>:-)
Carl could have been an asset, but FCC listened to Fred. Being
pro-theory now thus carries no weight; we're not going back. Carl
also missed the point on the far end of the scale, his philosophy
geared towards his colleagues: hey, they're engineers for God's
sake, why do they have to know the code! In any case, both asked
for easing of requirements, period, thus opening the door to a
waiting FCC. When the Amateur Service lower-rated itself, it got
what it deserved.
Regards,
Vince, WB2EZG
Vincent Biancomano
>hasn't held any regard with any significant (or insignificant)
>number of hams. Believe whatever your fantasy
>world imagines.
Keep praying, Bill. That's why you keep responding.
> "Face it, Vince, deregulation is a fact of life."--Bill Sohl
VB> Remember that, Bill? That again shows you're a no-code,
VB> no-theory advocate. I say NCI is full of them.
>It does? Could have fooled me.
You're easy to fool, Bill. In any case, _you_ said the words.
You're always walking into these things. Extremely easy target.
Regards,
Vince, WB2EZG
Vincent Biancomano
>technical content of the exams.
You don't know that, because NCI "reps" had face to face meetings
with FCC. As a matter of fact, Carl related on this NG how he
"broke bread" with an FCC official or two. Very cozy. You also
can't divorce Fred's connection with NCI with his no-theory
belief, and how he related to you on this NG how no-theory "was
going to happen." Then Bill's "face it Vince, deregulation is a
fact of life" came along. NCI weaved it's tangled web for itself,
no one else, and like it or not that's how it got its rep as a
no-code, no-theory organization. I wasn't the first to note it,
and I won't be the last.
Regards,
Vince, WB2EZG
James Rosenthal
: >From: Vincent Biancomano
: >I'm happy to see NCI agrees that it's good to
: >have a no-theory advocate on Board. Exactly what I'd expect from them.
: I expect that NCI is also pleased to have Carl Stevenson on board. Carl is
: about as far from anti-theory as one can get. :-)
: 73, Ed Hare, W1RFI
Vince seems to be just anti-..........
--
Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
Bill Sohl
> >NCI's comments to the FCC did not call for a decrease in the
> >technical content of the exams.
>
> You don't know that, because NCI "reps" had face to face meetings
> with FCC. As a matter of fact, Carl related on this NG how he
> "broke bread" with an FCC official or two. Very cozy.
Yep...In addition to Carl,
and I was the other NCI rep at the ex parte presentation.
What did we discuss? Well the handouts are and have
been on the NCI web page for over a year. What did we actually
say? Well let's be secretive so Vince can keep his
conspiracy theory going. Hell, Vince would claim I wasn't
telling the truth anyway....regardless of what I said :-)
> You also
> can't divorce Fred's connection with NCI with his no-theory
> belief, and how he related to you on this NG how no-theory "was
> going to happen." Then Bill's "face it Vince, deregulation is a
> fact of life" came along. NCI weaved it's tangled web for itself,
> no one else, and like it or not that's how it got its rep as a
> no-code, no-theory organization.
No code organization - You bet!
No theory orgaization - In Vince's fantasy I guess.
> I wasn't the first to note it,
> and I won't be the last.
Well isn' that special.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
W1RFI
>>NCI's comments to the FCC did not call for a decrease in the
>>technical content of the exams.
>You don't know that, because NCI "reps" had face to face meetings
>with FCC.
The summary of their ex parte didn't mention asking the FCC to decrease the
technical content of the exams. One of those in attendance, WA6VSE, has said
on numerous occasions, here and in person to me, that he would favor increased
technical content.
Mr Maia may indeed favor decreased technical content, but that has not
translated to NCI policy. I do note that Maia filed his own comments with the
FCC on restructuring. I didn't read them, so I don't know if he asked that the
technical content of the exams be reduced. I do know that other than the
mandated overall reduction in the number of questions, the QPC, of which Maia
is a member, did not decrease the technical scope of the question pools.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Vincent Biancomano
>telling the truth anyway....regardless of what I said :-)
Absolutely correct, especially given your
history on this NG. No smiley required.
VB>>I wasn't the first to note it,
VB>>and I won't be the last.
>Well isn' that special.
More than special, considering you're drawing
attention to the fact you can't defend.
Jig's up.
Regards,
Vince, WB2EZG
Vincent Biancomano
>decrease the technical content of the exams.
It didn't have to. Thus you still can't claim what NCI said to
FCC. No different than the minutes of ARRL Board meetings, by the
way. Various ARRL people have been trying to get those minutes
recorded in full for many years. It won't happen because that's
the nature of politics, and cozy discussion.
>One of those in attendance, WA6VSE, has said
>on numerous occasions, here and in person to me, that he would
>favor increased technical content.
Still doesn't change anything re: NCI's face to face meetings.
Regards,
Vince, WB2EZG
W1RFI
>>One of those in attendance, WA6VSE, has said
>>on numerous occasions, here and in person to me, that he would
>>favor increased technical content.
>Still doesn't change anything re: NCI's face to face meetings.
You have been pretty clear that we don't know what went on at the ex parte
meeting. Yet you keep telling us what went on at the ex parte meeting.
So, by your "logic" here, NCI has a secret no-theory policy. This policy is
not documented anywhere on its web page. NCI asked the FCC to replace Morse
code testing with something more relevant to modern radio technology to cover
up their secret policy. This policy was not mentioned in any of the written
comments to the FCC, but was discussed in detail at the ex parte meeting. This
The NCI directors who post here are telling us they either support more
technical testing or are neutral about the issue in an attempt to throw us all
off track. But YOU have seen through all this and can, by some mysterious
process, fathom the "real" truth, which, of course, you are willing to share
with us in great detail.
Please forgive me if I cannot quite believe it. The evidence, rather than
speculation about what "could" be true, is that NCI does not have a concensus
on its board about theory testing. Its former executive director appeared to
be favoring reduced requirements; its present executive director appears to be
favoring increasing the requirements. Either way, it is moot; NCI has chosen
not to have a policy position wrt the technical content of the exams. If I rely
on fact rather than speculation, that is the conclusion I come to.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Vincent Biancomano
EH>>on numerous occasions, here and in person to me, that he would
EH>>favor increased technical content.
VB>Still doesn't change anything re: NCI's face to face meetings.
>You have been pretty clear that we don't know what went on at the ex parte
>meeting.
>Yet you keep telling us what went on at the ex parte meeting.
No, I haven't. I simply stated we don't know what went on in face-to-face
discussions between FCC and NCI "reps." It's quite straightforward.
>So, by your "logic" here, NCI has a secret no-theory policy.
Wrong again. I stated that Fred, as a "director" of NCI with a well-known
no-theory agenda, had expanded opportunity to extend his agenda through
NCI. Thus we can't separate them. It's very simple.
The end result shows that FCC went along with easing of theory
requirements. And Fred was a part of NCI, with expanded opportunity
to push his agenda. Thus NCI, like it or not, is (and has been)
forever linked with Fred, and no-code as well as no-theory. That's
just a natural result of the way it is as a result of the Fred to NCI
connection.
>This policy is not documented anywhere on its web page.
Again, face-to-face discussions between FCC and NCI "reps" has
nothing to do with what ends up on an NCI web page. And never
will be. No different than an ARRL Board meeting. That's the
nature of political decisionmaking. Not that NCI or anyone else
put "no code, no theory" over the top. All they served was as a
"warm body" to "justify" the move. Clark's 1982 statement
indicated we were going to eventually be dismantled, code AND
theory, if we didn't fight like hell, and FCC's R&O simply
confirmed that.
Regards,
Vince, WB2EZG
James Rosenthal
Ed said;
: So, by your "logic" here, NCI has a secret no-theory policy. This policy is
: not documented anywhere on its web page. NCI asked the FCC to replace Morse
: code testing with something more relevant to modern radio technology to cover
: up their secret policy. This policy was not mentioned in any of the written
: comments to the FCC, but was discussed in detail at the ex parte meeting.
Are the issues discussed at an ex parte meeting part of the public
record? If so, did NCI even discuss this secret agenda with the FCC?
: The NCI directors who post here are telling us they either support more
: technical testing or are neutral about the issue in an attempt to throw us all
: off track. But YOU have seen through all this and can, by some mysterious
: process, fathom the "real" truth, which, of course, you are willing to share
: with us in great detail.
: Please forgive me if I cannot quite believe it. The evidence, rather than
: speculation about what "could" be true, is that NCI does not have a concensus
: on its board about theory testing. Its former executive director appeared to
: be favoring reduced requirements; its present executive director appears to be
: favoring increasing the requirements. Either way, it is moot; NCI has chosen
: not to have a policy position wrt the technical content of the exams. If I rely
: on fact rather than speculation, that is the conclusion I come to.
: 73, Ed Hare, W1RFI
Ed will you please stop cornfuzing the issue by presenting facts! Some
people have to have a conspiracy to joust. You seem to be trying to remove
one of their few ammusments in life.
--
Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
Bill Sohl
> Bill K2UNK wrote:
> >Hell, Vince would claim I wasn't
> >telling the truth anyway....regardless of what I said :-)
>
> Absolutely correct, especially given your
> history on this NG. No smiley required.
So are you now claiming I am a liar in this newsgroup?
I may be guilty of a misuse of a word here and there
in which only you take a legal/contract approach to
interpretation as if the posts I or anyone else make
here are worthy of such a legal reading. Regardless,
however, I have full trust that except for you, no
one else here regards me as lieing in my posts.
Indeed, I'll be so bold as to include some of my
traditional opponents in discussions here. I open
the floor to posts from anyone that believes I
have lied here before or am lieing now.
> VB>>I wasn't the first to note it,
> VB>>and I won't be the last.
>
> >Well isn' that special.
>
> More than special, considering you're drawing
> attention to the fact you can't defend.
> Jig's up.
In you own fantasy and only in your own
fantasy.
No cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Bill Sohl
> W1RFI (w1...@aol.com) wrote:
: >From: Vincent Biancomano
[snip]
Ed said;
: So, by your "logic" here, NCI has a secret no-theory policy. This
policy is
: not documented anywhere on its web page. NCI asked the FCC to replace
Morse
: code testing with something more relevant to modern radio technology
to cover
: up their secret policy. This policy was not mentioned in any of the
written
: comments to the FCC, but was discussed in detail at the ex parte
meeting.
> Are the issues discussed at an ex parte meeting part of the public
> record?
Yes.
We filed copies of our NCI presentation with the FCC
and we have those posted on our web site also.
> If so, did NCI even discuss this secret agenda with the FCC?
No discussion between NCI and the FCC involved the written
tests as to their difficulty and/or any discussion of
going to a no theory written. Vince can believe anything
he wants, but he'll have to say I am a liar if he
states that NCI did have any such discussions.
: The NCI directors who post here are telling us they either support
more
: technical testing or are neutral about the issue in an attempt to
throw us all
: off track. But YOU have seen through all this and can, by some
mysterious
: process, fathom the "real" truth, which, of course, you are willing
to share
: with us in great detail.
: Please forgive me if I cannot quite believe it. The evidence, rather
than
: speculation about what "could" be true, is that NCI does not have a
concensus
: on its board about theory testing. Its former executive director
appeared to
: be favoring reduced requirements; its present executive director
appears to be
: favoring increasing the requirements. Either way, it is moot; NCI
has chosen
: not to have a policy position wrt the technical content of the exams.
If I rely
: on fact rather than speculation, that is the conclusion I come to.
: 73, Ed Hare, W1RFI
> Ed will you please stop cornfuzing the issue by presenting facts! Some
> people have to have a conspiracy to joust. You seem to be trying to remove
> one of their few ammusments in life. Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
Thanks Jim. I sure hope no one ever gives Vince a copy
of the National Enquirer or Star. Conspiracy theories abound
in those publications.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Vincent Biancomano
>I may be guilty of a misuse of a word here and there
>in which only you take a legal/contract approach to
>interpretation as if the posts I or anyone else make
>here are worthy of such a legal reading.
When it comes to the use of words, you're by far the
most careless of any 10 who enter serious debate. As
well documented on this NG several tens of times over
the years, you've nailed yourself time and time again
with your own words. You're just sloppy; thus, unreliable.
>Regardless,
Regardless, nothing, that's the crux of the issue.
>however, I have full trust that except for you, no
>one else here regards me as lieing in my posts.
Not a question of lying; a question of extremely
sloppy; thus, unreliable. Sloppy use of words = sloppy debate.
Regards,
Vince, WB2EZG
James Rosenthal
;;Ed also wrote some;
: James Rosenthal wrote:
[snip]
: : comments to the FCC, but was discussed in detail at the ex parte meeting.
: > Are the issues discussed at an ex parte meeting part of the public record?
: Yes. We filed copies of our NCI presentation with the FCC
: and we have those posted on our web site also.
Hey Vince, maybe if the record is played -backwards- the "secret agenda"
might be mentioned. ;->
: > If so, did NCI even discuss this secret agenda with the FCC?
: No discussion between NCI and the FCC involved the written
: tests as to their difficulty and/or any discussion of
: going to a no theory written.
Oh well, there goes the best chance to reveal the secret agenda to the
people that count.
: Vince can believe anything he wants, but he'll have to say I am a liar if he
: states that NCI did have any such discussions.
I don't think Vince would stoop that low. :>
[Ed said in part;]
: : Please forgive me if I cannot quite believe it. The evidence, rather than
: : speculation about what "could" be true, is that NCI does not have a concensus
: : on its board about theory testing. Its former executive director appeared to
: : be favoring reduced requirements; its present executive director appears to be
: : favoring increasing the requirements. Either way, it is moot; NCI has chosen
: : not to have a policy position wrt the technical content of the exams.
: If I rely on fact rather than speculation, that is the conclusion I come to.
:
: : 73, Ed Hare, W1RFI
:
: > Ed will you please stop cornfuzing the issue by presenting facts! Some
: > people have to have a conspiracy to joust. You seem to be trying to remove
: > one of their few ammusments in life. Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
: Thanks Jim. I sure hope no one ever gives Vince a copy
: of the National Enquirer or Star. Conspiracy theories abound
: in those publications.
Maybe that's some of the publications he writes for ==80
: Cheers, Bill K2UNK
--
Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
Bill Sohl
: Bill Sohl wrote:
: >I may be guilty of a misuse of a word here and there
: >in which only you take a legal/contract approach to
: >interpretation as if the posts I or anyone else make
: >here are worthy of such a legal reading.
> When it comes to the use of words, you're by far the
> most careless of any 10 who enter serious debate. As
> well documented on this NG several tens of times
10s of times over. My, my, I must have left
my scorecard somewhere.
> over the years, you've nailed yourself time and
> time again with your own words.
Time and time again... My, my, I must have left
my scorecard somewhere.
>You're just sloppy; thus, unreliable.
So does unreliable equate to lieing in
your limited world?
Let's make this as plain and simple as possible:
I state here and now, that as one of
the two NCI directors that went to the
FCC, that NCI in our ex parte
presentation had no discussion
or in any way suggested to the FCC that
there should be lower or no theory tests.
Now you, Vince, can respond by one of the
following:
A - Bill K2UNK is lieing
B - Bill K2UNK is not lieing
Is there any other opinion you can have?
> >Regardless,
>
> Regardless, nothing, that's the crux of the issue.
Strange that if that is the crux of the issue,
then why is it ONLY you that regards me as
unreliable?
> >however, I have full trust that except for you, no
> >one else here regards me as lieing in my posts.
>
> Not a question of lying; a question of extremely
> sloppy; thus, unreliable. Sloppy use of words = sloppy debate.
And you, of course, are the ultimate arbiter
of what is or isn't sloppy, unreliable, accurate, etc.
Indeed, I go again to your incredible lack of
even one other poster from this newsgroup that
agrees with your assessment of me.
The bottom line is one in which you, having
no logical stance on this issue again try to
discredit the indvidual (me) rather than the
argument.
As to my reliability,
well I have been given votes of
support from many areas by many different means
from many different people. I know nothing I
say or do will change your (Vince) mind, but
I enjoy the support I get from people that
count in my life, my career, my other
interests.
So I again ask on the issue of NCI's
comments to the FCC at our ex parte.
Based on my statement above:
A - Bill K2UNK is lieing
B - Bill K2UNK is not lieing
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Vincent Biancomano
>following:
>A - Bill K2UNK is lieing
>B - Bill K2UNK is not lieing
>Is there any other opinion you can have?
Absolutely: (C) Bill Sohl is unreliable.
"Lying" would imply you're aware of what you're
saying is wrong. "Unreliable" means you're not
aware of what you're saying, i.e., "all the
exact questions and answers to actual exams
have always been published and been made
available by FCC." You've done that deal many
times: anything you say now can't be believed
for that reason.
You obviously have great need to show this
NG you know what you're doing. It's quite clear
from the above example you don't, and never have.
Does your politician's mind grasp this yet?
Regards,
Vince, WB2EZG
Vincent Biancomano
>my scorecard somewhere.
Tut, tut, none of your feeble excuses. You're
in the lower ten percent of the Delta class.
I want you off the Faber campus by Monday
morning at 9 a.m!
>Time and time again... My, my, I must have left
my scorecard somewhere.
If you want to compete, better get it.
VB>>You're just sloppy; thus, unreliable.
>So does unreliable equate to lieing in
>your limited world?
No. Unreliable means unreliable. You're
again showing you don't grasp the meaning
and contour of words. Politicians seldom
do.
Regards,
Vince, WB2EZG
W1RFI
>Oh well, there goes the best chance to reveal the secret agenda to the
>people that count.
The premise that NCI has a secret agenda and that the most effective way to
promote that agenda is not to tell anyone is a bit far fetched. And, of
course, they deny it, which proves it must be so. And this is all happening
because Vince has shown us the "truth."
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Vincent Biancomano
Please, Ed, don't come crying to me because you didn't like
the way our "discussion" went. After our extended exchange and
3 days of silence, you still have to establish I stated there was
a "secret" agenda. May I point out that "secret agenda" were your
words, not mine, in trying to establish YOUR position. Kindly
take a course in debating.
Your most recent troll posting didn't accomplish too much. Only
drew attention to Fred's connection with NCI, and his opportunity
to push his no-theory agenda.
Regards,
Vince, WB2EZG
Dick Carroll
Vincent Biancomano wrote:
Which, BTW is not secret at all. Reports are that he verbalized it at
Dayton.
Vincent Biancomano
>it at Dayton.
He also verbalized it to Ed in person, as Ed himself recounted on
this NG! No-theory is "going to happen," as Ed said of the
exchange. You can't hide this stuff.
Regards,
Vince, WB2EZG
Ed Hare, W1RFI
> After our extended exchange and 3 days of silence, you still have to
establish
> I stated there was a "secret" agenda. May I point out that "secret agenda"
> were your words, not mine, in trying to establish YOUR position
You are correct; you never used the word "secret." I used it to summarize
your statements that the NCI officials had a meeting with the FCC whose
content was apparently more than that described in the ex parte summary.
> and 3 days of silence
My goodness, are you telling us that you think that there is some special
significance to my 3 days of silence? And what, pray tell, do you think it
means?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Bill Sohl
Vincent Biancomano wrote:
>
> >Now you, Vince, can respond by one of the
> >following:
> >A - Bill K2UNK is lieing
> >B - Bill K2UNK is not lieing
> >Is there any other opinion you can have?
>
> Absolutely: (C) Bill Sohl is unreliable.
Sorry, that's not possible, see why below.
> "Lying" would imply you're aware of what you're
> saying is wrong. "Unreliable" means you're not
> aware of what you're saying,
Which, for that (unreliable) to be true means that I
must be totally stupid as to not know or
understand what I wrote.
Maybe you believe that or wish others
to believe that because you shy away from
calling me a liar.
I'll state the point again: At no time at the
NCI ex parte did we (NCI, Carl Stevenson and myself)
ever discuss no theory or any aspects reducing the
written tests.
Vince, it doesn't get any simpler than that.
Are you saying I can't comprehend what I just wrote?
Feel free to say that if it suits you. You
have yet to get even one person to suggest that
to be true.
> i.e., "all the
> exact questions and answers to actual exams
> have always been published and been made
> available by FCC."
Vince, you've gone over the edge. I have
never made any such sweeping statement as that.
You have an uncanny ability to ADD to what you
remember as happening. I was, at worst, guilty
of making a statement which could be taken
to have meant that the questions that were
in the various study guides were the exact
questions. YOU now extend that verbal gaff on
my part (which I made several years ago and
corrected numerous times over) to become
"ALL (emphasis added) the exact questions to
actual exams have ALWAYS (emphasis added) been
published and made available BY THE FCC (emphasis
added)".
I'll chalk that one up to, hopefully, just a bad memory
on your part...since not I, nor any one person here
or anywhere else has ever made such an outlandish
statement.
> You've done that deal many
> times: anything you say now can't be believed
> for that reason.
My God, how does the rest of the world trust
me then? I'll never claim to be perfect, but
but it is only you that takes someone's
mistakes and translates that to mean the
person is then unreliable as to anything else they
say. In fact, however, an awful lot of people have put their
faith in me time and time again and my reliability
has not been in question. Seems only you have
that low opinion of me.
> You obviously have great need to show this
> NG you know what you're doing.
If you mean I'm not going to stand by and let
your personal attack on my character, intelligence
and credibility go unanswered, well you're
damn right. As to the others in this NG,
I have been in opposition to posts by many
of the other posters, but they at least address
the issue and don't take the personal attack
path to discredit.
> It's quite clear
> from the above example you don't, and never have.
> Does your politician's mind grasp this yet?
Does your effort to simply debate an issue ever
stick to the facts and issues rather than the personal
attack mode?
Vincent Biancomano also wrote:
> >10s of times over. My, my, I must have left
> >my scorecard somewhere.
>
> Tut, tut, none of your feeble excuses. You're
> in the lower ten percent of the Delta class.
> I want you off the Faber campus by Monday
> morning at 9 a.m!
ROTFLMAO - Did I miss the day you were given
command of my life and actions?
> >Time and time again... My, my, I must have left
> my scorecard somewhere.
>
> If you want to compete, better get it.
Don't need it. You're the only one that
sees any need to keep score.
> VB>>You're just sloppy; thus, unreliable.
>
> >So does unreliable equate to lieing in
> >your limited world?
>
> No. Unreliable means unreliable. You're
> again showing you don't grasp the meaning
> and contour of words. Politicians seldom
> do.
No, you simply refuse to take on the issue
because by raising the "unrelaible" card you don't
have to make a call as to the honesty
of what has been said and in my personal honesty
in saying what I did.
You hide behind the "unreliable" card.
No cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Vincent Biancomano
Given the lack of overwhelming response from
readers to this "thread," it's clear they couldn't
care less about who supports whom in this fray, or
whose feelings are being hurt. It all comes down to
a short exchange from this "discussion"---
-------------------------------------------------------
VB>You're just sloppy; thus, unreliable.
BS>So does unreliable equate to lieing in
BS>your limited world?
--------------------------------------------------------
From what I make of the above flurry, it indicates
that you acknowledge your own sloppiness, thus
unreliability.
I rest my case.
Regards,
Vince, WB2EZG
W1RFI
>From what I make of the above flurry, it indicates
>that you acknowledge your own sloppiness, thus
>unreliability.
>I rest my case.
Hmmm... if your standard of anyone being inaccurate ever applies, I guess
everyone who has ever posted here is is unreliable in your world, Vince. That
does explain a lot about your posts...
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
James Rosenthal
: Vincent Biancomano wrote:
[snip]
: > i.e., "all the exact questions and answers to actual exams
: > have always been published and been made available by FCC."
: Vince, you've gone over the edge. I have
: never made any such sweeping statement as that.
: You have an uncanny ability to ADD to what you
: remember as happening. I was, at worst, guilty
: of making a statement which could be taken
: to have meant that the questions that were
: in the various study guides were the exact
: questions. YOU now extend that verbal gaff on
: my part (which I made several years ago and
: corrected numerous times over) to become
: "ALL (emphasis added) the exact questions to
: actual exams have ALWAYS (emphasis added) been
: published and made available BY THE FCC (emphasis
: added)".
: I'll chalk that one up to, hopefully, just a bad memory
: on your part...
No, he modified several of my posts also. Even after I asked him to stop
doing it and I re-posted the unaltered parts.
: since not I, nor any one person here
: or anywhere else has ever made such an outlandish statement.
: > You've done that deal many
: > times: anything you say now can't be believed for that reason.
Vince is one of my permanent [k] people for the very reason he states above.
: No cheers, Bill K2UNK
--
No 73 either,
Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
Bill Sohl
>Bill,
>Given the lack of overwhelming response from
>readers to this "thread," it's clear they couldn't
>care less about who supports whom in this fray, or
>whose feelings are being hurt.
Adding/extending the issue again Vince.
I have made no statement as to caring about
whose feelings are hurt.
>It all comes down to
>a short exchange from this "discussion"---
----------------------------------------------
VB>You're just sloppy; thus, unreliable.
BS>So does unreliable equate to lieing in
BS>your limited world?
----------------------------------------------
>From what I make of the above flurry, it indicates
>that you acknowledge your own sloppiness, thus
>unreliability.
Sorry, that fails Logic 101.
>I rest my case.
I have every faith that no one but yourself
believes you have a sound, much less
a winning argument.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK