ARRL restructuring Money Grab - FREE upgrade with purchase of membership!
Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL
Buy a League membership and get a 'Dumbed-Downed' license
upgrade free!
From ARRL VEC:
>From: "Jahnke, Bart, W9JJ" <bja...@arrl.org>
>Subject: Membership coupon mailing to ARRL VE teams
>Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 19:36:31 -0400
>Resent-From: ve-...@p1k.arrl.org
>Reply-To: v...@arrl.org
>Resent-Sender: ve-list...@p1k.arrl.org
>
>Dear VE team liaison:
>
>Shortly you will receive in the mail a letter from the ARRL VEC. It
>contains a special $6.65 ARRL-Membership Discount Coupon offer intended
>to serve to "soften the blow" for those appearing at your tests on or
>after April 15th where a test fee is charged but no tests are actually
>taken. It also serves to promote ARRL membership to these newcomers,
>many of which are grandfathered Techs who may have been out of touch with
>ham radio, and the ARRL, for some time.
>
>We hope you will be interested in copying and sharing these coupons with
>people who attend your ARRL VEC tests. However, you have no obligation
>to participate--we know you will be very busy come April 15th and after.
>Nevertheless, we hope you will want to share the coupons with your
>applicants.
>
>The mailing contains three coupons (that can be used as originals for
>duplicating back to back). A special invitation, from ARRL President Jim
>Haynie W5JBP, and the coupon, appear on the front of the form--and a
>membership application appears on the back.
>
>If you don't receive a package, please let us know (including your
>address)
>and we will resend one to you.
>
>Thank you for your assistance.
>
>73,
>
>Bart J. Jahnke, W9JJ
>Manager
>ARRL VEC
>
>v...@arrl.org
Kim W5TIT
"Restructuring" process is a dumbing down of the ARS. However, I am quite
confused by this offer from the ARRL, also mentioned the other night by Jim
Haynie, Pres. of the ARRL--with no negative criticism mentioned I might add.
I don't understand why the League finds itself in a position where this type
of offer is extended to "soften the blow." Does this offer imply that there
is some impropriety in offering "paperwork only" sessions?
The ARRL seems to have a great propensity for coming up with ideas that
"offend" folks more than alleviate situations! I don't think this type of
offer is any way to *encourage* an increase in membership.
73 Kim W5TIT
"Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL" <vlfi...@mcn.net> wrote in message
news:sev7d8h...@corp.supernews.com...
Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1rfi@arrl.org)
>Buy a League membership and get a 'Dumbed-Downed' license
>upgrade free!
Let's make 'em pass that really hard test, like I had to do in 1963. Those
16 pages of study guide make today's tests look really easy, eh?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1rfi@arrl.org)
>The ARRL seems to have a great propensity for coming up with ideas that
>"offend" folks more than alleviate situations! I don't think this type of
>offer is any way to *encourage* an increase in membership.
So do you think this is ARRL's way of *discouraging* ARRL membership?
Why would anyone be offended that ARRL is offering a discount on new
memberships to those who have been out of ham radio for a while?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
J1aguiar
>membership!
>From: "Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1...@arrl.org)" w1...@arrl.net
>Date: 4/10/00 9:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ZBkI4.51$G4.1...@news.ntplx.net>
Radio.
The only suggestion I have is that anyone who is interested in keeping Amateur
Radio in the future had best consider an ARRL membership, they are all we have
on our side. Being an active ARRL member is the first step towards preserving
Amateur Radio for the future.J1
Richard McCollum
"Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1...@arrl.org)" <w1...@arrl.net> wrote in message
news:ZBkI4.51$G4.1...@news.ntplx.net...
> Kim W5TIT wrote:
>
>
> >The ARRL seems to have a great propensity for coming up with ideas that
> >"offend" folks more than alleviate situations! I don't think this type
of
> >offer is any way to *encourage* an increase in membership.
>
>
> So do you think this is ARRL's way of *discouraging* ARRL membership?
>
> Why would anyone be offended that ARRL is offering a discount on new
> memberships to those who have been out of ham radio for a while?
>
> 73,
> Ed Hare, W1RFI
Without agreeing with Kim and in no way trying to put you in a corner with
your employer, her reaction is rather typical. Another post here cancels a
division hamfest for lack of supplier interest. The main convention moves
to Dayton for reasons that are unfathomable. Quite honestly, viewed as a
black box, the ARRL sure shows signs of being deep in the doodoo.
In response to a new and improved Q-Street promised in a mailing to my best
friend (and dentist and inactive Advanced who does not own a mike) in my
Wisconsin days, we trundled down to the Wausau Public Library and
contemplated the Big 3 amateur magazines. One, of course, expected 73 to
follow Wayne into senility and was not disappointed; CQ is the usual
rudderless ship only worse; and behold QST has discovered QRP -- in the
product reviews. It is one of the great ironies of modern times that at the
same time that the Great Morse is Obsolete War is being fought to its
conclusion, the growth area in the hobby is an activity requiring some
technical and operating acumen as well as, guess what, Morse literacy.
Incidentally, Kim, the wedding which took me back to old Wazoo had a table -
including the pastor - of relatively inactive amateurs; the marketing gurus
at Newington are not far off the mark.
It does show signs, however, of a bit of desperation behind the Codfish
Curtain. The bottom line is that no one appears to be happy with HQ, not
the old-timers and not the newbies. To some extent this was perhaps
inevitable and to a large extent it was the result of over-selling the
League's competence in regulatory matters; the first rule of Customer
Service is never make promises you can't keep. Kind of like shooting Mongo,
it just makes him mad.
Without expecting an answer, Ed (good to see you back BTW) how does it feel
to work on the Pubs and Techie side of the house and do good while the
Political side botches things up? When do I get my mailing :).
Dick N0BK
Walter Gesundheit
> The ARRL seems to have a great propensity for coming up with
> ideas that "offend" folks more than alleviate situations!
> I don't think this type of offer is any way to *encourage*
> an increase in membership.
And why are folks 'offended' if ARRL offers a discount in the
membership dues? Would you rather they offered an increase in dues?
Would that be less offensive to you? I think a one-shot discount
offer is a perfectly legitimate way of encouraging an increase in
membership, and since upgraders are likely to be active and involved
amateurs, what better group to extend the offer to?
Actually, I think you're offended because, like all dump-huck
Unabashers, you are offended by anything that might increase the
viability of ARRL.
And that's the way it is!
Walter
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jeffrey Herman
>Let's make 'em pass that really hard test, like I had to do in 1963. Those
>16 pages of study guide make today's tests look really easy, eh?
Why not post the questions contained in that study guide rather than
counting the number of its pages?
73, Jeff KH6O
Walter Gesundheit
My 1955 ARRL General Study Guide (11 pages) had questions like --
"Name the basic units of electrical resistance, inductance,
capacitance, current, and electromotive force."
"Why is full-wave rectification generally preferable to half-wave
rectification in a power supply?"
"Why is a bleeder resistor connected across the output circuit of a
high-voltage power supply system?"
"What radio messages have priority over all other communications?"
"On what frequencies may a licensee holding General Class amateur
privileges operate?" (Answer: All amateur frequencies!)
"What power input should an amateur station use for a particular
communication when the maximum legal input is 1 kw?" (Trick question,
Jeff, watch out!)
"What is meant by the harmonic of a fundamental frequency?"
"What is the FCC regulation regarding transmission of music by an
amateur ratio-telephone station for testing purposes?"
"What are the undesirable effects of overmodulation in radiotelephony?"
"What is the formula for finding the resonant frequency of a tuned
circuit?"
"What effect does the Q of a circuit have on harmonic output?"
Pretty similar to todays questions!
And thats the way it was!
R.L. Tannehill, P.E.
>
> Kim W5TIT wrote:
>
> >The ARRL seems to have a great propensity for coming up with ideas that
> >"offend" folks more than alleviate situations! I don't think this type of
> >offer is any way to *encourage* an increase in membership.
>
>
> Why would anyone be offended that ARRL is offering a discount on new
> memberships to those who have been out of ham radio for a while?
>
> 73,
> Ed Hare, W1RFI
Yep, just a good business practice. As a long-time member, and now life
member, I agree with the effort 100%.
Rick T.
W7RT
R.L. Tannehill, P.E.
>
> >Subject: Re: ARRL restructuring Money Grab - FREE upgrade with purchase of
> >membership!
> >
> >
> >>The ARRL seems to have a great propensity for coming up with ideas that
> >>"offend" folks more than alleviate situations! I don't think this type of
> >>offer is any way to *encourage* an increase in membership.
> >
> >
> >So do you think this is ARRL's way of *discouraging* ARRL membership?
> >
> >Why would anyone be offended that ARRL is offering a discount on new
> >memberships to those who have been out of ham radio for a while?
> >
> >73,
> >Ed Hare, W1RFI
> >
> >
> >
> Radio.
> The only suggestion I have is that anyone who is interested in keeping Amateur
> Radio in the future had best consider an ARRL membership, they are all we have
> on our side. Being an active ARRL member is the first step towards preserving
> Amateur Radio for the future.J1
We DO agree on something James. As I've often said here, I only had one
small difference of opinion with the League on CW morse testing. Now
that the dust has settled, and they're also on the bandwagon, I'm in
back of them 100%.
Rick T.
Gary Schafer
I had forgotten how easy they really were! They seemed harder at the time
though. I would have to say that today's tests are probably a little more
involved than they were back then. Now there are many more aspects of
electronics covered that were not then. Space communications, digital
theory, solid state theory etc.
I wish that all the guys gripping about how "dumbed down" today's test are
would go back and read some of the old questions.
Best regards
Gary K4FMX
Brian
> In response to a new and improved Q-Street promised in a mailing to my best
> friend (and dentist and inactive Advanced who does not own a mike) in my
> Wisconsin days, we trundled down to the Wausau Public Library and
> contemplated the Big 3 amateur magazines. One, of course, expected 73 to
> follow Wayne into senility and was not disappointed; CQ is the usual
> rudderless ship only worse; and behold QST has discovered QRP -- in the
> product reviews.
I've been unable to locate a copy of CQ since January. I was in Cols OH last
weekend and one of the good Folks at Universal said that they had CQ on the
rack, but they didn't. Is CQ going down the tubes?
> Without expecting an answer, Ed (good to see you back BTW) how does it feel
> to work on the Pubs and Techie side of the house and do good while the
> Political side botches things up? When do I get my mailing :).
Ed's no longer in the Lab?
Brian
Kim W5TIT
is offering discounts to those who have been "out of ham radio for a while" why
not extend such a thought to the general public of hams...say, a trial year of
membership to the ARRL for a reduced amount equal to that of a testing session?
Now, *that* would be an offer.
Kim W5TIT
Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1...@arrl.org) <w1...@arrl.net> wrote in article
<ZBkI4.51$G4.1...@news.ntplx.net>...
Kim W5TIT
<20000410100915...@ng-fm1.aol.com>...
> >
> One thing for sure, Amateur Radio needs the ARRL, and the ARRL needs Amateur
> Radio.
> The only suggestion I have is that anyone who is interested in keeping
Amateur
> Radio in the future had best consider an ARRL membership, they are all we
have
> on our side. Being an active ARRL member is the first step towards preserving
> Amateur Radio for the future.J1
>
>
>
Second only to being an involved enough hobbyist to care enough to write to the
FCC with your comments and concerns about radio.
Kim W5TIT
Kim W5TIT
You have much more time than me, Richard. And, I don't feel the need to
justify my comments--your sentiment says it all.
Kim W5TIT
Richard McCollum <rmc...@radiks.net> wrote in article
<CZlI4.18$9x5...@newsfeed.slurp.net>...
>
> "Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1...@arrl.org)" <w1...@arrl.net> wrote in message
> news:ZBkI4.51$G4.1...@news.ntplx.net...
> > Kim W5TIT wrote:
> >
> >
> > >The ARRL seems to have a great propensity for coming up with ideas that
> > >"offend" folks more than alleviate situations! I don't think this type
> of
> > >offer is any way to *encourage* an increase in membership.
> >
> >
> > So do you think this is ARRL's way of *discouraging* ARRL membership?
> >
> > Why would anyone be offended that ARRL is offering a discount on new
> > memberships to those who have been out of ham radio for a while?
> >
> > 73,
> > Ed Hare, W1RFI
>
> Without agreeing with Kim and in no way trying to put you in a corner with
> your employer, her reaction is rather typical. Another post here cancels a
> division hamfest for lack of supplier interest. The main convention moves
> to Dayton for reasons that are unfathomable. Quite honestly, viewed as a
> black box, the ARRL sure shows signs of being deep in the doodoo.
>
> In response to a new and improved Q-Street promised in a mailing to my best
> friend (and dentist and inactive Advanced who does not own a mike) in my
> Wisconsin days, we trundled down to the Wausau Public Library and
> contemplated the Big 3 amateur magazines. One, of course, expected 73 to
> follow Wayne into senility and was not disappointed; CQ is the usual
> rudderless ship only worse; and behold QST has discovered QRP -- in the
> product reviews. It is one of the great ironies of modern times that at the
> same time that the Great Morse is Obsolete War is being fought to its
> conclusion, the growth area in the hobby is an activity requiring some
> technical and operating acumen as well as, guess what, Morse literacy.
> Incidentally, Kim, the wedding which took me back to old Wazoo had a table -
> including the pastor - of relatively inactive amateurs; the marketing gurus
> at Newington are not far off the mark.
>
> It does show signs, however, of a bit of desperation behind the Codfish
> Curtain. The bottom line is that no one appears to be happy with HQ, not
> the old-timers and not the newbies. To some extent this was perhaps
> inevitable and to a large extent it was the result of over-selling the
> League's competence in regulatory matters; the first rule of Customer
> Service is never make promises you can't keep. Kind of like shooting Mongo,
> it just makes him mad.
>
> Without expecting an answer, Ed (good to see you back BTW) how does it feel
> to work on the Pubs and Techie side of the house and do good while the
> Political side botches things up? When do I get my mailing :).
>
> Dick N0BK
>
>
>
Kim W5TIT
Walter Gesundheit <w2...@my-deja.com> wrote in article
<8csv0o$75a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> Actually, I think you're offended because, like all dump-huck
> Unabashers, you are offended by anything that might increase the
> viability of ARRL.
>
> And that's the way it is!
>
> Walter
>
It would pretty darned childish for anyone to be offended by increase in the
"viability" of any organization, Walter. Don't you think?
Kim W5TIT
Brian
> Thanks Walter for listing some of the "old questions".
> I had forgotten how easy they really were! They seemed harder at the time
> though. I would have to say that today's tests are probably a little more
> involved than they were back then. Now there are many more aspects of
> electronics covered that were not then. Space communications, digital
> theory, solid state theory etc.
>
> I wish that all the guys gripping about how "dumbed down" today's test are
> would go back and read some of the old questions.
>
> Best regards
> Gary K4FMX
Gary, if they actually look at the new question pools and still think they're
easy, its because they don't understand the questions.
Brian
Kim W5TIT
<38F22C...@mail.firstinter.net>...
> J1aguiar wrote:
> >
> > >Subject: Re: ARRL restructuring Money Grab - FREE upgrade with purchase of
> > >membership!
> > >From: "Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1...@arrl.org)" w1...@arrl.net
> > >Date: 4/10/00 9:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> > >Message-id: <ZBkI4.51$G4.1...@news.ntplx.net>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>The ARRL seems to have a great propensity for coming up with ideas that
> > >>"offend" folks more than alleviate situations! I don't think this type
of
> > >>offer is any way to *encourage* an increase in membership.
> > >
> > >
> > >So do you think this is ARRL's way of *discouraging* ARRL membership?
> > >
> > >Why would anyone be offended that ARRL is offering a discount on new
> > >memberships to those who have been out of ham radio for a while?
> > >
> > >73,
> > >Ed Hare, W1RFI
> > >
> > >
> > >
Amateur
> > Radio.
> > The only suggestion I have is that anyone who is interested in keeping
Amateur
> > Radio in the future had best consider an ARRL membership, they are all we
have
> > on our side. Being an active ARRL member is the first step towards
preserving
> > Amateur Radio for the future.J1
>
> small difference of opinion with the League on CW morse testing. Now
> that the dust has settled, and they're also on the bandwagon, I'm in
> back of them 100%.
>
> Rick T.
>
Well, with all due respect. There's nothing else to be in back of, right?
Kim W5TIT
Steve - KF2TI
says...
> The main convention moves
> to Dayton for reasons that are unfathomable. Quite honestly, viewed as a
> black box, the ARRL sure shows signs of being deep in the doodoo.
How does having a national convention in Dayton, one of the premier
hamfests each year equate to deep doo doo? Each year they have one in a
different area of the country. If memory serves, they had on in Orlando
once
--
Carpe Diem!!!!
Aaron Jones
>Let's make 'em pass that really hard test, like I had to do in 1963. Those
>16 pages of study guide make today's tests look really easy, eh?
Hard? Easy? Isn't that kind of a silly way to judge an exam? Shouldn't the
objective of an exam be to show that the applicant actually knows the
material?
My 1949 ARRL license manual devotes only 13 pages to the electronics portion
of the written needed for the top license. Here is ARRL's explanation in
1949. The philosophy is quite different than it is now. (The * are mine)
"The questions and answers in this booklet are designed to give you all the
*knowledge* you need to answer correctly the actual examination questions.
But it should be emphasized that the questions we list here are *not the
actual questions in the license examination, nor do they correspond question
for question to similar examination items*. What they are, however, are
carefully prepared items *designed to insure that you have the necessary
knowledge* to cope with the actual test queries."
[skip some]
"There may be several questions in the exact exam revolving around one
simple discussion in this manual, *but when you understand the subject* you
can readily check off the answers to any number of questions on it."
IMO the questions needed for full privileges are much less technically
difficult than given in today's General Class exam. However the emphasis on
*learning the material* makes much more sense than today's published
question/answer engineering level manual making memorization possible (and
mandatory for many non-technical people).
BTW, in the amateur radio regulations portion of the 1949 license manual,
there are no questions or answers at all. They simply reprint 11 pages of
excerpts from the Communications Act of 1934, leaving you to study and learn
them. Refreshing...
Richard McCollum
"Brian" <bur...@icss.net> wrote in message
news:38F2534E...@icss.net...
> Richard McCollum wrote:
>
> > Without expecting an answer, Ed (good to see you back BTW) how does it
feel
> > to work on the Pubs and Techie side of the house and do good while the
> > Political side botches things up? When do I get my mailing :).
>
> Ed's no longer in the Lab?
>
> Brian
And the lab is no longer Techie??
Jeffrey Herman
> jeff...@Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman) wrote:
>> >Let's make 'em pass that really hard test, like I had to do in
>1963. Those
>> >16 pages of study guide make today's tests look really easy, eh?
>> Why not post the questions contained in that study guide rather than
>> counting the number of its pages?
>My 1955 ARRL General Study Guide (11 pages) had questions like --
Those are interesting, but Ed et al keep making reference to the 16
pages of their'63 study guide; I'd like to view all the questions
contained in that guide rather than just know the number of pages.
Maybe someone could place the '63 guide on a web page.
Jeff
Bill Sohl
Ditto for me too on the same point.
Bill K2UNK
Joel B Levin
jeff...@Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman) wrote:
}Walter Gesundheit <w2...@my-deja.com> wrote:
}> jeff...@Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman) wrote:
}>> Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1...@arrl.org) <w1...@arrl.net> wrote:
}>> >Let's make 'em pass that really hard test, like I had to do in
}>1963. Those
}>> >16 pages of study guide make today's tests look really easy, eh?
}>> Why not post the questions contained in that study guide rather than
}>> counting the number of its pages?
}
}>My 1955 ARRL General Study Guide (11 pages) had questions like --
}
}Those are interesting, but Ed et al keep making reference to the 16
}pages of their'63 study guide; I'd like to view all the questions
}contained in that guide rather than just know the number of pages.
}Maybe someone could place the '63 guide on a web page.
I don't remember which study guide(s) I had when I got my novice in '62, but
I seem to recall that the questions for the technician or general were not
all that different in nature. It was still the same sort of thing -- 'learn
the material covered here and you will know enough to be able to answer the
actual questions of the test'. For various reasons I did not go on to get
the general (well, then it would have been a conditional) till nearly 30
years later. The CW was still the hard part anyhow.
/JBL KD1ON (ex-KN7YEG)
Gary - KJ6Q
can pass the new tests, and all those old questions were kindergarten
level stuff... AND if any current old-timers had to be retested, they
would all undoubtedly fail miserably...
There, feel better now?
--
Gary - KJ6Q
= = = = = = = =
BIGGEST THREAT to U.S. National parks?
Not pollution or environmental issues...
It's UN seizure, as allowed by our "political leaders",
already seen in Yellowstone Park and the Grand Canyon!
..........
American government - giving our country away, million
by million, and acre by acre - to many who are sworn enemies.
Brian <bur...@icss.net> wrote in message
news:38F25A43...@icss.net...
Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL
<20000410100915...@ng-fm1.aol.com>:
>One thing for sure, Amateur Radio needs the ARRL, and the ARRL needs
>Amateur Radio.
>The only suggestion I have is that anyone who is interested in keeping
>Amateur Radio in the future had best consider an ARRL membership, they
>are all we have on our side. Being an active ARRL member is the first
>step towards preserving Amateur Radio for the future.J1
>
>
That's the biggest Crock-of-Shit I've read since reading the League's
restructuring proposal!
At one time I could have agreed with your statement, but the ARRL betrayed
it's long held core values and principles. That's why alot of good hams
have *canceled* their memberships.
Brian
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 12:34:30 -0700, "R.L. Tannehill, P.E."
> <rick...@mail.firstinter.net> wrote:
>
> >J1aguiar wrote:
> >> The only suggestion I have is that anyone who is interested in keeping Amateur
> >> Radio in the future had best consider an ARRL membership, they are all we have
> >> on our side. Being an active ARRL member is the first step towards preserving
> >> Amateur Radio for the future.J1
> >
> >We DO agree on something James. As I've often said here, I only had one
> >small difference of opinion with the League on CW morse testing. Now
> >that the dust has settled, and they're also on the bandwagon, I'm in
> >back of them 100%.
>
> Ditto for me too on the same point.
>
> Bill K2UNK
Yup. I had a larger difference, but thats been settled. Brian
Brian
> That's the biggest Crock-of-Shit I've read since reading the League's
> restructuring proposal!
>
> At one time I could have agreed with your statement, but the ARRL betrayed
> it's long held core values and principles. That's why alot of good hams
> have *canceled* their memberships.
Can you explain why bad hams are cancelling their memberships also?
Brian
> YUP you guys are right, no doubt about it - only an electronics genius
> can pass the new tests, and all those old questions were kindergarten
> level stuff... AND if any current old-timers had to be retested, they
> would all undoubtedly fail miserably...
>
> There, feel better now?
Now you're being silly. Go look at the Q-Pools. Think about what you're
seeing.
Brian
> "Brian" <bur...@icss.net> wrote in message
> news:38F2534E...@icss.net...
> > Richard McCollum wrote:
> >
>
> > > Without expecting an answer, Ed (good to see you back BTW) how does it
> feel
> > > to work on the Pubs and Techie side of the house and do good while the
> > > Political side botches things up? When do I get my mailing :).
> >
> > Ed's no longer in the Lab?
> >
> > Brian
>
> And the lab is no longer Techie??
Didn't you say the equipment reviews had been reduced in some way?
Liberty_nits
instead of you looking them up. Not much effort if someone has
already looked up the answers for you.
Gary Schafer wrote:
>
> Thanks Walter for listing some of the "old questions".
> I had forgotten how easy they really were! They seemed harder at the time
> though. I would have to say that today's tests are probably a little more
> involved than they were back then. Now there are many more aspects of
> electronics covered that were not then. Space communications, digital
> theory, solid state theory etc.
>
> I wish that all the guys gripping about how "dumbed down" today's test are
> would go back and read some of the old questions.
>
> Best regards
> Gary K4FMX
>
> Walter Gesundheit wrote:
>
> > In article <8ct6vi$k9r$1...@news.hawaii.edu>,
> > jeff...@Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman) wrote:
> > > Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1...@arrl.org) <w1...@arrl.net> wrote:
> > > >Let's make 'em pass that really hard test, like I had to do in
> > 1963. Those
> > > >16 pages of study guide make today's tests look really easy, eh?
> > >
> > > Why not post the questions contained in that study guide rather than
> > > counting the number of its pages?
> > > 73, Jeff KH6O
> >
> > My 1955 ARRL General Study Guide (11 pages) had questions like --
> >
Mike
session even if they continue to fail the exam each time. Simply charge them
another $6.65 and keep handing them tests until the VE's supply is
exhausted. That would be a good measure of knowledge.
Hey, wait a minute, you can already do that now. Cool man! Will I get an
ARRL coupon for each failed exam?
"Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1...@arrl.org)" <w1...@arrl.net> wrote in message
news:BzkI4.50$G4.1...@news.ntplx.net...
> Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL wrote:
>
> >Buy a League membership and get a 'Dumbed-Downed' license
> >upgrade free!
>
>
> Let's make 'em pass that really hard test, like I had to do in 1963.
Those
> 16 pages of study guide make today's tests look really easy, eh?
>
> 73,
> Ed Hare, W1RFI
>
>
>
Richard McCollum
And am I the only one of late that has observed that you don't read prior
material.
Gary Schafer
?
Gary K4FMX
Gary - KJ6Q wrote:
> YUP you guys are right, no doubt about it - only an electronics genius
> can pass the new tests, and all those old questions were kindergarten
> level stuff... AND if any current old-timers had to be retested, they
> would all undoubtedly fail miserably...
>
> There, feel better now?
>
> --
> Gary - KJ6Q
> = = = = = = = =
> BIGGEST THREAT to U.S. National parks?
> Not pollution or environmental issues...
> It's UN seizure, as allowed by our "political leaders",
> already seen in Yellowstone Park and the Grand Canyon!
> ..........
> American government - giving our country away, million
> by million, and acre by acre - to many who are sworn enemies.
>
> Brian <bur...@icss.net> wrote in message
> news:38F25A43...@icss.net...
> > Gary Schafer wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Walter for listing some of the "old questions".
> > > I had forgotten how easy they really were! They seemed harder at
> the time
> > > though. I would have to say that today's tests are probably a
> little more
> > > involved than they were back then. Now there are many more aspects
> of
> > > electronics covered that were not then. Space communications,
> digital
> > > theory, solid state theory etc.
> > >
> > > I wish that all the guys gripping about how "dumbed down" today's
> test are
> > > would go back and read some of the old questions.
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > > Gary K4FMX
> >
JR
>
>
> Gary, if they actually look at the new question pools and still think they're
> easy, its because they don't understand the questions.
>
> Brian
You don't have to understand the question when the answer is given to
you. All test applicants have to do now is just memorize which answer
goes with the question.
R.L. Tannehill, P.E.
>
> In <8ctukg$ga5$1...@news.hawaii.edu>,
> jeff...@Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman) wrote:
> }Walter Gesundheit <w2...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> }> jeff...@Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman) wrote:
> }>> >Let's make 'em pass that really hard test, like I had to do in
> }>1963. Those
> }>> >16 pages of study guide make today's tests look really easy, eh?
> }>> counting the number of its pages?
> }
> }
> }pages of their'63 study guide; I'd like to view all the questions
> }contained in that guide rather than just know the number of pages.
> }Maybe someone could place the '63 guide on a web page.
>
> I don't remember which study guide(s) I had when I got my novice in '62, but
> I seem to recall that the questions for the technician or general were not
> all that different in nature. It was still the same sort of thing -- 'learn
> the material covered here and you will know enough to be able to answer the
> actual questions of the test'. For various reasons I did not go on to get
> the general (well, then it would have been a conditional) till nearly 30
> years later. The CW was still the hard part anyhow.
>
> /JBL KD1ON (ex-KN7YEG)
Yes, my 61 study guide was also about the same as the 1955. As for
current tests being "dumbed down" because of learning to memorize the
right answer out of four given, the only difference then was that the
three incorrect answers were not provided with the question, only the
single correct answer. Thus the "hard" part, memorizing the right
answer out of the manual, and being able to detect it in a stealth field
of previously undefined incorrect answers. It was really rough then :)
RT
W7RT
Gary - KJ6Q
--
Gary - KJ6Q
= = = = = = = =
BIGGEST THREAT to U.S. National parks?
Not pollution or environmental issues...
It's UN seizure, as allowed by our "political leaders",
already seen in Yellowstone Park and the Grand Canyon!
..........
American government - giving our country away, million
by million, and acre by acre - to many who are sworn enemies.
Gary Schafer <gsch...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:38F342E6...@mediaone.net...
Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1rfi@arrl.org)
>Second only to being an involved enough hobbyist to care enough to write to
the
>FCC with your comments and concerns about radio.
Kim,
I didn't see any comments from you on the several recent FCC Part 15
rulemaking proceedings. Changes to the conducted emissions limits for
various Part 15 devices could have a significant impact on ham radio.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
>
>Kim W5TIT
Kim W5TIT
For me to send comments, I would have to feel that I was affected in one way or
the other. I also did not send any comments pertaining to restructuring. I
did not feel affected one way or the other. Either way was fine with me. I'll
even go so far as to say that I am probably *not* in the category of an
"involved enough hobbyist". I don't consider myself that driven or compelled
either way by ham radio.
The point to my comment was that a person's personal comments to the FCC on
issues that they feel compelled to write about are a far better barometer on
what "we" actually want, than an organization. When I used to visit with Jim
Wright, our then Congressperson from Ft. Worth, he occasionally made the
observation that it made far more impact on him to hear from his constituents
on an individual basis than to hear from the organization I was with at the
time.
I can't help but be certain that a letter individually written by me to the FCC
is going to have more impact than one presentation from the ARRL, especially if
many thousands of letters are received on the same issue.
Kim W5TIT
Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1...@arrl.org) <w1...@arrl.net> wrote in article
<xrMI4.119$G4.1...@news.ntplx.net>...
Brian
> "Brian" <bur...@icss.net> wrote in message
> news:38F2F8A4...@icss.net...
> > Richard McCollum wrote:
> >
> > > "Brian" <bur...@icss.net> wrote in message
> > > news:38F2534E...@icss.net...
> > > > Richard McCollum wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > Without expecting an answer, Ed (good to see you back BTW) how does
> it
> > > feel
> > > > > to work on the Pubs and Techie side of the house and do good while
> the
> > > > > Political side botches things up? When do I get my mailing :).
> > > >
> > > > Ed's no longer in the Lab?
> > > >
> > > > Brian
> > >
> > > And the lab is no longer Techie??
> >
> > Didn't you say the equipment reviews had been reduced in some way?
>
> And am I the only one of late that has observed that you don't read prior
> material.
You just don't make sense Richard.
You said: "and behold QST has discovered QRP -- in the product reviews."
What is that supposed to mean? I read it as they have reduced the power of
their reviews. How did you mean it?
Brian
> Brian wrote:
> >
> >
> > Gary, if they actually look at the new question pools and still think they're
> > easy, its because they don't understand the questions.
> >
> > Brian
>
> You don't have to understand the question when the answer is given to
> you. All test applicants have to do now is just memorize which answer
> goes with the question.
True. But the material is harder than ever before, and making it even harder is
senseless.
Kim W5TIT
tests and test prep is not.
--
73 de W5TIT - Kim
NCI 3343
"Brian" <bur...@icss.net> wrote in message
news:38F3A77C...@icss.net...
Brian
Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1rfi@arrl.org)
>I can't help but be certain that a letter individually written by me to the
FCC
>is going to have more impact than one presentation from the ARRL,
especially if
>many thousands of letters are received on the same issue.
Kim,
I agree wholeheartedly, as does the management and the Board of ARRL, and
any other organization, I am sure. When ARRL wrote the article describing
its position wrt restructuring, it did NOT ask League members to echo that
position to the FCC, it asked League members to send their own views to the
FCC.
IMHO, this is appropriate at all times, but especially in the case of the
restructuring comments. ARRL certainly recognized that there was, and to
some extent still is, a wide range of opinion among ARRL members about what
the FCC should have done with restructuring. The only way that the FCC
would hear that opinion would be for hams to send that opinion as Comments
or Reply Comments to the FCC. This is certainly what the ARRL encouraged
hams to do.
I chose not to send my own comments to the FCC because I didn't want to deal
with the inevitable confusion that would exist in some folks' minds between
the formal positions of ARRL and the personal views of Ed Hare. IMHO, the
views presented by the League represented one end of a possible range of
compromise, the views presented by NCI represented another. The FCC made
its choices; the end result is indeed a compromise and I believe that
Amateur Radio will thrive under the results.
I have certainly seen this in the enthusiasm that lots of hams have about
Amateur Radio. Hams are buying study guides and taking tests and learning
things (those who think that hams learn less by studying over 1000 questions
in a pool than I learned by studying those 16 pages of study guide in 1963
are, IMHO, just plain wrong -- most hams are entering ham radio to learn
things, just like I did). IMHO, it is time for us all to move on and
continue to do things within, and for, Amateur Radio. I believe in the
process of law that the FCC uses to govern Amateur Radio. Because of that
belief, I accept the result. Nothing about the rules changes will change
what I do within Amateur Radio one bit -- I will continue to use my favorite
modes and will continue my work at ARRL HQ. I will support what Amateur
Radio becomes, as long as its future changes are within the framework of the
FCC and its regulations. As an ARRL member, I expect that the League will
do the same.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Kim W5TIT
that you did not offer up your own, personal, opinions with regard to the
Biennial Review issue; and noted that your hesitation was due to not wanting to
deal with perceived confusion on the part of other folks.
I understand fully your message there. It is much like my not being able to
speak of my employer over the radio because I then, to some degree, become an
"agent" for my employer and what I say could be used for or against me by
either side (I work for a public utility). However, it does not alleviate the
disdain I have for people who cannot steer themselves clear of being so petty
as to associate one's personal life over their professional life.
In a case of opinions that could be valuable regarding a very public matter I
would encourage you, or anyone else, to rise above their pettiness, set fast
into the ground that you have every right, and offer your opinions if you think
they are important enough. It is kind of like making the conscious decision to
proceed with something you know is right, regardless of how it will be viewed.
Goodness knows I do that on a nearly daily basis. I don't look for public
approval, popularity, or even reward--I just do. I would hope that if you have
valuable input, you will do the same.
You don't have to answer to anyone but yourself. We, the public, may "feel"
like we have the right to say, "But, But, But, you work with/for the ARRL."
But, we do not when it comes to your personal opinions about things. I, for
one, would stand in defense for you on that.
Kim W5TIT
PS--I don't remember the recent post I read, it so shocked me that I nearly
reached into my computer and shredded it myself. But, the above is partly in
response to a recent post that seemed to "dare" you to have a public opinion
about something, from within the ranks of the ARRL. That person was an idiot.
Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1...@arrl.org) <w1...@arrl.net> wrote in article
<uf_I4.3441$G4.1...@news.ntplx.net>...
>
[SNIP]
> I chose not to send my own comments to the FCC because I didn't want to deal
> with the inevitable confusion that would exist in some folks' minds between
> the formal positions of ARRL and the personal views of Ed Hare.
> [SNIP]
>
> 73,
> Ed Hare, W1RFI
>
Aaron Jones
>(those who think that hams learn less by studying over 1000 questions
>in a pool than I learned by studying those 16 pages of study guide in 1963
>are, IMHO, just plain wrong --
I still have my Extra friend who knows very little about electronics. He
has built nothing and bought everything. He memorized his way to the ticket.
I think I learned much more electronics by studying and *learning* the
material to get my General in 1959. IMHO you're just plain wrong...
Clay N4AOX
(Not Ed Hare, Laboratory Manager, ARRL, Newington CT but the other one)
>
> When ARRL wrote the article describing
> its position wrt restructuring, it did NOT ask League members to echo that
> position to the FCC, it asked League members to send their own views to the
> FCC.
>
> IMHO, this is appropriate at all times, but especially in the case of the
> restructuring comments.
It may be IYHO, but, by example of K1ZZ's reaction to the Little LEO
case, this is certainly not his demonstrated policy. It would be
interesting to post some of his quotes on that subject here to see the
different tactics.
> (the)ARRL certainly recognized
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^that there was, and to
> some extent still is, a wide range of opinion among ARRL members about what
> the FCC should have done with restructuring. The only way that the FCC
> would hear that opinion would be for hams to send that opinion as Comments
> or Reply Comments to the FCC. This is certainly what the ARRL encouraged
> hams to do. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please show some facts and sources that support the above
certainties, otherwise this appears to be more Newington Spin, IMHO. By
the way who is "the ARRL", in the above context, who speaks for them,
and how did "the ARRL" encourage me or other hams? Did the ARRL
publishing house redistribute "the article (one article implied)" in a
personal letter to me? Did the ARRL run "the article" in several
consecutive QST issues?
Isn't it true that "the ARRL" is spending more of its membership
treasury after the restructuring debacle, than before it, including
hiring a public relations firm, to try to put the best spin on the fact
that "the ARRL" did not forthrightly represent the majority view of its
membership on the subject.
>
> I chose not to send my own comments to the FCC because I didn't want to deal
> with the inevitable confusion that would exist in some folks' minds between
^^^^^^^^^
> the formal positions of ARRL and the personal views of Ed Hare.
It may have been better if you had, now we are confused, not that you
are the source of confusion. It may be that we really don't understand
who is the "ARRL" in the context that you are using it.
IMHO, the
> views presented by the League represented one end of a possible range of
> compromise, the views presented by NCI represented another. The FCC made
> its choices; the end result is indeed a compromise and I believe that
> Amateur Radio will thrive under the results.
>
W5YI says the NCVEC (under his leadership of course) *not the NCI*, not
"the League", specifically drove the 3 lic. 5 wpm home with the FCC.
More confusion? ;-)
73,
Clay N4AOX
Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1rfi@arrl.org)
>I think I learned much more electronics by studying and *learning* the
>material to get my General in 1959. IMHO you're just plain wrong...
Are you sure you are not attributing the knowledge you possess today (gained
by years of being active in ham radio) to the "studying" you did in 1959?
As I think back to myself in 1963 as a new General, I was really not very
bright. I did NOT understand all of what I studied; I read those 16 pages
until I had them virtually memorized.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Steve Robeson
>membership!
>From: Clay N4AOX w...@worldnet.att.net
>Date: 04/12/2000 7:46 PM Central Daylight Time
>It may be IYHO, but, by example of K1ZZ's reaction to the Little LEO case,
this is certainly not his demonstrated policy. It would be interesting to post
some of his quotes on that subject here to set the different tactics<
There are a great number of circumstances, Little LEO being one of them,
where I would not only expect, but would demand, that ARRL move to intervene in
such matters, especially when time is of the essence.
Many corporations and other entities take advantage of time limits on
filings knowing that organizations such as ARRL usually defer to thier
membership to formulate an opinion before filing responses. In some cases it
results in a late or rejected filing.
The time someone like Dave Sumner say's "wait and see" will be the time
that we suddenly find ourselves short an allocation.
Knee jerk? Maybe...but better than no action at all.
73
Steve, K4YZ
http://hometown.aol.com/k4yz/myhomepage/index.html
http://www.qrz.com
Richard McCollum
"Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1...@arrl.org)" <w1...@arrl.net> wrote in message
news:vGlJ4.3918$G4.1...@news.ntplx.net...
The one I remember is wondering why the plus side of a power supply came
back to the cathode of the rectifier -- disturbed my 13 year old mind
something fierce. And then a whole lot of lights started coming on.
Thought it was pretty funny when one of the answers to 'how do you eliminate
spurious emmissions' was to neutralize the oscillator. Like most exams, it
was more of a vocabulary test than a technical exam -- learning began when
you found out what all those words meant. In my case, it meant reducing a
paperback Handbook to tatters; amazing how much you can pick up using it in
spare moments like in the throne room.
Dick BK
Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1rfi@arrl.org)
> otherwise this appears to be more Newington Spin, IMHO.
And this is proved to be "Newington Spin" by the fact that I got on this
forum and am encouraging hams to file comments with the FCC, I guess?
> By the way who is "the ARRL", in the above context,
Kinda' like Clinton asking for a definition of the word "is."
>More confusion? ;-)
> (Not Ed Hare, Laboratory Manager, ARRL, Newington CT but
> the other one)
Looks that way to me, Clay.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Aaron Jones
>(gained by years of being active in ham radio) to the
>"studying" you did in 1959?
Although I see your point, it wouldn't apply to me since I have have never
really progressed beyond the old tube technology. I simply have not kept up,
having been in a profession completely unrelated to electronics for 24 years
before retiring. I squandered my money on my fancy TS870 and TS-50
about 6 years ago. Before that I used all tube stuff which I modified and
repaired myself.
>As I think back to myself in 1963 as a new General, I was really not very
>bright. I did NOT understand all of what I studied;
I think you do yourself a disservice Ed. After studying the ARRL manual and
handbook I think I did understand most of the questions. But they were much
easier then. The equipment was much simpler then. The rigs were much easier
to work on then. I was working in a local TV shop after high school fixing
TVs using what I learned from ham radio and TV fix-it books. (TVs were much
simpler and easier to work on then too.) I was building my own transmitters,
and modifying most of my used surplus and commercial stuff, all at age 16.
Judging from your career, your published material, and your posts here, you
are a very knowledgeable person. I just can't buy it that you were no so in
1963...
Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL
Ed,
There is a difference. Hams in 1963 probably cared more and they certainly
had more intiative. After they got their licenses alot of them had to
build their own equipment. If they couldn't build, they'd get surplus
military gear and modify it, often making it work better than it had to
start with. Hams with money could buy off the shelf. When you have to work
harder to be a part of something you care for it alot more. In my opinion,
the hams of the 1940's, 50's, and 60's with their innovation and
experimentation advanced ham radio more than any of these modern day
Techie-talking code haters will ever do. Amsat is the only group moving
amateur radio forward with new emission types and the utilization of
microwave frequencies. Using these new modes and frequencies might require
a little effort on ones part, such as modifying or homebrewing equipment,
but thats not anything different then what the early hams had to do to use
HF in the early days. Where am I going with this?
The ARRL has been talking bull out of both sides of its mouth and the
whole thing has been a smoke screen money-grab, and it has suckered in
alot of hams over the last year. The League says it's moving ham radio
forward, but I haven't seen any proposals. The League says gaining more
hams by removing some exam elements will advance ham radio, they said the
same thing about the no-code tech which didn't advance a thing. I could
go on and on but who'd read it. I'm not requesting electronic experts, I'm
reguesting hams have good operating practices and procedure, and it's
gotten to sound a whole lot like CB over the last 10 years.
Make it harder to be a ham and those that make it will certainly have the
initative to move the service forward and protect it. Ed, I don't know how
much time you spend listening to your HF rig, but you more than anyone
else should be a creditable witness on how operating practices have gone
into the sewer. And don't cut yourself short Ed, what you had to do as a
ham in the early days was tough.
w1...@arrl.net (Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1...@arrl.org)) wrote in
<vGlJ4.3918$G4.1...@news.ntplx.net>:
>Are you sure you are not attributing the knowledge you possess today
>(gained by years of being active in ham radio) to the "studying" you
>did in 1959? As I think back to myself in 1963 as a new General, I was
>really not very bright. I did NOT understand all of what I studied; I
Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1rfi@arrl.org)
>There is a difference. Hams in 1963 probably cared more and they certainly
>had more intiative.
I see no evidence at all that the hams of today care any differently about
ham radio than the hams of 1963. I see no evidence that they have less
intiative -- to the contrary; they may have more. I studied those 16 pages
to get all amateur privleges; hams today have to study over 1200 pages of
study guide to get the same thing.
> After they got their licenses alot of them had to build their own
equipment. If they couldn't
> build, they'd get surplus military gear and modify it, often making it
work better than it had to
> start with. Hams with money could buy off the shelf.
I was 13 years old when I was licensed. I didn't build a darn thing to get
on the air; I borrowed a transmitter from W1BNB, my Elmer. A few months
later, I bought an old National HRO-5 receiver off the shelf for $50 from
Hatry Electronics in Hartford. A few months later, I bought a used DX-20,
then a used DX-100 for my General operation. The only building I did was at
some point, I took apart the DX-100 and rebuilt it all on a wooden chassis;
it did NOT work better as a result.
Sure, there were homebrew rigs about, but the majority of the stations I
worked were using commerical gear. My other Novice friends, equally young
and equally poor, had commercial gear, too.
What you describe may have been true in 1933, but not in 1963,
> When you have to work harder to be a part of something you care for it
alot more.
Under that premise, the new hams care more about ham radio than those who
only had to study 16 pages of study guide.
> In my opinion, the hams of the 1940's, 50's, and 60's with their
innovation and
>experimentation advanced ham radio more than any of these modern day
>Techie-talking code haters will ever do.
The percentage of hams, even in the 40s and 50s, that were active
experimenters who advanced the state of the art, has always been small.
Most hams then did what hams do today; buy commerical equipment that builds
on experimental work done only by a few. For a recent example, what is the
ratio of the number of hams who developed PSK-31 to the number that use it?
> Amsat is the only group moving amateur radio forward with new emission
types and the utilization of
> microwave frequencies.
I don't know that AMSAT has developed any new emissions types. Phase IIId
will indeed use microwave frequencies, a good thing. Perhaps you are
talking about TAPR? Even in that case, the work they are doing on spread
spectrum is based mainly on technologies that were first implemented
seriously outside the Amateur Radio Service.
> The League says gaining more hams by removing some exam elements will
advance ham radio,
> they said the same thing about the no-code tech which didn't advance a
thing.
The only exam element that the League's proposal asked to remove was the 20
wpm code test.
As to the NCT, let's see, it only added a few hundred thousand hams to the
ranks, many of whom chose to upgrade. It only increased VHF activity
several fold. The advancements brought forth by the NCT are, on the whole,
not much different than the advancements brought forth by the other classes
of license.
> I'm not requesting electronic experts, I'm reguesting hams have good
operating practices and procedure,
> and it's gotten to sound a whole lot like CB over the last 10 years.
Not in the parts of the bands I have listened to. There are a few "trouble"
areas, and, although there were a few trouble areas in 1963, the conduct of
<0.1% of those licensed does seem to be a bit worse than it was in 1963.
Now, you seem to imply that this is because the testing process is not
rigourous enough to have prevented these people from getting licenses. I
offer that the slight worsening of the degree (not the amout) of misconduct
on the ham bands is a result of decades of the lack of FCC enforcement.
> And don't cut yourself short Ed, what you had to do as a ham in the early
days was tough.
It sure seemed so at the time, but when I look at that study guide with
today's eyes, I see how easy that exam really was. When I look, with
today's eyes, at that study guide and the scope and amount that new hams
have to study to get the same priveleges I was given so easily, I begin to
understand how dumfounded some of these folks must be when one of the old
timers starts saying that all that work is "dumbed down" from the "really
hard" work he had to do to study those 16 pages and get his General and all
amateur priveleges.
Are we sure it isn't a case of having to walk 10 miles to school uphill both
ways in our bare feet on ice with barbed wire on our feet for traction?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
k.d. mOLSON
Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL <vlfi...@mcn.net> wrote in message
news:sfcl332...@corp.supernews.com...
> [posted and mailed]
>
> Ed,
> There is a difference. Hams in 1963 probably
> cared more and they certainly had more intiative.
> build their own equipment.
True, but also remember that when ARRL proposed and later
got it's "Incentive Licencing" from the FCC, nearly 75%
of the USA based ham manufacturer's went out of business
in the following 2-Year period, and lost a full 40% of
their paying membership in the organization.
I know. I was *there* when it happened, and it does not
suprise me that the guy (callsign?) who was ARRL Pres.
at the time came up with this disaster from which the
hobby has >NEVER< recovered. (The ARRL President
at the time was also known as a red-nosed drunk,
along with some of the Board members. They nearly had
to CARRY him out of the 1966 or 67 Dayton hospitality
room... He was so LOADED with Seagrams and Old #7
that he couldn't walk more than 3 steps at a time
without falling on his face. All hail our fearless
leader! All hail Incentive Licencing! Pass me
another drink boy! -hic-hic-hic)
> Amsat is the only group moving
> amateur radio forward with new emission types
> and the utilization of microwave frequencies.
> Using these new modes and frequencies might require
> a little effort on ones part, such as modifying
> or homebrewing equipment, but thats not anything
> different then what the early hams had to do to use
> HF in the early days.
Again true. But remember that AMSAT accounts for
0.8 percent of ham radio enthusiasts also. A drop
in the pond. This is a gem in the rough. If the AMSAT
boys could come up with a way to couple *wireless*
internet access with HamSats, THEN you would see some
interest in young people in ham radio.
Nahhh, it will not happen, too many folks want
stupid mores code and are bitchin and moaning
about April the 15th of 2000 or something.
Status-Quo, Same ole s--- different day.
> The ARRL has been talking bull out of both
> sides of its mouth and the whole thing has
> been a smoke screen money-grab, and it has
> suckered in alot of hams over the last year.
Not really, their membership stats are dropping
about 5% (or more) per year. The old standby
crowd is dying off. 15 per month to 1 new member
joining. This is what's called a revenue disaster.
All they're interested in is keeping their
ivory building well-covered in English Ivy
and those nice advertising revenue checks
rolling in the mail from the "Big-3"
Jap radio builders, and QST subscriptions.
Hope they have a big marble stone to plant
on Main Street in Newington in a Year or two...
> The League says it's moving ham radio
> forward, but I haven't seen any proposals. The League says
> gaining more hams by removing some exam elements will
> advance ham radio, they said the
> same thing about the no-code tech which didn't
> advance a thing.
Correct! And add to that as long as code is required for ANY
class of radio licence, you will never attract new
people. Code is about as relavant today
as buggy whips, horseshoes and dial-type telephones.
Come to think of it, much of ham radio is just as outmoded
too.
> Make it harder to be a ham and those that
> make it will certainly have the initative to
> move the service forward and protect it.
Yes, I am sure all EIGHT of the new hams will!
Guess what, you just >re-instituted< Incentive Licencing!
HOW the phuck does this keep re-appearing? It boggles my
mind why Hams are so addamant to think that making something
harder will somehow *increase* both quality and quantity. I don't
know about you, but between work, kids in college, time wasted
in commuting, weekend chores, soccer games for the
youngest etc etc I am lucky if I talk an hour-a-day on 2M
and this mostly while waiting in traffic on the Interstate.
Tell me, HOW is someone going to make time for code and
other arcane stuff to get an ham licence, when for FAR
LESS MONEY, they can pick up a Pentium-III computer
and be "Plug-and-Play" on the Internet with RealAudio
and a gazillion webpages and chatrooms to select from?
Finally, about 2 Meters.. HA HA HA!!
You can get a *pair* of Family Radio Service
UHF walkie-talkies from Motorola for about $120.00
No Licence. No learning code. No test. No problem.
Put 3 "AA" batteries in, and your on the air with 13 channels
and 32 PL tones to choose from. (MUCH cheaper than 2 Meter
rigs)
FACE IT GUYS HAM RADIO IS IN IT'S DEATH THROES. THE ARRL
KNOWS IT, AND SO DOES EVERYBODY ELSE. Hamfests are being
canceled all over, people AIN'T comming anymore. Dealers
AIN'T comming out anymore. It a non-stop ride down the
technological whirlpool of history. Used to be that
ham radio was UNIQUE. To talk to someone in Europe or
make a phone call from your car used to be something
new and interesting. Today, you can do all this on the
Internet and via cell phones and FRS radios.
FACE IT boys, ham radio IS as OBSOLETE as a vaccum tube
television set is in the Year 2000. Enjoy it for the
next 10 years at the most, before it's relagated to the
antique shelf display in a dusty corner at the Smithsonian.
And that, my friends, IS the real TRUTH.
k.d. mOLSON
> I see no evidence at all that the hams of
> today care any differently about
> ham radio than the hams of 1963.
> I see no evidence that they have less
> intiative -- to the contrary; they may have more.
> I studied those 16 pages to get all amateur
> privleges; hams today have to study over 1200 pages of
> study guide to get the same thing.
HORSE-APPLES! All they need to do 2-day is pass a simple
test in which the question pool has already been printed.
If that ain't tossing softballs, then I don't know
what is. They don't even need Dick Bash's old study guides
anymore either. Hey, while on this topic, will the ARRL please
now admit that they put the pressure on at the FCC to publish
the question pools, just so that they could put Dick Bash
out of business and retain the market for study guides?
The ARRL is at it's root, a publishing company, and as such those
who are in the publishing industry tend to get a little "testy"
when someone (Dick Bash in this case..) takes away their
(ARRL's) market.
Heck, I can remember when the Bash Study Guides were the hottest commodity
at any hamfest from Coast to Coast. People were
having them Fed-Ex'd the minute they rolled off the press! They were hotter
and in more demand than "nose candy" would be
at any Hollywood Movie celebrity party, while ARRL study guides
collected dust on the shelf....
What is the REAL STORY concerning the "Bash Study
Guides vs ARRL" battle Ed? I am sure some of us would
like to read this juicy tidbit of ham radio history
just as much as we would the un-redacted Warren
Commission report.
:) :) :)
Kim W5TIT
in this thread/NG as a non-representative of the ARRL, and you turn your
daggers outward and attack from the perspective as though he can/will speak for
the ARRL here.
You are being totally unfair and out of line with your approach--
Kim W5TIT
k.d. mOLSON <wb1...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<7hGJ4.28091$y4.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
> Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1...@arrl.org) <w1...@arrl.net> wrote in message
> news:pREJ4.14$R5....@news.ntplx.net...
> > I see no evidence at all that the hams of
> > today care any differently about
> > ham radio than the hams of 1963.
> > I see no evidence that they have less
> > intiative -- to the contrary; they may have more.
> > I studied those 16 pages to get all amateur
> > privleges; hams today have to study over 1200 pages of
> > study guide to get the same thing.
>
> HORSE-APPLES! All they need to do 2-day is pass a simple
> test in which the question pool has already been printed.
> If that ain't tossing softballs, then I don't know
> what is. They don't even need Dick Bash's old study guides
> anymore either. Hey, while on this topic, will the ARRL please
^^^^^Right there is where you crossed the line.
Brian
> Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1...@arrl.org) <w1...@arrl.net> wrote in message
> news:pREJ4.14$R5....@news.ntplx.net...
> > I see no evidence at all that the hams of
> > today care any differently about
> > ham radio than the hams of 1963.
> > I see no evidence that they have less
> > intiative -- to the contrary; they may have more.
> > I studied those 16 pages to get all amateur
> > privleges; hams today have to study over 1200 pages of
> > study guide to get the same thing.
>
> HORSE-APPLES! All they need to do 2-day is pass a simple
> test in which the question pool has already been printed.
Those who believe it is a simple test don't understand the questions.
Liberty_nits
Dave Heil
And those who believe it to be difficult don't understand the answers.
Dave 5H3US, K8MN
Brian
Liberty_nits wrote:
> Horse Shit......
Brian
> Brian wrote:
> >
> > k.d. mOLSON wrote:
> >
> > > Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1...@arrl.org) <w1...@arrl.net> wrote in message
> > > news:pREJ4.14$R5....@news.ntplx.net...
> > > > I see no evidence at all that the hams of
> > > > today care any differently about
> > > > ham radio than the hams of 1963.
> > > > I see no evidence that they have less
> > > > intiative -- to the contrary; they may have more.
> > > > I studied those 16 pages to get all amateur
> > > > privleges; hams today have to study over 1200 pages of
> > > > study guide to get the same thing.
> > >
> > > HORSE-APPLES! All they need to do 2-day is pass a simple
> > > test in which the question pool has already been printed.
> >
> > Those who believe it is a simple test don't understand the questions.
>
> And those who believe it to be difficult don't understand the answers.
>
> Dave 5H3US, K8MN
It is far, far more difficult the the exams you took. Do you understand
that?
Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1rfi@arrl.org)
>HORSE-APPLES! All they need to do 2-day is pass a simple
>test in which the question pool has already been printed.
All I had to do in 1963 was pass a simple test I took after reading 16 pages
of study guide.
When I was in high school, I would not have considered a test that was drawn
from over 1000 questions to be "simple."
> Hey, while on this topic, will the ARRL please
> now admit that they put the pressure on at the FCC to publish
> the question pools, just so that they could put Dick Bash
> out of business and retain the market for study guides?
I was not active in ham radio, much less the ARRL, at the time.
Can you share with us the way you have determined what actions the ARRL took
at the time? Or is it a case of "it coulda' been that way, so it musta'
been?"
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
>If that ain't tossing softballs, then I don't know
>what is. They don't even need Dick Bash's old study guides
>anymore either. >
Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1rfi@arrl.org)
>> > Those who believe it is a simple test don't understand the questions.
>> And those who believe it to be difficult don't understand the answers.
>It is far, far more difficult the the exams you took. Do you understand
>that?
The exams of today certainly cover a LOT more scope, starting with the
Novice exam (we don't even want to talk about the 4-page Novice study guide,
do we?). The exams of today are certainly a lot more work, as evidenced by
the sheer volume of the questions in the pool and the 1200 pages of study
guide it takes to describe them, as compared to the 16 pages it took to
describe the study guides in 1963.
But some people can look at the stack of 16 pages of old study guide on one
hand and look at the 1200 pages of new study guide on the other hand and say
with a straight face that the "new" exams are too easy.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Brian
Ed, it's a simple act of self-deception.
J Peitsch
Aaron Jones
Translation: the exams contain a lot more memorization.
>The exams of today are certainly a lot more work, as evidenced by
>the sheer volume of the questions
Translation: more questions and answers means more memorization work.
>[How can] some people...say
>with a straight face that the "new" exams are too easy.
Ed, can you look at me with a straight face and say that everyone passing
the Extra Class exam really knows the material he was tested for? Can you
even say that you can't pass the test by memorization alone...
(Please don't fall back on how it was in 1963. Let's discuss how it really
is today.)
Brian
Aaaron (I guess), can you look at me with a straight face and say that the
material is easier than it was in 1963?
J Peitsch
that is my feelings. Why fight something I wish they had done 30 years ago.
The good ole boys at the frat house(ARRL) did a fine job of keeping out many
by using the code to weed out the underlings. Some of us think ham radio
ranks right up there with world hunger or a cure for cancer. The better
informed of us do know this is not true. I will continue to enjoy my hobby
of radio and use morse code and phone and it will be better than before.
Butch WA8X
Sylvan Butler wrote in message <8d8c7k$krb$1...@news.cyberhighway.net>...
>J Peitsch (jpei...@concentric.net) on 14 Apr 2000 17:28:15 EDT wrote:
>>Who really cares!
>
>Exactly the point...
>
>sdb
>--
>Watch out for munged e-mail address.
>User should be sylvan and host is cyberhighway.net.
>Do NOT send me unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE)!
LCC
>
> You are right, that is exactly the point. Being a ham myself for 30 years,
> that is my feelings. Why fight something I wish they had done 30 years ago.
> The good ole boys at the frat house(ARRL) did a fine job of keeping out many
> by using the code to weed out the underlings. Some of us think ham radio
I wonder why though. Was there any task in trying to formulate better
written examinations? Then again 30 years ago, there was no VE system
in place, so who knows.
Kim W5TIT
talking about this very issue, you seemed so offended by my observation that
the "exams" (what a joke) are not any level of accomplishment at all? Maybe
I am wrong and you weren't one of the many who seemed to take offense at my
opinion, but I could have swore you were one of them.
At any rate, Ed, I agree with Aaron who-ever. The "tests/exams" are
neither. I memorized the questions and answers, took the test, and couldn't
tell you today a thing about anything I was tested on...in fact, I couldn't
have told you a few weeks later much of anything to do with what I "passed"
on that "test." Today, pretty much the *only* thing I could confidently
discuss with you would be accepted operating practices (the etiquette of ham
radio), R&R (but *only* Part 97--there's a lot more to it than just Part
97), and that would pretty much be it.
Sorry, just my opinion, but the "exams" as they are, are nothing.
Absolutely nothing. Bring back testing in front of the FCC (although I
don't know why *that* was so scarey--radio is not a life and death matter,
and I can't be arrested because I don't pass an exam).
--
73 de W5TIT - Kim
NCI 3343
"Aaron Jones" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:uZzWlplp$GA.265@cpmsnbbsa04...
Aaron Jones
>Aaaron (I guess),can you look at me with a straight face
>and say that the material is easier than it was in 1963?
I think the test was probably *easier* in 1963, because the material was
much easier. Today's memorization of a large amount of very technical
questions is definitely not easy. But what does easy or hard have to do
with the *quality* of a test? If the purpose of a test is to examine the
applicant to see if he knows the test material, then today's tests do
not do that. If the purpose of the test is just to be *hard* and require
a lot of *effort* at memorization to pass, then it is no better
than the Morse test...
Aaron Jones
>Aaron who-ever-you-are, why is it that when I first came in to the NG
>talking about this very issue, you seemed so offended by my observation
>that the "exams" (what a joke) are not any level of accomplishment at all?
Not me. If you read the archives you will see that I have always said
that today's exams are a fraud. In fact before you got here I called the
exams a "weeder" similar to the Morse test weeder. To weed out
people not willing to put in some *effort*, whether it's the memorization
of the code, or the memorization of the theory...
Sylvan Butler
Bill Sohl
wrote:
Well said.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
PS - 3 minutes till 5 wpm only
Brian
> Brian wrote in
> >Aaaron (I guess),can you look at me with a straight face
> >and say that the material is easier than it was in 1963?
>
> I think the test was probably *easier* in 1963, because the material was
> much easier. Today's memorization of a large amount of very technical
> questions is definitely not easy. But what does easy or hard have to do
> with the *quality* of a test? If the purpose of a test is to examine the
> applicant to see if he knows the test material, then today's tests do
> not do that. If the purpose of the test is just to be *hard* and require
> a lot of *effort* at memorization to pass, then it is no better
> than the Morse test...
There are still people who go to the trouble to learn the material. There
are still people who try to memorize it all. The material is far more
complex than any exam you ever took in amateur radio.
Aaron Jones
>There are still people who go to the trouble to learn the material.
True, and then there are the engineers who already know it.
>There are still people who try to memorize it all.
Which is the only resort for the layman, if he doesn't want to spend a year
or more *learning* the material.
>The material is far more complex than any exam
>you ever took in amateur radio.
I agree. But it is still a *meaningless test* if I can
pass the test without learning the material...
Brian
> Brian wrote
> >There are still people who go to the trouble to learn the material.
>
> True, and then there are the engineers who already know it.
>
> >There are still people who try to memorize it all.
>
> Which is the only resort for the layman, if he doesn't want to spend a year
> or more *learning* the material.
Are you saying that the material might too difficult for the non-engineer or
that it might not be relevant to an amateur license?
> >The material is far more complex than any exam
> >you ever took in amateur radio.
>
> I agree. But it is still a *meaningless test* if I can
> pass the test without learning the material...
Probably about as meaningless as the exams you took to get your license.
Jeffrey Herman
>I think the test was probably *easier* in 1963, because the material was
>much easier.
Material much easier? I suggest you page through your '63 Handbook.
The LMs always advised the reader to use the Handbook a text to help
prepare for one's exam.
Jeff KH6O+
Brian
Show me the statement in the Y2K ARRL license manual where the Handbook is to
be avoided.
W6RCecilA
> Material much easier? I suggest you page through your '63 Handbook.
> The LMs always advised the reader to use the Handbook a text to help
> prepare for one's exam.
Read between the lines, Jeff. The LMs said, "If our answers sometimes
seem to the initiated to be naive or incomplete, rest assured that
they are sufficient for the purpose." Translation: Rote-memorize
everything in the license manual and you will pass the exam. Because
of the existing political climate at the time, the ARRL couldn't
afford such an utterance but their meaning was crystal clear to
anyone with an IQ higher than his/her age. How old are you, Jeff?
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
Aaron Jones
>Are you saying that the material might too difficult for the non-engineer
If a person really knew the material on the Extra test, he should be able to
find employment as (at least) and electronics technician. In most trade
schools like DeVry, it takes from 1 to 2 years to bring a layman up to that
level.
I'm saying that the average guy, who just want's to be a ham, would rather
spend the week memorizing the test, than 2 years at DeVry...
Brian
> Brian <bur...@icss.net> wrote:
> >Jeffrey Herman wrote:
> >> "Aaron Jones" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>I think the test was probably *easier* in 1963, because the material was
> >>>much easier.
>
> >>Material much easier? I suggest you page through your '63 Handbook.
> >>The LMs always advised the reader to use the Handbook a text to help
> >>prepare for one's exam.
>
> >Show me the statement in the Y2K ARRL license manual where the Handbook is to
> >be avoided.
>
> Does the 2000 LM mention the Handbook? My '91 Extra LM makes no mention
> of it; the only outside reference mentioned is the FCC Rule Book and
> code tapes.
>
> His claim was that the material was much easier in 1963. You can get
> an idea of the body of knowledge an amateur could know by perusing
> the '63 Handbook; the material was *not* "much easier" then. The 16-
> page LM was to be supplemented with the 400+ page Handbook. Today's
> LM is self-contained.
Thats not what Ed said. The 16 page manual contained everything you needed to
know to PASS the EXAM,
> Also, an error everyone is making is basing the ease of yesteryears'
> exams on the knowledge they've acquired the past 40 years.
Now that is very true.
> Jeff KH6O+
Brian
Does the FCC want hams to go to DeVry for two years?
I was trained as a meteorologist, and educated as a geographer and
cartographer. I'm installing and programming automated hydro-meteorological
sensors and data collection platforms, and programming the systems and sensors.
They are powered with solar and lead acid batteries. They transmit to the GOES
satellite at around 400 MHz. Kind of technical but not rocket science.
A few days ago I was a know-nothing Tech, according to my detractors. Soon I'll
be the Extra you spoke of above.
Aaron Jones
>Thats not what Ed said. The 16 page manual contained everything
>you needed to know to PASS the EXAM,
Those guys in 1963 must have been just half as smart as the 1949 guys,
because the 1949 manual has 32 pages...
Aaron Jones
>A few days ago I was a know-nothing Tech, according to my detractors.
>Soon I'll be the Extra you spoke of above.
I've been talking of the merits of the *test*,
not the people taking it...
W6RCecilA
> The 16- page LM was to be supplemented with the 400+ page Handbook.
Doubt it, Jeff. Here's what the ARRL said: "If our answers
sometimes seem to the initiated to be naive or incomplete,
rest assured that they are sufficient for the purpose."
That meaning seems pretty clear to me. No other material
required. Memorize the LM Q&A and you will pass the exam.
It worked exactly that way for me in 1951/1952 when you
were how old?
Aaron Jones
>Material much easier? I suggest you page through your '63 Handbook.
The closest I can come is my 1955 handbook that I used through my teenage
years. I don't think it even begins to have the complexity of the 2000
handbook...
Aaron Jones
>Here's what the ARRL said: "If our answers
>sometimes seem to the initiated to be naive or incomplete,
>rest assured that they are sufficient for the purpose."
In my 1949 license manual ARRL said:
"The questions and answers in this booklet are designed to give you all the
knowledge you need to answer correctly the actual examination questions.
But it should be emphasized that the questions we list here are not the
actual questions in the license examination, nor do they correspond question
for question to similar examination items. What they are, however, are
carefully prepared items designed to insure that you have the necessary
knowledge to cope with the actual test queries."
[skip some]
"There may be several questions in the exact exam revolving around one
simple discussion in this manual, but when you understand the subject you
can readily check off the answers to any number of questions on it."
ARRL seems to encourage getting "knowledge" from the manual. It specifically
says that the sample questions don't match the test, in fact one sample
question may cover several test questions. How can that tacitly encourage
no knowledge memorization...
Aaron Jones
>From the perspective of the 1955 Ham, it was as every bit as "complex" as
>the 2K HB is to the "new" Ham.
Do you also believe that the ham rigs of the 50s were every bit as complex
as modern day ham rigs? And the insides of tubes were as hard to understand
as the insides of microchips? And a full wave 5U4 ham power supply was as
easy to understand as today's switching supplies? And a tube VFO was as easy
as a PLL synthesizer? I could go on and on...
Jeffrey Herman
>>>I think the test was probably *easier* in 1963, because the material was
>>>much easier.
>>Material much easier? I suggest you page through your '63 Handbook.
>>The LMs always advised the reader to use the Handbook a text to help
>>prepare for one's exam.
>Show me the statement in the Y2K ARRL license manual where the Handbook is to
>be avoided.
Does the 2000 LM mention the Handbook? My '91 Extra LM makes no mention
of it; the only outside reference mentioned is the FCC Rule Book and
code tapes.
His claim was that the material was much easier in 1963. You can get
an idea of the body of knowledge an amateur could know by perusing
the '63 Handbook; the material was *not* "much easier" then. The 16-
page LM was to be supplemented with the 400+ page Handbook. Today's
LM is self-contained.
Also, an error everyone is making is basing the ease of yesteryears'
exams on the knowledge they've acquired the past 40 years.
Jeff KH6O+
Steve Robeson
>membership!
>From: "Aaron Jones" nom...@nomail.com
>Date: 04/15/2000 11:38 PM Central Daylight Time
>The closest I can come is my 1955 handbook that I used through my teenage
years. I don't think it even begins to have the complexity of the 2000
handbook...<
From the perspective of the 1955 Ham, it was as every bit as "complex" as
the 2K HB is to the "new" Ham.
"Complexity" is relative. Our children's kids will wonder how we managed
to get through these "primitive" times!
73
Steve, K4YZ
Jeffrey Herman
>of the existing political climate at the time, the ARRL couldn't
>afford such an utterance but their meaning was crystal clear to
>anyone with an IQ higher than his/her age. How old are you, Jeff?
Cecil, your replies are usually written in a gentlemanly manner.
Please don't be mean-spirited like Len Anderson.
73, Jeff KH6O+
Jeffrey Herman
>Jeffrey Herman wrote:
>>Brian <bur...@icss.net> wrote:
>>>Jeffrey Herman wrote:
>>>> "Aaron Jones" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote:
>>>>>I think the test was probably *easier* in 1963, because the material was
>>>>>much easier.
>>>>Material much easier? I suggest you page through your '63 Handbook.
>>>>The LMs always advised the reader to use the Handbook a text to help
>>>>prepare for one's exam.
>>>Show me the statement in the Y2K ARRL license manual where the Handbook is to
>>>be avoided.
>>Does the 2000 LM mention the Handbook? My '91 Extra LM makes no mention
>>of it; the only outside reference mentioned is the FCC Rule Book and
>>code tapes.
>>His claim was that the material was much easier in 1963. You can get
>>an idea of the body of knowledge an amateur could know by perusing
>>the '63 Handbook; the material was *not* "much easier" then. The 16-
>>page LM was to be supplemented with the 400+ page Handbook. Today's
>>LM is self-contained.
>Thats not what Ed said.
There is no "Ed" in any of the above. I responded to Aaron, and
you replied to me.
>The 16 page manual contained everything you needed to
>know to PASS the EXAM,
The reason it was 16 pages in length was that one was supposed to
use the 400+ page Handbook as a text in order to LEARN the material.
>>Also, an error everyone is making is basing the ease of yesteryears'
>>exams on the knowledge they've acquired the past 40 years.
>Now that is very true.
We finally agreed on something.
Jeff KH6O+
W6RCecilA
Sorry, it was a rough day spent mostly in the hospital.
Brian
> Brian <bur...@icss.net> wrote:
> >Thats not what Ed said.
>
> There is no "Ed" in any of the above. I responded to Aaron, and
> you replied to me.
So Ed no longe exists because he's not in your thread?
>>Also, an error everyone is making is basing the ease of yesteryears'
> >>exams on the knowledge they've acquired the past 40 years.
>
> >Now that is very true.
>
> We finally agreed on something.
Yes, you copied it out of one of my other posts.
Steve Robeson
>membership!
>From: "Aaron Jones" nom...@nomail.com
>Do you also believe that the ham rigs of the 50s were every bit as complex as
modern day ham rigs?....SNIP
Yes, I do. For a "novice" with nothing more than the "knowledge" of the
license manual and maybe some more self-study, a lot of what was in the 1955 HB
was as much "greek" as some of the digital data is to me in the 2K manual.
Yes, radio gear of the mid-20th century was much easier to muddle thru
than "todays" rigs, but no more so to modern "tinkerers" than we today have.
The Elecraft kit is a case in point. Although there are no SMT devices in
it, it is, none the less, far and away a "modern" rig, all solid state, and in
many ways comparable with many of the commercial rigs on the market today.
Again...it's all relative.
73
Stve, K4YZ
Kim W5TIT
news:8dbbim$1pu$1...@news.hawaii.edu...
> Brian <bur...@icss.net> wrote:
> >Jeffrey Herman wrote:
> >> "Aaron Jones" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>I think the test was probably *easier* in 1963, because the material
was
> >>>much easier.
>
> >>Material much easier? I suggest you page through your '63 Handbook.
> >>The LMs always advised the reader to use the Handbook a text to help
> >>prepare for one's exam.
>
> >Show me the statement in the Y2K ARRL license manual where the Handbook
is to
> >be avoided.
>
> Does the 2000 LM mention the Handbook? My '91 Extra LM makes no mention
> of it; the only outside reference mentioned is the FCC Rule Book and
> code tapes.
>
> His claim was that the material was much easier in 1963. You can get
> an idea of the body of knowledge an amateur could know by perusing
> the '63 Handbook; the material was *not* "much easier" then. The 16-
> page LM was to be supplemented with the 400+ page Handbook. Today's
> LM is self-contained.
>
> exams on the knowledge they've acquired the past 40 years.
>
I don't know about the ease of yesteryears' exams, but I know about the ease
of the current exams (at least to the General level--never looked at
anything above). Memorization is memorization--and doesn't teach a thing.
Those essay-style questions that I saw posted here this week--now THOSE were
some tough questions; and probably would stop me dead in my tracks from
getting a ticket. Is that what we want?
Kim W5TIT
Kim W5TIT
news:38F93D1A...@icss.net...
> Aaron Jones wrote:
> >
> > I'm saying that the average guy, who just want's to be a ham, would
rather
> > spend the week memorizing the test, than 2 years at DeVry...
>
> Does the FCC want hams to go to DeVry for two years?
>
Pay me a salary and I'll expend more energy learning anything that is wanted
of me. Give me a hobby and I am only going to do what is necessary for *me*
to achieve what *I* want from the hobby. It's as simple as that and that is
*not* rocket science. I am the "average ham" described above and, yeah, I
am only going to memorize what I need to know to pass the test...and
memorize is used loosely because that implies I "know" the same material
here six years later. Sorry, I don't.
> I was trained as a meteorologist, and educated as a geographer and
> cartographer. I'm installing and programming automated
hydro-meteorological
> sensors and data collection platforms, and programming the systems and
sensors.
> They are powered with solar and lead acid batteries. They transmit to the
GOES
> satellite at around 400 MHz. Kind of technical but not rocket science.
>
And you probably earn a very nice SALARY for that.
> A few days ago I was a know-nothing Tech, according to my detractors.
Soon I'll
> be the Extra you spoke of above.
>
Kim W5TIT