Would have been Extra sooner
WA8ULX
would have Probably have been an Extra at 4 years old. And Brian and krell
would still be whinnning about how tuff the EXTRA is, and there inability to
pass the test.
Krell
"WA8ULX" <wa8...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021129075754...@mb-cg.aol.com...
If they had the same (l)icense (t)esting they (did) when I was first
licensed, I
would have (p)robably have been an Extra at 4 years old. And Brian and
(K)rell
would still be (whining) about how tuff the EXTRA is, and (their) inability
to
pass the test.
Your writing skills show only that it is possible for any idiot to pass a
test for an amateur radio license.
Brian
This is the part where Jim, Kelley, Steve, and Dave jump in and tell
you that you still couldn't pass the 20wpm code exam, you wouldn't be
an Extra.
All I'm saying is that you should thank NCI for allowing you to ride
their coattails.
Vshah101
grammar should count in formal reports, but reasonable misspelling in an
internet posting is okay. It is hard to maintain spelling in an internet
posting and there should be some allowance. Sometimes typing quickly can cause
incorrect spelling. Incorrect spelling or grammar does not mean the person is
less intelligent. The content of the message is what's important.
From: wa8...@aol.com (WA8ULX)
>If they had the same License Testing they do now when I was first licensed, I
>would have Probably have been an Extra at 4 years old
I could not have passed the Extra at 4 years old because I did not have "Ham"
relatives and did not know about it then. I went to a Hamfest with a coworker
who is a Ham. I have been an Amateur Radio enthusiast and have "Homebrewed" the
same, a while before I even heard of "Ham" Radio. (And, no, I did not come from
CB - not that there's anything wrong with that).
I actually agree that the license test is very easy and a young person can pass
it easily. The Technician test is probably the hardest of the three tests. The
few young people that took the test with me passed the Technician test after a
one-day "review" session, where all the answers to the test was given. The new
members of Ham Radio had nothing to do with the license test and should not be
insulted because they passed this new easier test.
Lack of interest in the "other" potential areas of amateur radio is a greater
problem than the testing. This includes the old timers who are the majority of
Hams. The Hams at the clubs don't seem to show any interest in things other
than operating and antennas. Group projects, radio direction finding, kit
building, designing circuits, using test equipment, troubleshooting, AND
antennas should be included as part of club activities.
I would be willing to take an active role in any such project, but I cant if
there is no interest.
WA8ULX
No lets not I enjoy seeing him do it, at least hes got something to occupy his
time, besides he cant discuss anything about Ham Radio because hes just a
CBplusser.
WA8ULX
>their coattails.
>
All I can say about NCI is thanks for alloying 2 Jerk CBplussers for giving me
250.00
N2EY
(Vshah101) writes:
>To the person that corrects spelling. Let's leave that alone.
Why? An occasional spelling, punctuation or grammatical error is one thing, but
a constant barrage of obvious uncorrected errors indicates the poster just
doesn't care.
>Spelling and
>grammar should count in formal reports, but reasonable misspelling in an
>internet posting is okay. It is hard to maintain spelling in an internet
>posting and there should be some allowance. Sometimes typing quickly can
>cause incorrect spelling.
One word: SPELLCHECKER. There's one built into the AOL software. Why not use
it?
>Incorrect spelling or grammar does not mean the person is
>less intelligent. The content of the message is what's important.
Very true. But when a person doesn't take the time to correct multiple errors,
it means they just don't care.
73 de Jim, N2EY
KØHB
:
: But when a person doesn't take the time to correct multiple errors,
: it means they just don't care.
:
No, it simply means that they don't consider it important. (Which is
different than your anal-retentive/condescending "they just don't care")
Eye halve a spelling chequer. It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue miss steaks eye kin knot sea.
Eye strike a key and type a word, and weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write it shows me strait a weigh.
As soon as a mist ache is maid, it nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite; its rare lea ever wrong.
Eye have run this poem threw it, I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh. My chequer tolled me sew!
With all kind wishes,
de Hans, K0HB
Grand Exhalted Liberator of the Electric Smoke
Krell
By your own twisted definition, I'd have to have a tech-plus license to be a
"CB-plusser" as you call it. I have no such license.
Krell
"N2EY" <n2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021129203716...@mb-mr.aol.com...
Thanks, Jim. It's too bad Babbling Brucey doesn't understand this simple
concept.
WA8ULX
We dont need no stinkin spell checkers
WA8ULX
>it means they just don't care.
>
>73 de Jim, N2EY
>
So true, it also gets krell upset
Mike Coslo
> "N2EY" <n2...@aol.com> wrote
>
> :
> : But when a person doesn't take the time to correct multiple errors,
> : it means they just don't care.
> :
>
> No, it simply means that they don't consider it important. (Which is
> different than your anal-retentive/condescending "they just don't care")
>
>
> Eye halve a spelling chequer. It came with my pea sea
> It plainly marques four my revue miss steaks eye kin knot sea.
> Eye strike a key and type a word, and weight four it two say
> Weather eye am wrong oar write it shows me strait a weigh.
> As soon as a mist ache is maid, it nose bee fore two long
> And eye can put the error rite; its rare lea ever wrong.
> Eye have run this poem threw it, I am shore your pleased two no
> Its letter perfect awl the weigh. My chequer tolled me sew!
And in trying to prove your point Hans, you show exactly what is wrong. I
read the first sentence, figured it out and stopped right there. Its
just too hard to read. Why anyone would post messages a large portion of
intended readers will ignore is beyond me. In hte end, its just a
urinating contest with another poster. If we are going to write in
english, we might as well do it correctly.
Then again, a fellow I worked with once said "I have no respect for
anyone who only knows one way to spell a word."
- Mike KB3EIA -
WA8ULX
>concept.
You still cant figure it out, I dont care, and it also Pisses you off, which
makes it more fun
WA8ULX
>his
>> time, besides he cant discuss anything about Ham Radio because hes just a
>> CBplusser.
>
>By your own twisted definition, I'd have to have a tech-plus license to be a
>"CB-plusser" as you call it. I have no such license.
>
Krell you screwed up there were a whole bunch of mistakes in the above
posting. Come on krell we know you dont know anything about Ham Radio so get
back to work correcting the mistakes. No you have a CBplusser license, accept
it be proud of it, just think you could still be nothing more than a CBer
KØHB
:
: Then again, a fellow I worked with once said "I have no respect for
: anyone who only knows one way to spell a word."
:
Mee tu
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>From: vsha...@aol.com (Vshah101)
>Date: 11/29/02 6:14 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <20021129191422...@mb-cq.aol.com>
>
>To the person that corrects spelling. Let's leave that alone. Spelling and
>grammar should count in formal reports, but reasonable misspelling in an
>internet posting is okay.
The occassional misspelled word will happen...No roblem. However there is
an attitude of malaise about our language and it's applications that is
peermeating society, and a lot of it's due to the "it's the internet...it's OK"
attitude.
It's NOT "OK". The invention of the microprocessor did not sound the
death knell of good grammar.
>It is hard to maintain spelling in an internet
>posting and there should be some allowance.
Why is it hard? Use a spellchecker. If not a spellchecker, just go back
and re-read what you wrote before hitting the "send" key. I have a terrible
habit of transposing the letter "a" with "h" in words like "have", "had", etc.
But 30 seconds of rereading my post ususally catch most of them.
>Sometimes typing quickly can cause
>incorrect spelling.
Then slow down! What's more productive? Trying to type at 60 WPM then
having to go back and correct your errors, or typing at 30 WPM and getting it
right the first time?
>Incorrect spelling or grammar does not mean the person is
>less intelligent. The content of the message is what's important.
Vipul, I would have thought that the lesson you just got taught about
"attention to detail" would have sank in by now.
Yes, the content is important. But making an impact counts more. If you
cannot effecitively express your opinion, what good is it?
>I would be willing to take an active role in any such project, but I cant if
>there is no interest.
There's an old axiom that is well known in the Armed Forces of the United
States, Vipul...it's "Lead, Follow, Or Get Out Of My Way".
You have been given some suggestions on how to go about organizing a
"club" (group, team, whatever you care to call it) of like-minded individuals.
Have you done it? Or are you just waiting for someone else to do it for you?
Are you one of those folks who want's to do "something", but just doesn't
know where to start? Are you more of a "joiner" than a "leader"...?!?!
In the word's of a famous sports' clothing retailer..."Just Do It".
73
Steve, K4YZ
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>Date: 11/29/02 8:30 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <8pVF9.8566$ta5.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>No, it simply means that they don't consider it important. (Which is
>different than your anal-retentive/condescending "they just don't care")
What's the difference, Hans? If someone doesn't take the time to ensure
that thier post is as clear and effective as possible, then it's apparent to me
that they just don't care.
There's NO difference between "don't care" and "not important".
>Eye halve a spelling chequer.
Obviously you're sitting on it.
73
Steve, K4YZ
Krell
You've given me a better idea than correcting your mistakes. I'll just
cross-post the best of your gems to rec.radio.cb so that the people you've
been insulting can see how much of a moron you are.
WA8ULX
No please dont stop
W5TIT - Kim
news:20021129191422...@mb-cq.aol.com...
> To the person that corrects spelling. Let's leave that alone. Spelling and
> grammar should count in formal reports, but reasonable misspelling in an
> internet posting is okay.
>
*Laughing hysterically* "Reasonable" would be the operative word, there.
>
> It is hard to maintain spelling in an internet
> posting and there should be some allowance. Sometimes typing quickly can
cause
> incorrect spelling.
>
The greatest arena in the world for someone who is a bad speller--even not
so good at sentence structure--is a computer. All one need do is remember
to spell check and use a grammar checker. Waddles doesn't even take that
step--and his transgression against the language of American English are
many and constant: not just casual. I doubt Waddles can think fast...let
alone type fast. Let alone that he does nothing but act like a small child
would in an argument where someone's taken away his crayon.
>
> Incorrect spelling or grammar does not mean the person is
> less intelligent. The content of the message is what's important.
>
You're right. The problem is when the communication is so incoherrent that
one cannot decipher what the message really is...
Kim W5TIT
W5TIT - Kim
news:8pVF9.8566$ta5.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Your grammar checker would have really had a problem... ;)
Kim W5TIT
KØHB
K4YZ wrote
: The occassional misspelled word will happen...No roblem. However
there is
: an attitude of malaise about our language and it's applications that is
: peermeating society, and a lot of it's due to the "it's the
internet...it's OK"
: attitude.
:
: It's NOT "OK". The invention of the microprocessor did not sound the
: death knell of good grammar.
W5TIT wrote
: The greatest arena in the world for someone who is a bad speller--even
: not so good at sentence structure--is a computer. All one need do is
: remember to spell check and use a grammar checker.
N2EY wrote
: But when a person doesn't take the time to correct multiple errors,
: it means they just don't care.
Why don't you guys do a web search for "Spelling Kop Badge" vendors. When
you find one that you like, hop on over and flash it on
"alt.spelling.grammar.schoolmarm.corrections".
With all kind wishes,
Hans, K0HB
Alun Palmer
Alun Palmer
Vshah101
>would have Probably have been an Extra at 4 years old.
Yea, only a 4 year old can master Morse Code. Tapping key is close to the toys
they play with.
Adults have trouble with it.
WA8ULX
Doesnt say much for you then does it
JJ
Steve Robeson K4YZ wrote:
>
> >Incorrect spelling or grammar does not mean the person is
> >less intelligent. The content of the message is what's important.
Anyone who can't spell a word more than one way simply has no
imigenation.
KØHB
: Yea, only a 4 year old can master Morse Code. Tapping key is close to the
toys
: they play with.
: Adults have trouble with it.
Vshah,
I have no problem with the fact that you don't use Morse code. But you make
yourself look like a 3rd grader when you suggest that others who do enjoy
using it are not adult.
Just thought you'd like to know.
ôżô 73, de Hans, K0HB
--
SOC # 291
FISTS # 7419
NCI # 4304
WA8ULX
>yourself look like a 3rd grader when you suggest that others who do enjoy
>using it are not adult.
>
>Just thought you'd like to know.
He knows it, its his only way to try and Justify his lack of ability to learn a
basic skill.
WA8ULX
N2EY
(Vshah101) writes:
>Yea, only a 4 year old can master Morse Code.
Not true at all.
>Tapping key is close to the toys they play with.
The only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.
>Adults have trouble with it.
Not this adult. Nor hundreds of thousands of others.
Sounds like you're not only against the code test, Vipul, but also against the
code itself.
N2EY
Larry Roll K3LT
>grammar should count in formal reports, but reasonable misspelling in an
>internet posting is okay.
I consider myself to be a person of average abilities, but seem to have little
or no difficulty in achieving near perfect spelling and grammar while posting
to internet newsgroups. For the record, so do you. I think part of the reason
why we're losing our culture is because there are too many people willing to
"let go" on the simple, but necessary, details of a civilized society -- such
as showing respect for those who read your words.
>It is hard to maintain spelling in an internet
>posting and there should be some allowance. Sometimes typing quickly can
>cause
>incorrect spelling. Incorrect spelling or grammar does not mean the person is
>less intelligent. The content of the message is what's important.
To the contrary, I believe the content of the message gets lost when easily
avoided distractions, such as incorrect spelling, punctuation and grammar cause
interference in the mind of the reader.
73 de Larry, K3LT
Larry Roll K3LT
>>less intelligent. The content of the message is what's important.
I believe that incorrect spelling and grammar reflects directly on the poster's
intelligence -- or, more to the point, the lack thereof.
>
>Very true. But when a person doesn't take the time to correct multiple
>errors,
>it means they just don't care.
>
>73 de Jim, N2EY
Precisely. It also means they have no respect for their reader, and thus do
not
deserve the reader's attention. Proper spelling, punctuation, and grammar make
the difference in whether or not the author is perceived as a boor, or as an
educated and intelligent person, whose words should be taken seriously.
73 de Larry, K3LT
Larry Roll K3LT
: But when a person doesn't take the time to correct multiple errors,
: it means they just don't care.
No, it simply means that they don't consider it important. (Which is
different than your anal-retentive/condescending "they just don't care")
Hansl:
Jim is an educated and intelligent person, who is qualified to make such
judgments as "people who disregard proper spelling and grammar
just don't care." What I find anal-retentive/condescending is your
criticism of someone who is trying to uphold the accepted language
standards once universally understood and followed by every high-
school graduate, but distressingly absent even from some of today's
university students.
73 de Larry, K3LT
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>Message-id: <20021130152927...@mb-cv.aol.com>
Vipul, where do you come up with this?
I recently proctored a VE session where six folks tested for Morse Code,
five of whom passed. None was under 21 years of age.
Also, it is considered proper "netiquette" to cite the author of posts
that you are quoting and subsequently "responding" to. I know that this has
been addressed to you before. Is there a reason you choose to show disrespect
to those whom you quote?
Steve, K4YZ
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>Date: 11/30/02 12:59 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <3DE90A9E...@mailcity.net>
>Anyone who can't spell a word more than one way simply has no
>imigenation.
Phurr szcurr.
73
Steve, K4YZ
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>Date: 11/30/02 10:34 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <20021130233427...@mb-ch.aol.com>
>I think part of the reason
>why we're losing our culture is because there are too many people willing to
>"let go" on the simple, but necessary, details of a civilized society -- such
>as showing respect for those who read your words.
Bravo. Well said.
>>It is hard to maintain spelling in an internet
>>posting and there should be some allowance. Sometimes typing quickly can
>>cause
>>incorrect spelling. Incorrect spelling or grammar does not mean the person
>is
>>less intelligent. The content of the message is what's important.
>
>To the contrary, I believe the content of the message gets lost when easily
>avoided distractions, such as incorrect spelling, punctuation and grammar
>cause
>interference in the mind of the reader.
And again. Failing to take a minute to recheck an item for accuracy is
nothing but laziness. And when one consider's wen now have the technology to
even do THAT for us, it's an absolute insult.
73
Steve, K4YZ
Brian
> wa8...@aol.com (WA8ULX) wrote in message news:<20021129075754...@mb-cg.aol.com>...
> > If they had the same License Testing they do now when I was first licensed, I
> > would still be whinnning about how tuff the EXTRA is, and there inability to
> > pass the test.
>
> This is the part where Jim, Kelley, Steve, and Dave jump in and tell
> you that you still couldn't pass the 20wpm code exam, you wouldn't be
> an Extra.
Welp, I guess not. Makes me wonder How I can pass a written Extra
exam and it is subject to all kinds of petty criticism, but Bruce says
he could have done it (w/o the 20WPM code test) and you don't hear a
peep from the peanut gallery.
WA8ULX
>exam and it is subject to all kinds of petty criticism
If you could pass it you would already be an Extra. And without the 20,and
without the 13, and in your case without the 5, you still cant pass it. I know
I know you passed the written for the Extra. Lets see what QRZ says for Bryan,
Oh is says No Extra for brian, but it does say your a CBplusser. Brian you had
better run back to NCI and cry to them, maybe they can get you some sort of
Waiver.
KØHB
:
: Hansl:
:
: Jim is an educated and intelligent person, who is qualified to make such
: judgments as "people who disregard proper spelling and grammar
: just don't care." What I find anal-retentive/condescending is your
: criticism of someone who is trying to uphold the accepted language
: standards once universally understood and followed by every high-
: school graduate, but distressingly absent even from some of today's
: university students.
:
: 73 de Larry, K3LT
What's your badge number?
73, Hansl
Mike Coslo
>>Subject: Re: Would have been Extra sooner
>>From: vsha...@aol.com (Vshah101)
>>Date: 11/30/02 2:29 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: <20021130152927...@mb-cv.aol.com>
>>
>
>>>If they had the same License Testing they do now when I was first licensed,
>>>
>>I
>>
>>>would have Probably have been an Extra at 4 years old.
>>>
>>Yea, only a 4 year old can master Morse Code. Tapping key is close to the
>>toys
>>they play with.
>>Adults have trouble with it.
>>
>
> Vipul, where do you come up with this?
>
> I recently proctored a VE session where six folks tested for Morse Code,
> five of whom passed. None was under 21 years of age.
I learned Morse code at the ripe old age of 46.
- Mike KB3EIA -
Dick Carroll
Brian wrote:
By now most people would have learned that it's all in the expectactions, both those of your "peanut
gallery" and your own. It sure doesn't surprise anyone I know that it flew right over your head.
J1aguiar
for him. I have yet to see any 4 year old who could in all honesty pass a ham
license.
WA8ULX
>for him. I have yet to see any 4 year old who could in all honesty pass a ham
>license.
>
That explains why Brian hasnt passed the Extra, he cant find anyone to take it
for him.
JJ
Oh I dunno, Brucie passed it, so any four year old should be able
to with flying colors. Still claiming you 'busted' some ham ulx?
WA8ULX
>to with flying colors. Still claiming you 'busted' some ham ulx?
>
Well that just goes to show you CBplussers are not as sharp as a 4 Year old..
Busted more than 1.
JJ
WA8ULX wrote:
>
> >so any four year old should be able
> >to with flying colors. Still claiming you 'busted' some ham ulx?
> Busted more than 1.
Yea right, I trust we will see these busts in the FCC enforcement
log brucie?
WA8ULX
>log brucie?
Who said anything about the FCC, I never said I busted anybody for the FCC, you
just thought that up in your little mind, no wonder your just a CBplusser
KØHB
the Net Kop rose up in self-righteous indignations and wrote:
: Is there a reason you choose to show disrespect
: to those whom you quote?
Disrespect? Really? Ain't it just awful? "Tut, tut, tut" says the Church
Lady.
What's your badge number?
ô¿ô 73, de Hans, K0HB
--
Help support youth involved in Amateur Radio.
http://www.mnyarc.org
http://www.k0bsa.org
N2EY
(J1aguiar) writes:
The fact that you haven't seen it doesn't mean it's impossible. I've never seen
a human-powered aircraft actually fly, but I know it's possible.
Child prodigies do some amazing things. Passing the tests doesn't mean that all
of the material is thoroughly understood, just that the person taking the test
got at least 74% of the multiple-choices correct.
Accusing the VECs of falsifying test results is pretty serious stuff, btw. Do
you have any solid evidence?
73 de Jim, N2EY
Dick Carroll
Steve Robeson K4YZ wrote:
>Failing to take a minute to recheck an item for accuracy is
> nothing but laziness. And when one consider's wen now have the technology to
> even do THAT for us, it's an absolute insult.
Uhhhhhh......OOPS???
Brian
You are my peanut gallery.
Now tell Bruce how its possible for him to have gotten an Extra when
he was 4 years old by takeing the written exam only.
I gotta see this.
WA8ULX
>he was 4 years old by takeing the written exam only.
>
>I gotta see this.
Look Dumb Ass, what I say was if todays standards of testing were in place
then. In other words so you can understand, that would mean a 5WPM Test and
todays dumb down give away written. No wonder you cant pass the EXTRA.
KB9TMP
"J1aguiar" <j1ag...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021201133916...@mb-mc.aol.com...
Nice to see you back J1aguiar!
JJ
So you go around illegally busting hams?
WA8ULX
>
I dont illegally bust anyone.
JJ
WA8ULX wrote:
>
> >So you go around illegally busting hams?
> >
>
> I dont illegally bust anyone.
Just by what authority do you have to 'bust' any ham?
WA8ULX
>
Its a secret power
Dick Carroll
WA8ULX wrote:
One does wonder how he gets past a traffic signal.
Brian
Bruce, take a deep breath. If I can't say I could pass the Extra exam
when there was a 20wpm Morse code exam in-place, you can't either.
That's how it works, unless you embrace the PCTA Double Standard.
Was there a 20wpm Morse code exam in-place when you were 4 years old?
Then too bad for you.
Len Over 21
writes:
VEC test sessions are NOT monitored by anyone else DURING
testing. All that is monitored is the FCC scanning over test
RESULTS sent to them by the VEC teams.
Now go back to the famous/infamous ARRL news page that
showed two darling six-year-olds who were reported to have
"passed" written tests for Novice and Technician, respectively.
Now let any, repeat ANY, first-grade teacher look at the
written exam questions and decide for themselves whether
SIX YEAR OLDS can read those questions well enough to
answer even 70 percent of them. Just to READ them and
be able to choose any answer.
If you say "yes they can, because...[for any reason]" then
you MUST acknowledge that (1) You don't have slightest
familiarity with six-year-olds' reading/writing comprehension;
or (2) You think anything labeled/stamped/categorized as
"ham radio material" is somehow "special" over and above
any other subject matter; or (3) Any child who is "involved" in
any way with amateur radio is somehow a "gifted child" or a
"child prodigy." All of them are nonsense, ridiculous because
of a way-too-strong identification (beyond rationality) with
amateur radio.
ARRL was being over-indulgent in that bit of "news" fluff and
the VEC group who did the alleged testing thought it all
cutesy-poo from a kindly grandfatherly feeling to kiddies
(picture included one of the VEC proctors, smiling and no
doubt feeling "proud" over the kiddies' "accomplishments."
I accuse ARRL of very mild fraud on the part of condoning such
such things and hypocrisy on the implication of passing a ham
written exam as a sort of academic certificate. In the latter, if
barely-able-to-read-and-write six-year-olds can read and mark
with even reasonable comprehension, then the written exam is
a SHAM...even under pre-restructuring standards.
No MORE evidence is needed...the evidence has already been
presented although sugar-coated with parental pride and the
usual propaganda of ARRL being all good things to US amateur
radio and never making mistakes or illegalities.
On the charge of deliberate FALSIFICATION for whatever reason,
ARRL VEC is GUILTY.
Brian
I'll bet Bruce has a CDL. Maybe Dixie, too.
Mike Coslo
Len Over 21 wrote:
> In article <20021201183714...@mb-fz.aol.com>,
> n2...@aol.com (N2EY) writes:
>
>
>> In article <20021201133916...@mb-mc.aol.com>,
>> j1ag...@aol.com (J1aguiar) writes:
>
>
>
>> Accusing the VECs of falsifying test results is pretty serious
>> stuff, btw. Do you have any solid evidence?
>
>
> VEC test sessions are NOT monitored by anyone else DURING testing.
> All that is monitored is the FCC scanning over test RESULTS sent to
> them by the VEC teams.
>
> Now go back to the famous/infamous ARRL news page that showed two
> darling six-year-olds who were reported to have "passed" written
> tests for Novice and Technician, respectively. Now let any, repeat
> ANY, first-grade teacher look at the written exam questions and
> decide for themselves whether SIX YEAR OLDS can read those questions
> well enough to answer even 70 percent of them. Just to READ them and
> be able to choose any answer.
There's a new one. In this months QST, (IIRC) there is a picture of a
young lady holding something in her hand. The story goes on about how
immediately after passing her test, she pulled one of her baby teeth out.
Cute? I guess so. What's the point? I think that this kind of stuff is
a concession to the people who think and proclaim that "We *have* to get
the *children* involved in amateur radio!"
I think this eventually does a disservice to the ARS. Is there some
sort of contest to see who produces the youngest Ham?
And you point out how difficult it would be for a first grader to read
and comprehend the written tests. True enough
Heres a sample question from the Technician pool, pulled up on one of
the radio test web pages:
In the far field, as the distance from the source increases, how does
power density vary?
A. The power density is proportional to the square of the distance
B. The power density is proportional to the square root of the distance
C. The power density is proportional to the inverse square of the distance
D. The power density is proportional to the inverse cube of the distance
Not even taking into account comprehension of the question and possible
answers, (I want to hear a 6YO person explain proportional and square
root and inverse and cube) what person in that age group could read
those words at all?
There may not be prompting, but I would be very surprised if there wasn't.
- Mike KB3EIA -
KØHB
:
: Not even taking into account comprehension of the question and possible
: answers, (I want to hear a 6YO person explain proportional and square
: root and inverse and cube) what person in that age group could read
: those words at all?
:
Maybe they got that question wrong. Sunuvagun!
With all kind wishes,
de Hans, K0HB
--
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn
something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser
than before. He is full of murderous resentment
of people who are ignorant without having come
by their ignorance the hard way." -- Bokonon
KØHB
"Len Over 21" <leno...@aol.com> wrote
:
: On the charge of deliberate FALSIFICATION for whatever reason,
: ARRL VEC is GUILTY.
:
"Sometimes the pool-pah* exceeds the power of humans to comment."
With all kind wishes,
de Hans, K0HB
--
*pool-pah: Shit storm
Dick Carroll
Mike Coslo wrote:
Mike, it's much simpler than that. If one can recognize a sentence that happens to be
the answer to a question that you can match up with it -all given in the question
pool in advance- it doesn't matter a whit whether or not you can even pronounce the
words, much less understand what they mean. I don't doubt at all the young lady passed
the test fairly. Kids are really good at memory exercises such as that.
No doubt an adult was working with her and prompting her in the study sessions.
Dick
Brian
Which is why I say that Bruce's claim is not believable: Passed Extra
on a lark, without studying, without any lucky guessing, scored 100%,
in 8 minutes, reading every question, did the math in his head, and
took $250 from a couple of "CB-Plussers." Not hardly.
I don't know what level he reads at, but he writes at 3rd grade level,
except for the profanity and sex inuendo.
N2EY
>In this months QST, (IIRC) there is a picture of a
>young lady holding something in her hand. The story goes on about how
>immediately after passing her test, she pulled one of her baby teeth out.
>
> Cute? I guess so. What's the point? I think that this kind of stuff is
>a concession to the people who think and proclaim that "We *have* to get
>the *children* involved in amateur radio!"
Not really. Children lose their baby teeth over a period of years. I know 9
year olds who still have some of their "baby" teeth. The girl in the picture
could be 10, for all we know.
Some children are interested in radio at a very young age. I was interested in
electricity and radio as far back as I can remember. Is that somehow wrong?
> I think this eventually does a disservice to the ARS. Is there some
>sort of contest to see who produces the youngest Ham?
Nope. Neither has there ever been an age limit. Nor has the licensing of young
children EVER been shown to be a problem.
>
> And you point out how difficult it would be for a first grader to read
>and comprehend the written tests. True enough
There is NO, repeat NO, requirement that a person taking the test actually
comprehend it. All they have to do is get enough right answers and they get a
license. Been that way for at least 40 years (FCC went all-multiple-choice in
the ham written exams about 1961).
It's true that most firstgraders/six-year-olds (the two are not synonymous)
could not even read most of the written test. But there are obviously SOME
six-year olds who can read enough of it to pass. And that's all that is
required, according to the FCC.
>
> Heres a sample question from the Technician pool, pulled up on one of
>the radio test web pages:
>
>In the far field, as the distance from the source increases, how does
>power density vary?
>A. The power density is proportional to the square of the distance
>B. The power density is proportional to the square root of the distance
>C. The power density is proportional to the inverse square of the distance
>D. The power density is proportional to the inverse cube of the distance
>
> Not even taking into account comprehension of the question and possible
>answers, (I want to hear a 6YO person explain proportional and square
>root and inverse and cube) what person in that age group could read
>those words at all?
Can you or anyone guarantee that NO six year old could read the above?
Even if you could, what if that question was not on that particular ham's test?
Or if it was, the ham could have gotten it wrong and still passed on other
questions, as K0HB points out.
Look at the question pool in its entirety, not just one sample. Also, even a
pure random guess has a 25% chance of being right. All that's needed are enough
right answers, and a license is granted by FCC. If there is something wrong
with that system, it's FCC's fault, not the fault of those who pass the tests.
None of it is not proof of any wrongdoing.
>
> There may not be prompting, but I would be very surprised if there
wasn't.
What proof do you or anyone else have of any wrongdoing?
To accuse a VEC of wrongdoing without any evidence other than "I don't believe
it" is simply illogical. I have known children who learned to read before they
were 4 years old. Did they fully comprehend what they read? Of course not! But
they could read, nonetheless. And the developmental accomplishments in the 2
years between 4 and 6 are enormous.
I have seen children 3 years old walk up to a computer, turn it on, enter their
password, put in a CD ROM, enter various commands and start playing a game -
completely unassisted. Do they fully understand the process? Of course not! Can
ALL 3 year olds learn to do the same thing? Of course not! But the ones I saw
understand enough to get the result they want.
Perhaps some people (not you, Mike) are just jealous of others'
accomplishments....
73 de Jim, N2EY
WA8ULX
>on a lark, without studying, without any lucky guessing, scored 100%,
>in 8 minutes, reading every question, did the math in his head, and
>took $250 from a couple of "CB-Plussers." Not hardly.
You dont have to believe it Brian, it doesnt matter what you believe, facts
are facts and you cant handle it. I think the only reason you dont believe it
is because your to stupid to pass it.
WA8ULX
>comprehend it. All they have to do is get enough right answers and they get a
>license.
Exactly ,and thats what makes the present written, and the whole testing thing
a joke.
Vshah101
>> Heres a sample question from the Technician pool, pulled up on one of
>>the radio test web pages:
>>
>>In the far field, as the distance from the source increases, how does
>>power density vary?
>>A. The power density is proportional to the square of the distance
>>B. The power density is proportional to the square root of the distance
>>C. The power density is proportional to the inverse square of the distance
>>D. The power density is proportional to the inverse cube of the distance
Keeping in mind, I did not see the answer, I will take a risk and (educated)
guess C - proportional to inverse square of the distance. Correct me if i'm
wrong.
KØHB
:
: Exactly ,and thats what makes the present written, and the whole testing
thing
: a joke.
:
Brian
So now you have facts? All I've heard were unsubstantiated and unbelievable boasts.
You can present your facts at any time. Like now.
N2EY
(WA8ULX) writes:
The written tests went all-multiple-choice 40 years ago
Dick Bash published his books about 30 years ago
The Q&A pools became public almost 20 years ago
If it's so bad, what are you doing to fix it?
N2EY
WA8ULX
>
>N2EY
>
Nothing, could care less at this point, if the rest of Ham radio is happy with
the continuing downward spiral then fine.
Dick Carroll
N2EY wrote:
In thinking about it over a pretty long period of time including lots of VE
time, the conclusion I've reached goes something like this...
What the easy tests have done is to have brought into ham radio a LOT of people
who wouldn't have came under any circumstances if not for the VE system and the
prepublished question pools. That is a good thing, but has a few peripheral
effects which can and maybe must be considered to be negatives. One of those
effects is that there can therefore exist a pool of licensed hams who really
don't care much about ham radio nor about much of anything that is actually a
part of it. It was all a near-freebie, to they took it just to be getting
something that many consider of value for near-nothing.
Many seem to not realize that fact until they had obtained one of the easy
licenses -some still don't- and now some don't really feel like abandoning it in
total, so what do they do? POST DRIVEL TO RRAP! It's the sum total of their
amateur radio activity.
Some of this very same category of persons never even bothered to obtain a
license but hang out on ham radio newsgroups and post anyway. You find them to be
soulmates with those of the same group who did initially get a license but seem
to have never "got around" to doing anything constructive with it, or anything at
all.
Some only wanted it for the notoriety of a vanity callsign, such as W5SEX or sum
such.
Bottom line, the VE system and the question pools are probably a (GASP!)
"good thing" in Martha Stewart vernacular, in that it does offer a route into the
hobby that makes it much less of an ordeal to accomplish, thus more attractive to
a busy generation of young and older adults, not to mention kids who have loaded
schedules that would have been unthinkable in earlier generations.
The negative effects of the offshoots and the chaff which falls along the way is
mostly observable on rrap and a few other such limplimbed newsgroups. You don't
see a lot of it on the air, save a few outlaw groups on their chosen turf. You
don't see *any* of it on the CW/data portions of the bands.
Sort of another version of those who "will", do. For those who "won't", it
really doesn't effectively matter. They just fall by the wayside and are covered
up by the sands of time and their own fallout.
Mike Coslo
> "Mike Coslo" <mj...@psu.edu> wrote
>
> :
> : Not even taking into account comprehension of the question and possible
> : answers, (I want to hear a 6YO person explain proportional and square
> : root and inverse and cube) what person in that age group could read
> : those words at all?
> :
>
> Maybe they got that question wrong. Sunuvagun!
I was waiting for someone to bring that up. True enough, the kid could
possibly get that one wrong and still pass. But there are enough
questions along those lines that the kids could get lots of them wrong -
to the point of not passing the test.
My point is that the kids probably aren't comprehending the test, so
something else is likely helping them get the ticket. Although for the
general and Extra, I contend that it would be harder to memorize the
tests than to just learn them, it is probably possible to memorize the
Technician tests.
And before anyone points out the exceptions of genius, I am referring
to normal kids.
- Mike KB3EIA -
Mike Coslo
Brian wrote:
> Mike Coslo <mj...@psu.edu> wrote in message news:<3DEBB101...@psu.edu>...
<some snippage>
>>
>> There may not be prompting, but I would be very surprised if there wasn't.
>>
>> - Mike KB3EIA -
>
>
> Which is why I say that Bruce's claim is not believable: Passed Extra
> on a lark, without studying, without any lucky guessing, scored 100%,
> in 8 minutes, reading every question, did the math in his head, and
> took $250 from a couple of "CB-Plussers." Not hardly.
>
> I don't know what level he reads at, but he writes at 3rd grade level,
> except for the profanity and sex inuendo.
Agreed. I didn't time myself on the Extra test, but I think that it
would be difficult to get it finished in 8 minutes if I had the answers
in front of me.
And forget memorization. Two things work against that. The numbers of
questions in the question pool and that the multiple guess answers are
mixed up, that is not in the same order as in the pool.
- Mike KB3EIA -
WA8ULX
>general and Extra, I contend that it would be harder to memorize the
>tests than to just learn them, it is probably possible to memorize the
>Technician tests.
You are kidding right, ask TIT she will admit to it. Now Brian he isnt smart
enough to memorize the Info for the EXTRA
>so
>something else is likely helping them get the ticket.
Now in Brians case thats whats holding him up from getting the EXTRA.
>My point is that the kids probably aren't comprehending the test,
Kids, BS if 5% of the new hams comprehend anything it would be a miracle.
Why do you people want to try and pretend that the present written test means
anything? It doesnt, its a JOKE.
WA8ULX
>would be difficult to get it finished in 8 minutes if I had the answers
>in front of me.
Then its apparent you are a very slow person
>And forget memorization. Two things work against that. The numbers of
>questions in the question pool and that the multiple guess answers are
>mixed up, that is not in the same order as in the pool.
>
>
> - Mike KB3EIA -
Get real
Mike Coslo
N2EY wrote:
> In article <3DEBB101...@psu.edu>, Mike Coslo <mj...@psu.edu> writes:
>
>
>>In this months QST, (IIRC) there is a picture of a
>>young lady holding something in her hand. The story goes on about how
>>immediately after passing her test, she pulled one of her baby teeth out.
>>
>> Cute? I guess so. What's the point? I think that this kind of stuff is
>
>
>>a concession to the people who think and proclaim that "We *have* to get
>>the *children* involved in amateur radio!"
>
>
> Not really. Children lose their baby teeth over a period of years. I know 9
> year olds who still have some of their "baby" teeth. The girl in the picture
> could be 10, for all we know.
Well, certainly didn't look it.
> Some children are interested in radio at a very young age. I was interested in
> electricity and radio as far back as I can remember. Is that somehow wrong?
Heavens no! I was ripping things apart and getting in trouble for it at
a very early age. Fortunately my Grandfather, who worked at Bendix, was
wise enough to get me a power supply and send a steady stream of old car
radios that couldn't pass QC to keep me (mostly) occupied.
>> I think this eventually does a disservice to the ARS. Is there some
>>sort of contest to see who produces the youngest Ham?
>
> Nope. Neither has there ever been an age limit. Nor has the licensing of young
> children EVER been shown to be a problem.
I'm not against kids having licenses. But I don't support them having
licenses if they don't comprehend what they should know.
>> And you point out how difficult it would be for a first grader to read
>>and comprehend the written tests. True enough
>
>
> There is NO, repeat NO, requirement that a person taking the test actually
> comprehend it. All they have to do is get enough right answers and they get a
> license. Been that way for at least 40 years (FCC went all-multiple-choice in
> the ham written exams about 1961).
Well, there should be enough comprehension for at least basic safety.
What a great thing it would be (not) if the 6yo kid passes the test
while not comprehending anything about rf safety. There are plenty of
ways then to get in trouble.
*Most* adults can figure out at least that there can be some danger
from even a HT, if only from the rf safety questions.
> It's true that most firstgraders/six-year-olds (the two are not synonymous)
> could not even read most of the written test. But there are obviously SOME
> six-year olds who can read enough of it to pass. And that's all that is
> required, according to the FCC.
True, there are some. I wonder how precocious these kids are? But I'm
referring to normal kids, not genii.
>> Heres a sample question from the Technician pool, pulled up on one of
>>the radio test web pages:
>>
>>In the far field, as the distance from the source increases, how does
>>power density vary?
>>A. The power density is proportional to the square of the distance
>>B. The power density is proportional to the square root of the distance
>>C. The power density is proportional to the inverse square of the distance
>>D. The power density is proportional to the inverse cube of the distance
>>
>> Not even taking into account comprehension of the question and possible
>
>
>>answers, (I want to hear a 6YO person explain proportional and square
>>root and inverse and cube) what person in that age group could read
>>those words at all?
>
>
> Can you or anyone guarantee that NO six year old could read the above?
See above.
>> There may not be prompting, but I would be very surprised if there
>
> wasn't.
>
> What proof do you or anyone else have of any wrongdoing?
None at all, just conjecture. Also being around kids for the past 18
years makes me skeptical.
> To accuse a VEC of wrongdoing without any evidence other than "I don't believe
> it" is simply illogical. I have known children who learned to read before they
> were 4 years old. Did they fully comprehend what they read? Of course not! But
> they could read, nonetheless. And the developmental accomplishments in the 2
> years between 4 and 6 are enormous.
No accusations here, Jim. I'm not even sure that the VE or parent
"prompting" the child is a violation of anything. After all, the VE's
are required to take applicant's handicaps into account, and there may
be a determination of the persons age/reading comprehension ability as a
"handicap". But if kids are passing without actually knowing anything,
then it is just *WRONG*. If my son had wanted to take the Tech test, as
a youg child, I would make darn sure that he knew the material.
- Mike KB3EIA -
W5TIT - Kim
Mike: memorization is how I passed the tests. Cross out, leave out,
whatever, all wrong answers. Read the questions with the correct answers.
Do that for several weeks and a test can be passed. Some of the material is
retained, sure, but not a lot of it.
HOWEVER...I am not sure a kid could do it. Don't know.
Kim W5TIT
W5TIT - Kim
Whoops...I also forgot to mention that even though someone can memorize the
question/answer pool, it doesn't mean they will be a bad amateur. Bad
person=bad amateur. Good testing doesn't mean it will make a good amateur.
Kim W5TIT
TLB
There's no doubt that there are a lot of people upset with the current testing
scheme. It's so pathically easy, that I remember a story in QST, prior to VE
testing, in which a 12-year-old walked into an FCC field office with no
license, and walked out an Extra. There is, however, one thing that everyone is
overlooking, and that is the fact that a license is only an entry level test.
It, by no means, indicates that one is an expert in the field of radio
electronics. Sure, the license will get you on the air, but the learning
should, I would hope, continue even after the testing is done. This applies not
only to amateur radio, but to any field of study.
In a sense, this is how I became discouraged with amateur radio. It seemed that
the hams I met were only concerned with working DX or the next contest that
came around. They assumed, incorrectly, that I wanted the same thing. I asked
about various antennas or transceivers, and the response would be, "That
antenna won't do you no good in a contest." (Personally, I'm bored after ten
minutes of working any contest.) Working DX today is a joke with the DX packet
clusters. If your station set-up is good enough, it's like shooting fish in a
barrel. The bottom line is that no ham I met wanted to grow beyond their own
egos.
I should point out that my original interest in amateur radio was far from
technical. I am not a technically-inclined person. I was drawn to it because I
thought the ability to talk around the world and learn about different people
from different cultures was exciting, and amateur radio looked like a great way
to do this. This notion was quickly put out of my head the first time I worked
DX station - you don't chitchat. You exchange callsign and signal report, let
the next guy work the station. I felt this to be boring and impersonal.
Tom - N8ECW
KØHB
: If my son had wanted to take the Tech test, as
: a youg child, I would make darn sure that he knew the material.
Here's a BFO* for you..... perhaps, in fact most likely, the parents of the
children in question did exactly the same thing (made darn sure that they
knew the material).
Sunuvagun!
73, de Hans, K0HB
--
Most Reverend Sniffer of the Fumes of Solder
*BFO: Blinding Flash of the Obvious
WA8ULX
>licenses if they don't comprehend what they should know.
You just got rid of most NEW HAMS
>*Most* adults can figure out at least that there can be some danger
>from even a HT, if only from the rf safety questions.
I would be surprised if any of the CBplussers had any Idea.
>After all, the VE's
>are required to take applicant's handicaps into account, and there may
>be a determination of the persons age/reading comprehension ability as a
Thats how Brian and TIT got theres
>But if kids are passing without actually knowing anything,
>then it is just *WRONG*.
A hate to give you the Bad News, but not just kids, most new CBplussers dont
have a CLUE
WA8ULX
>whatever, all wrong answers. Read the questions with the correct answers.
>Do that for several weeks and a test can be passed. Some of the material is
>retained, sure, but not a lot of it.
You wont believe this KIM, but, thank you for telling the truth. Maybe some of
the other CBplussers will finally realize the Written is a JOKE
WA8ULX
>question/answer pool, it doesn't mean they will be a bad amateur.
WELL, since we realize the written doesnt solve anything, why keep it?
WA8ULX
>DX station - you don't chitchat. You exchange callsign and signal report, let
>
>the next guy work the station. I felt this to be boring and impersonal.
>
>Tom - N8ECW
Your so correct, I hardly ever get on HF, most contacts are your 59 QSL via
the Bureau, yea right, you can count on not getting a card from me.
N2EY
> : But when a person doesn't take the time to correct multiple errors,
> : it means they just don't care.
> :
>
> No, it simply means that they don't consider it important. (Which is
> different than your anal-retentive/condescending "they just don't care")
Well, there you have it.
>
> Hansl:
>
> Jim is an educated and intelligent person, who is qualified to make such
> judgments as "people who disregard proper spelling and grammar
> just don't care."
Thanks, Larry.
Educated? That just means I went to school and got some degrees.
Intelligent is in the mind of the beholder.
I don;t know if those things make me qualified to make a judgement or
not. Obviously Hans sees himself as qualified to make similar
judgements. Which is exactly his point, of course.
> What I find anal-retentive/condescending is your
> criticism of someone who is trying to uphold the accepted language
> standards once universally understood and followed by every high-
> school graduate, but distressingly absent even from some of today's
> university students.
Perhaps the more important point is this: The person who doesn't think
that spelling, grammar, punctuation and capitalization are important
actually weakens his own arguments in the minds of many who read them.
Sure, we humans make a lot of noise about being purely rational, but
in real life, appearances count for a lot. Ask anyone who does job
interviews.
73 de Jim, N2EY
"Live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy"
- Bokonon
Mike Coslo
>
> Whoops...I also forgot to mention that even though someone can memorize the
> question/answer pool, it doesn't mean they will be a bad amateur. Bad
> person=bad amateur. Good testing doesn't mean it will make a good amateur.
I don't equate the tests with good amateurdom.
What is a good amateur anyway?
Hopefully everyone pays attention to the safety rules at least. That
way they will remain a live amateur, if not a good one. 8^)
- Mike KB3EIA -
Mike Coslo
<Some snippage>
>> Agreed. I didn't time myself on the Extra test, but I think that it
>> would be difficult to get it finished in 8 minutes if I had the
>> answers in front of me.
>>
>> And forget memorization. Two things work against that. The numbers
>> of questions in the question pool and that the multiple guess
>> answers are mixed up, that is not in the same order as in the pool.
>> - Mike KB3EIA -
> Mike: memorization is how I passed the tests. Cross out, leave out,
> whatever, all wrong answers. Read the questions with the correct
> answers. Do that for several weeks and a test can be passed. Some of
> the material is retained, sure, but not a lot of it.
>
> HOWEVER...I am not sure a kid could do it. Don't know.
You are a Tech Plus, IIRC. I noted in one of these posts that I thought
a person could possibly memorize that test. As for higher level tests,
perhaps I shouldn't say forget about it. A person *could* concievably
memorize the entire question pool. But it would just be easier to simply
*learn* the material. And then they have shortchanged themselves.
And even for the tech test, if you took several weeks to memorize the
answers, you took a couple weeks more than just learning the material.
- Mike KB3EIA -
WA8ULX
>answers, you took a couple weeks more than just learning the material.
>
> - Mike KB3EIA -
Are you serious, I cant imagine any person taking that much time, I would say a
day or two at TOPS
Dick Carroll
TLB wrote:
>There is, however, one thing that everyone is
> overlooking, and that is the fact that a license is only an entry level test.
That would be so if there were only one test! Obviously that isn't exactly what
the FCC had in mind, is it? Why do they go to so much trouble to see to it that
there are categories of licenses where people actually progress in knowledge and
experience if "the license is only an entry level test"? Clearly this is not so.
Each license is the entry to that level.
>
> It, by no means, indicates that one is an expert in the field of radio
> electronics. Sure, the license will get you on the air, but the learning
> should, I would hope, continue even after the testing is done.
Obviously, since on a practical level the tests can do little more than assure that
you try to learn something about the next level. That's why the simplified and
reduced tests only move the hobby toward a lower level of knowledge and experience.
Tests can only assure so much, and the less the test amounts to, the less it means.
I have no idea what license you hold, and care less, but your comments here reflect
a definite lack of experience in HF ham radio, as we shall comment on below. That
is not a bad thing, but you clearly have missed a lot that you would seem to have
benefited from is your knowledge and experience had been broader. Read on.
> This applies not
> only to amateur radio, but to any field of study.
Obviously. Beginning automobile drivers don't hop into over the road trucks and
take off, they barely can keep a four wheeler between the fence posts far too
often.
If a student pilot gets signed off on a Cessna 150 he would be a fool to blithely
assume he was automatically capable of handling even a light twin, let along a jet.
Everyone begins somewhere. But the idea of a single license does all is foolish,
even for ham radio. FCC has known this all along, but today seems bent on moving in
that direction for a variety of reasons, few of which have to do with the long-term
good health of the ARS. FCC these days is driven by the almighty dollar.
>
>
> In a sense, this is how I became discouraged with amateur radio. It seemed that
> the hams I met were only concerned with working DX or the next contest that
> came around. They assumed, incorrectly, that I wanted the same thing. I asked
> about various antennas or transceivers, and the response would be, "That
> antenna won't do you no good in a contest." (Personally, I'm bored after ten
> minutes of working any contest.)
Well, so so you landed in a nest of hard-core DXers, and you weren't one. So the
thing to do might have been depart for more friendly turf. Some clubs are dedicated
almost solely to working as many DX contests as hard as can be done, and little
else. Personally I'm more in sympathy with you- I like to ragchew a little DX just
for the fun of it, and have done considerable amount of just that. Yep, it's
frustrating to hook up with a DX station who himself would like to ragchew only to
have the DXCC driven horde descend on you and annoy (to put it mildly) with
blanketing calls to him such that it's impossible to carry on. Surely you wouldn't
let that be the end of your ham radio hobby, and just assume nothing more was
available. In time you learn that a "dead band" holds more promise for just the
type of QSO you're looking for. Often a band that seems more dead than alive will
in fact be open but lightly occupied, and the DXCC crowd hasn't yet noticed. That's
the time you find your niche. But you gotta "be there" looking, tuning around,
evaluting, and checking the weak signals, even calling a short CQ sometimes brings
'em out. Throwing up your hands in disgust won't do it.
Actually it's a shame you don't like CW, for there is where the real ragchews take
place, both with DX stations and the more interesting individuals on ham radio.
You'd be really surprised who you can run into, and complete a really satisfying
chat. And I don't mean hi and 'bye. But it does take a bit of effort and time spent
in getting yourself capable.
> Working DX today is a joke with the DX packet
> clusters. If your station set-up is good enough, it's like shooting fish in a
> barrel.
Not for me. I've never used a packet DX cluster and probably never will. Even at
that, for those who don't have the time to spend scanning the bands long-term for
openings and to see who shows up, why not use the cluster? All that really changes
is the way they operate. The propagation remains the same, the distance the RF
travels, etc etc. The cluster is just one more high tech tool, not available until
a few years ago. I thought you wanted hams to progress. That's progress.
> The bottom line is that no ham I met wanted to grow beyond their own
> egos.
Sure looks like you need to broaden your sphere of contacts. Most of the hams I
ever met in person were pretty nice people, with many interests that either match
mine or that I find very fascinating to even hear them talk of on some area where
I have little or no knowledge or experience. In ham radio there are all sorts of
people with all sorts of interests, experience, high levels of expertise and
qualifications. For me, that's a big part of what makes ham radio stay interesting
after so long a time. I learn more on the rec.radio.amateur.antenna newsgroup these
days with far less time invested than I ever did before. There they can cut right
to the heart of any subject without a lot of repetitious chaff, and frequently do.
But newcomers with basic questions aren't shoved aside, either. And make no
mistake, those folks hanging out there are all hams, even though some have gone far
technical pursuits.
No doubt they all have egos. Sometimes they stick out like a sore thumb, but
there's usually some other heavyweight just as willing to bring the miscreant back
to earth. All in all, an enjoyable place for some of us to hang out and just read,
if nothing more. But if one has no interest in any of the technical aspects of ham
radio, it's unlikely you'll ever discover such a spot.
> I should point out that my original interest in amateur radio was far from
> technical. I am not a technically-inclined person. I was drawn to it because I
> thought the ability to talk around the world and learn about different people
> from different cultures was exciting, and amateur radio looked like a great way
> to do this. This notion was quickly put out of my head the first time I worked
> DX station - you don't chitchat. You exchange callsign and signal report, let
> the next guy work the station.
Sometimes, and sometimes not. It doesn't have to always be that
way.Unfortunately when on the HF voice modes it often is. But one of my more
memorable SSB DX contacts was several years ago when I happened to tune across what
seemed like a fast dying 20 meter band and heard a couple of ZL's (New Zealanders)
talking local. Like me, they had thought the band to be dead for long distance
propagation, but we chatted for an hour, the three of us, about all sorts of things
including details about the regions where we lived and our work, really had
a fine visit. I agree it's a shame one can't do more of that in the DXCC atmosphere
that permeates HF SSB, but the alternative is work smarter and check the digital
modes, to include CW. If you don't you'll never learn to appreciate a weak CQ from
the other side of the world that on a near-dead band that surprises you is there.
And
try out PSK31 or RTTY or some other digital mode. Let your horizons be expanded.
You'll get far more enjoyment out of ham radio if you do.
Anyone with only a one dimensional expectation of ham radio is sure to wind up
disappointed. There is really a lot more to it than readily seems to be the case.
Dick
Len Over 21
> And before anyone points out the exceptions of genius, I am referring
>to normal kids.
To nearly every parent, Their children are geniuses, prodigies,
etc., who are "always smarter, better, etc." than others. :-)
Len Over 21
writes:
In shorter words: Other, newer licensees just didn't live the Life
or have the Faith in amateur radio as the dickiebird.
> Many seem to not realize that fact until they had obtained one of the easy
>licenses -some still don't- and now some don't really feel like abandoning
>it in
>total, so what do they do? POST DRIVEL TO RRAP! It's the sum total of their
>amateur radio activity.
Dickiebird definition of "drivel:" Anything opposite to dickiebird's
opinions/viewpoints. :-)
> Some of this very same category of persons never even bothered to obtain a
>license but hang out on ham radio newsgroups and post anyway. You find them
>to be
>soulmates with those of the same group who did initially get a license but
>seem
>to have never "got around" to doing anything constructive with it, or
>anything at all.
Dickiebird never got a First Class Radiotelephone (Commercial)
license...even when the FCC supposedly "came to him and others
at Fort Monmouth." He only got a Second Class. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Must not have been enough snow and ice in New Jersey for him
to trudge (barefoot and out of uniform) from barracks to the test
building. Tsk, tsk.
> Some only wanted it for the notoriety of a vanity callsign, such as W5SEX or
>sum such.
Some already had REAL sex before the dickiebird did... :-)
> Bottom line, the VE system and the question pools are probably a (GASP!)
>"good thing" in Martha Stewart vernacular, in that it does offer a route into
the
>hobby that makes it much less of an ordeal to accomplish, thus more
>attractive to
>a busy generation of young and older adults, not to mention kids who have
>loaded
>schedules that would have been unthinkable in earlier generations.
According to the dickiebird definition of an enjoyable hobby
activity, every "good" member must SUFFER, WORK, and
generally be miserable in order to "enjoy" later "realness." :-)
> The negative effects of the offshoots and the chaff which falls along the
>way is
>mostly observable on rrap and a few other such limplimbed newsgroups. You
>don't
>see a lot of it on the air, save a few outlaw groups on their chosen turf.
>You don't see *any* of it on the CW/data portions of the bands.
You Tellum, dickiebird!!!
> Sort of another version of those who "will", do. For those who "won't", it
>really doesn't effectively matter. They just fall by the wayside and are
>covered up by the sands of time and their own fallout.
Ja, herr oberst, all must marsch to der dickiebird drumbeat,
suffer, work, be miserable, strive to meet the standards and
practices of the 1930s in order to be REAL hams... :-)
...only Porky Pig can be a real ham, eventually...
Len Over 21
>Len Over 21 wrote:
> > In article <20021201183714...@mb-fz.aol.com>,
> > n2...@aol.com (N2EY) writes:
> >
> >> In article <20021201133916...@mb-mc.aol.com>,
> >> j1ag...@aol.com (J1aguiar) writes:
> >
> >> Accusing the VECs of falsifying test results is pretty serious
> >> stuff, btw. Do you have any solid evidence?
> >
> > VEC test sessions are NOT monitored by anyone else DURING testing.
> > All that is monitored is the FCC scanning over test RESULTS sent to
> > them by the VEC teams.
> >
> > Now go back to the famous/infamous ARRL news page that showed two
> > darling six-year-olds who were reported to have "passed" written
> > tests for Novice and Technician, respectively. Now let any, repeat
> > ANY, first-grade teacher look at the written exam questions and
> > decide for themselves whether SIX YEAR OLDS can read those questions
> > well enough to answer even 70 percent of them. Just to READ them and
> > be able to choose any answer.
>
>There's a new one. In this months QST, (IIRC) there is a picture of a
>young lady holding something in her hand. The story goes on about how
>immediately after passing her test, she pulled one of her baby teeth out.
>
> Cute? I guess so. What's the point? I think that this kind of stuff is
>a concession to the people who think and proclaim that "We *have* to get
>the *children* involved in amateur radio!"
The "point" seems to be that hypocrisy exists in varied states
of mind about amateur radio.
Those who proclaim (and proselyze) "must get children
involved in amateur radio" usually admit to having gotten
into the hobby as teen-agers. None of them have admitted
to getting into it as 6- to 9-year-olds with perfect understanding
of radio, English-as-a-language enough to understand all the
CW abbreviations comprehensibly, and the ability to co-exist
with mainly adults in a crowded spectrum.
Now the above is in direct conflict with the braggarts who
loudly proclaim their status and rank as "extras" and all the
"work" involved in achieving that high pinnacle of "success."
Or, if not in direct conflict, then it only proves a childishness
akin to the immature nyah-nyah of "I'm better than you are,
because!..." :-)
I fail to see where any "must" has to exist. Amateur radio is
basically a hobby, an avocation involving radio activity, despite
all the self-described patriotic bwahaha about being some kind
of "service to the nation." The government recognizes that
citizens have hobbies, enjoy them, but must regulate those
that share the EM spectrum with others.
Case in point: Part 95 radio-control of model aircraft and model
vehicles. The FCC allocated a whole new band of frequencies
(72 MHz) just for telecommand of such things. It is no "service
to the nation" as important for security of the citizens, just
a service for some hobbyists who enjoy their activity, an activity
not essential to aeronautics or any other science involved. By
membership numbers of the Academy of Model Aeronautics,
there are about 170 thousand member-model-flyers, oddly
coincident with the membership numbers of the ARRL. :-)
Radio amateurs are granted a permission to operate a trans-
mitter as part of their passing a federally-regulated (but private-
party proctored) test for a license. They receive a federal radio
callsign as part of that grant...and immediately use that federal
merit badge identity to attach it to their legal name as if it is
some noble Title or Academic Achievement Certificate! :-)
["...it is what we are!" - Jim Kelley, in here]
Model aircraft flyers don't received such a Title and rarely
append their AMA number to their name...or loudly proclaim
their activity as "authorized by the Federal Communications
Commission!" They just enjoy their activity, have fun, and
some engage in competition with other model flyers in several
different contests...on out to international competition events.
Most radio amateurs scoff at model flyers' activities, trying to
emphasize that they are "more adult" than those "playing with
toys." Then the largest amateur radio organization makes news
items of 6- and 9-year-olds "passing" written tests...as if those
children were somehow on an adult level along with the fifty-
something ("authorized by the FCC") extra-class long-timers.
> I think this eventually does a disservice to the ARS. Is there some
>sort of contest to see who produces the youngest Ham?
I don't think so. I see it only from the paternalistic interest of
those fifty-something now-grandpas who've simply lost their
self-perspective of amateur radio in their paternal zeal/pride.
Supposedly, ARRL news and other, lesser amateur news "gets
out to the public" (it doesn't, but never mind that). If so, then it
is in contradiction to the stressed "importance to the nation" of
amateur radio as some kind of "national service (and need)."
> And you point out how difficult it would be for a first grader to read
>and comprehend the written tests. True enough
>
> Heres a sample question from the Technician pool, pulled up on one of
>the radio test web pages:
>
>In the far field, as the distance from the source increases, how does
>power density vary?
>A. The power density is proportional to the square of the distance
>B. The power density is proportional to the square root of the distance
>C. The power density is proportional to the inverse square of the distance
>D. The power density is proportional to the inverse cube of the distance
>
> Not even taking into account comprehension of the question and possible
>answers, (I want to hear a 6YO person explain proportional and square
>root and inverse and cube) what person in that age group could read
>those words at all?
That challenge might be irrelevant to BEING A HAM! :-)
Under the present amateur radio regulations, the FCC makes NO
distinction on age of a licensee. Legally, ANY licensee can
operate an amateur radio transmitter entirely by themselves and
there is NO requirement for any older licensee to be present
(except in cases of allocations where there are regulations on
classes on certain frequencies). This means that, legally, a 6-
year-old or a 9-year-old or any other child licensed can transmit
worldwide on HF bands...AND be totally responsible for technical
regulations regarding that transmitter as much as any adult.
ALL of the written test elements originate with the VEC Question
Pool Committee. The content is merely approved by the FCC.
VECs are essentially private-party test proctors having no direct
standing as officials of the FCC...they are licensed radio amateurs
who volunteer their services of their own accord. Everyone has to
take their actions on faith under the regulations of all radio operator
license testing done by private organizations. However, that is no
guarantee that VECs are always honest.
>There may not be prompting, but I would be very surprised if there wasn't.
Legally that is NOT permissible according to the regulations.
However, in the case of ARRL VECs, their actions are taken as
somehow "more honest" than all other VECs, therefore they are
sacrosanct and immune from any charges. :-)
N2EY
> > Not really. Children lose their baby teeth over a period of years. I know 9
> > year olds who still have some of their "baby" teeth. The girl in the picture
> > could be 10, for all we know.
> Well, certainly didn't look it.
Looks can be deceiving, particularly when judged from a still picture.
Way back in the late 1940s, a local 9 year old went to the FCC office
and passed the Class B license on the first go. This was in the days
of 13 wpm send-and-receive tests, essay questions, draw-a-diagram,
etc., all in front of the FCC examiner. And years before the Novice.
This kid had been copying Morse since the age of 6. Still a ham today,
btw.
> > Some children are interested in radio at a very young age. I was interested in
> > electricity and radio as far back as I can remember. Is that somehow wrong?
>
>
> Heavens no! I was ripping things apart and getting in trouble for it at
> a very early age. Fortunately my Grandfather, who worked at Bendix, was
> wise enough to get me a power supply and send a steady stream of old car
> radios that couldn't pass QC to keep me (mostly) occupied.
You coulda got in a lotta trouble with that supply....
>
> >> I think this eventually does a disservice to the ARS. Is there some
> >>sort of contest to see who produces the youngest Ham?
> >
> > Nope. Neither has there ever been an age limit. Nor has the licensing of young
> > children EVER been shown to be a problem.
>
> I'm not against kids having licenses. But I don't support them having
> licenses if they don't comprehend what they should know.
What about ADULTS not comprehending what they should know?
>
> >> And you point out how difficult it would be for a first grader to read
> >>and comprehend the written tests. True enough
> >
> >
> > There is NO, repeat NO, requirement that a person taking the test actually
> > comprehend it. All they have to do is get enough right answers and they get a
> > license. Been that way for at least 40 years (FCC went all-multiple-choice in
> > the ham written exams about 1961).
>
>
> Well, there should be enough comprehension for at least basic safety.
A lot of us tried to tell that to the FCC. They did not act on our
suggestions.
> What a great thing it would be (not) if the 6yo kid passes the test
> while not comprehending anything about rf safety.
Same is true of adults. There are only a few safety questions on any
given written test. It's possible to go from zero to Extra and have
gotten all the safety questions wrong. Been that way since long before
restructuring.
> There are plenty of
> ways then to get in trouble.
>
> *Most* adults can figure out at least that there can be some danger
> from even a HT, if only from the rf safety questions.
The test alone is no guarantee. In fact, I would say that an adult is
far more dangerous from an RF safety standpoint. A young child is not
going to have the resources to assemble a high power station unaided,
but there's nothing to stop an adult with deep pockets but no real
understanding of RF safety from putting high power into a poorly sited
antenna. Look at the descriptions of high powered cb mobiles. They
aren't built by kids.
> > It's true that most firstgraders/six-year-olds (the two are not synonymous)
> > could not even read most of the written test. But there are obviously SOME
> > six-year olds who can read enough of it to pass. And that's all that is
> > required, according to the FCC.
> True, there are some. I wonder how precocious these kids are?
They are probably way ahead on the developmental scales. Part nature,
part nurture.
> But I'm
> referring to normal kids, not genii.
Genius is normal. It's just not average.
The main point is this: While MOST 6yos couldn't pass the test, that
is NO proof that a few gifted children could not. It is also NO PROOF
WHATSOEVER of wrongdoing by VEs.
> >> Heres a sample question from the Technician pool, pulled up on one of
> >>the radio test web pages:
> >>
> >>In the far field, as the distance from the source increases, how does
> >>power density vary?
> >>A. The power density is proportional to the square of the distance
> >>B. The power density is proportional to the square root of the distance
> >>C. The power density is proportional to the inverse square of the distance
> >>D. The power density is proportional to the inverse cube of the distance
> >>
> >> Not even taking into account comprehension of the question and possible
> >
> >
> >>answers, (I want to hear a 6YO person explain proportional and square
> >>root and inverse and cube) what person in that age group could read
> >>those words at all?
> >
> >
> > Can you or anyone guarantee that NO six year old could read the above?
>
> See above.
Ditto.
>
> >> There may not be prompting, but I would be very surprised if there
> >
> > wasn't.
> >
> > What proof do you or anyone else have of any wrongdoing?
>
> None at all, just conjecture. Also being around kids for the past 18
> years makes me skeptical.
I've been around kids for the past 48 years. Gifted ones can do
amazing things. And there are all kinds of gifted kids.
I am convinced that there exist children who could pass the tests as
claimed. No evidence of wrongdoing or "fraud" has been provided.
>
> > To accuse a VEC of wrongdoing without any evidence other than "I don't believe
> > it" is simply illogical. I have known children who learned to read before they
> > were 4 years old. Did they fully comprehend what they read? Of course not! But
> > they could read, nonetheless. And the developmental accomplishments in the 2
> > years between 4 and 6 are enormous.
>
> No accusations here, Jim.
There have been accusations of fraud and other worngdoing in this
thread and elsewhere, by someone who was not at the VE sessions in
question and has no evidence at all. Basic attention-seeking behavior
that most six-year-olds find immature. To give those unfounded
accusations, or the accuser, any credence whatsoever is illogical.
> I'm not even sure that the VE or parent
> "prompting" the child is a violation of anything. After all, the VE's
> are required to take applicant's handicaps into account, and there may
> be a determination of the persons age/reading comprehension ability as a
> "handicap".
I don't think the VEs would do such a thing. I don;t know any VEs who
would. If anything, they'd be extra-careful, because of the possible
publicity.
> But if kids are passing without actually knowing anything,
> then it is just *WRONG*.
What about adults? Kim readily admits she passed by memorizing. Worked
for her.
> If my son had wanted to take the Tech test, as
> a youg child, I would make darn sure that he knew the material.
But isn't it a double standard to hold a child to a different level of
performance than an adult, based solely on age?
--
And if you still think memorization won't let a kid pass the test,
just talk with a kid who's fascinated by Pokemon, or Harry Potter, and
see what kind of memorized detail info they can spout on demand. Why
should the ham tests be any different? Take the above question - all
anyone needs to do is word-associate "power density", "far field" and
"inverse square" and they have it licked. Do they really need to
understand Poynting vectors or do exact calculations? Nope.
Funny thing is, most of the newbies I encounter really want to learn
the material. Sometime back, there was a guy on one of the other NGs
or reflectors I read asking about some questions on the Extra test.
They are simple Thevenin equivalent circuits (though the test doesn't
call them that). The newbie was having trouble understanding how to
solve the problems, so I helped him out. The important thing was that
he knew there were only ten of them in the Q&A pool, and that he could
easily memorize the answers. That wasn't good enough for him - he
wanted to understand the material.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Time for boko-maru!
Len Over 21
(N2EY) writes:
>Mike Coslo <mj...@psu.edu> wrote in message news:<3DECCE63...@psu.edu>...
>Way back in the late 1940s, a local 9 year old went to the FCC office
>and passed the Class B license on the first go. This was in the days
>of 13 wpm send-and-receive tests, essay questions, draw-a-diagram,
>etc., all in front of the FCC examiner. And years before the Novice.
>This kid had been copying Morse since the age of 6. Still a ham today,
>btw.
Yes, and I took - and passed in one sitting - a commercial
first phone license test in 1956 at an FCC office in Chicago.
No kiddies at all in that test session, just a couple of beepers
annoying us during their radiotelegraph test elements. :-)
Never had to use morse code or morris code or mort's code
four years before that or in any time afterwards in making a
career in radio-electronics. That's 50 whole years. But...one
"must" demonstrate that code for an avocational activity today?
Of course, "hams" must be assured that newcomers do what
they are told and be "acceptible to the ham radio community!"
:-)
>> I'm not against kids having licenses. But I don't support them having
>> licenses if they don't comprehend what they should know.
>
>What about ADULTS not comprehending what they should know?
Unless there are other news, the VEC QPC are ADULTS.
They come up with the questions and answers. FCC only
approves or disapproves the questions-answers.
YOU can always communicate your wishes to the VEC QPC.
Go for it.
>> Well, there should be enough comprehension for at least basic safety.
>
>A lot of us tried to tell that to the FCC. They did not act on our
>suggestions.
Hello? The VEC QPC originates the questions and answers.
The FCC doesn't specify the topics on written test element
subjects anymore.
>> What a great thing it would be (not) if the 6yo kid passes the test
>> while not comprehending anything about rf safety.
>
>Same is true of adults. There are only a few safety questions on any
>given written test. It's possible to go from zero to Extra and have
>gotten all the safety questions wrong. Been that way since long before
>restructuring.
...which may explain some of the long-timers in here... :-)
>> *Most* adults can figure out at least that there can be some danger
>> from even a HT, if only from the rf safety questions.
>
>The test alone is no guarantee. In fact, I would say that an adult is
>far more dangerous from an RF safety standpoint. A young child is not
>going to have the resources to assemble a high power station unaided,
>but there's nothing to stop an adult with deep pockets but no real
>understanding of RF safety from putting high power into a poorly sited
>antenna. Look at the descriptions of high powered cb mobiles. They
>aren't built by kids.
FCC regulations on US amateur radio don't concentrate on
safety-of-the-licensee. They have only relatively recently
introduced the RF exposure limit guidelines...which have to
do with EVERYONE near an antenna...all radio services.
I don't remember any FCC amateur regulation which covered
any safety-of-the-licensee. Do you?
But, according to present-day amateur regulations, small
children who are licensed have perfect legality to transmit
without any adult supervision.
>> True, there are some. I wonder how precocious these kids are?
>
>They are probably way ahead on the developmental scales. Part nature,
>part nurture.
There are no FCC amateur regulations covering Intelligence
Quotient or any other measure of intelligence as qualifications
for an amateur license. No age limit, either.
>> But I'm
>> referring to normal kids, not genii.
>
>Genius is normal. It's just not average.
There are no FCC amateur regulations concerning "genius."
>The main point is this: While MOST 6yos couldn't pass the test, that
>is NO proof that a few gifted children could not. It is also NO PROOF
>WHATSOEVER of wrongdoing by VEs.
This venue is NOT a court of law, genius.
Oooo...Oooo...VEs under ARRL control can DO NO WRONG!
There are *NO* FCC amateur regulations covering intelligence,
"nurturing," licensee age, mental stability, or anything else on
licensees or potential licensees. Some inference on that for VEs
but those are passed off to VECs to control.
>> None at all, just conjecture. Also being around kids for the past 18
>> years makes me skeptical.
>
>I've been around kids for the past 48 years. Gifted ones can do
>amazing things. And there are all kinds of gifted kids.
Ah, so Jim Genius has an education certificate or education
experience? In a magnet school, perhaps? :-)
Is the word "amazing" even in the FCC amateur regulations?
Jim Genius is 48, right? "He's been around kids" for all that
time? Of course, he was one!
>I am convinced that there exist children who could pass the tests as
>claimed. No evidence of wrongdoing or "fraud" has been provided.
Jim Genius MUST be convinced. His Faith and Honor seem to
have been sullied (in his perception). :-)
There are NO FCC amateur regulations in regards to any
provisions for "genius" or intelligence in regard to testing.
>There have been accusations of fraud and other worngdoing in this
>thread and elsewhere, by someone who was not at the VE sessions in
>question and has no evidence at all. Basic attention-seeking behavior
>that most six-year-olds find immature. To give those unfounded
>accusations, or the accuser, any credence whatsoever is illogical.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. "Basic attention-seeking behavior that most
six-year-olds find immature." Oh, my, lions and tygers and
pride and prejudice, oh my! :-)
ARRL VEs are above reproach! All hail the worshippers of the
church of St. Hiram! Saintly, perfect in every way! :-)
>I don't think the VEs would do such a thing. I don;t know any VEs who
>would. If anything, they'd be extra-careful, because of the possible
>publicity.
Yes, they might get their picture on an ARRL news page!
:-)
>> But if kids are passing without actually knowing anything,
>> then it is just *WRONG*.
>
>What about adults? Kim readily admits she passed by memorizing. Worked
>for her.
So, Jim Genius never, ever memorized anything? He KNEW
things intrinsically? :-)
>> If my son had wanted to take the Tech test, as
>> a youg child, I would make darn sure that he knew the material.
>
>But isn't it a double standard to hold a child to a different level of
>performance than an adult, based solely on age?
The FCC doesn't think so, does it? There are No age limits
on US amateur radio licensing nor are there any controls on
supervision of licensed children operating within their legal
license class allocations.
No problem. If children PLAYING on the radio can cause QRM
to others, that is "permissible" to you? If children PLAYING on
the radio interfere and block some emergency communication,
that is "permissible" to you?
>And if you still think memorization won't let a kid pass the test,
>just talk with a kid who's fascinated by Pokemon, or Harry Potter, and
>see what kind of memorized detail info they can spout on demand. Why
>should the ham tests be any different?
Well, ARRL could bring back the Archie comics...that's a start
to making things childishly entertaining, isn't it? :-)
I can just see the sequels now..."Harry Potter and the Chamber
of Morse!" Wizards and fairies, oh my! :-)
>Take the above question - all
>anyone needs to do is word-associate "power density", "far field" and
>"inverse square" and they have it licked. Do they really need to
>understand Poynting vectors or do exact calculations? Nope.
Hmmm...something to bring up to the Writer's Guild of America.
Now that they have on-line registry of story ideas, Jim Genius,
you ought to contact them and file your story thing!
Just change "Mario Brothers" to "Morseo Brothers" and you
might have a winner! Poke 'm Mon...right in the aye!
[no Biot & Savart? no Oliver Heaviside? no Maxwell and his
equations?]
>Funny thing is, most of the newbies I encounter really want to learn
>the material. Sometime back, there was a guy on one of the other NGs
>or reflectors I read asking about some questions on the Extra test.
>They are simple Thevenin equivalent circuits (though the test doesn't
>call them that). The newbie was having trouble understanding how to
>solve the problems, so I helped him out.
Oh, that's such a nice story...<sniff, sniff>
>The important thing was that
>he knew there were only ten of them in the Q&A pool, and that he could
>easily memorize the answers. That wasn't good enough for him - he
>wanted to understand the material.
Another six-year-old? Perhaps eight? As old as nine?!?
>Time for boko-maru!
Why not? "Bokonon" is a FICTIONAL creation of Kurt Vonnegut.
Some of you guys are all into fantasy and role-playing and other
emotional satisfaction things...like "saving the Titanic (again) with
morse code skill" and stuff like that there. Sigh.