[Uram-rejections] RSGB Syllabus Review - Proposed Foundation Changes

Sun Jul 16 16:10:27 BST 2017

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The post that you submitted to uk.radio.amateur.moderated has been rejected by a
moderator. 

Your message appears to the moderator to be abusive or hurtful to
another contributor.

The group charter and moderation policy can be found at
  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/uram/
Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup
  uk.net.news.moderation

============================================ Full text of your message follows
> From webstump at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Jul 16 14:56:43 2017
> Return-path: <webstump at chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk
> X-Envelope-To: uk-radio-amateur-moderated at usenet.org.uk
> X-Forwarding-To: uk-radio-amateur-moderated at usenet.org.uk
> Delivered-To: forwarding-uk-radio-amateur-moderated at usenet.org.uk
> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at example.com
> To: uk-radio-amateur-moderated at usenet.org.uk
> From: "Jim GM4DHJ ..." <kinvig.netta at ntlworld.com>
> Newsgroups: uk.radio.amateur.moderated
> Subject: Re: RSGB Syllabus Review - Proposed Foundation Changes
> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 14:47:31 +0100
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Message-ID: <okfqi8$h6i$1 at dont-email.me>
> References: <oispfr$99u$1 at stc.eternal-september.org> <6bd8e704-6698-4a17-a6c1-7b56b21a01dd at googlegroups.com> <ojocgj$1b9$1 at stc.eternal-september.org> <sNKo39PkYIZZFwT6 at jasper.org.uk> <1n9022r.rhnxzmcd51cN%roger at hayter.org> <GYkySuAdGOZZFw2X at jasper.org.uk> <1n90l65.4noeqyhbp9n4N%roger at hayter.org> <Ltk9B.305210$ik4.88828 at fx38.am4> <ok5ki9$2em$1 at dont-email.me> <1n+psYC0bpZZFwjl at brattleho.plus.com> <ok788o$iem$1 at dont-email.me> <9a57TFDqE0ZZFwR9 at brattleho.plus.com> <okfdib$o3i$1 at dont-email.me>
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
> X-Priority: 3
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
> X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1+V7hALPJCGgROqlAh3gNmZytI/+e3Njec=
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:FhuVwKdlR7Oby7I96d/uuWS4RHs=
> X-Gradwell-Message-ID: 10277486
> X-Gradwell-MongoId: 596b6e78.262e-2d08-2
> X-Gradwell-Forwarding-Rule: 1748292
> X-Gradwell-Edge-Server: inbound-edge-2.mail.thdo.gradwell.net
> X-Warning: 195.74.61.92 is listed at dnsbl.sorbs.net
> 
> 
> "Brian Reay" <no.sp at m.com> wrote in message 
> news:okfdib$o3i$1 at dont-email.me...
> > On 13/07/2017 10:45, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> In message <ok788o$iem$1 at dont-email.me>, Brian Reay <no.sp at m.com> writes
> >>> On 12/07/2017 22:39, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >>>> In message <ok5ki9$2em$1 at dont-email.me>, Brian Reay <no.sp at m.com> 
> >>>> writes
> >>>>> On 12/07/2017 08:46, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
> >>>>>> "Roger Hayter" <roger at hayter.org> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:1n90l65.4noeqyhbp9n4N%roger at hayter.org...
> >>>>>>> Mike Tomlinson <mike at jasper.org.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> En el artículo <1n9022r.rhnxzmcd51cN%roger at hayter.org>, Roger 
> >>>>>>>> Hayter
> >>>>>>>> <roger at hayter.org> escribió:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> How many lives or serious injuries per year do you hope
> >>>>>>>>> will be saved?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It was an analogy, Roger.  May I suggest you consult a dictionary?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> OIC.  You were suggesting that testing older amateurs was a patently
> >>>>>>> absurd waste of money in the same way that re-testing 70 year old
> >>>>>>> drivers would be, if we did it.  I missed the irony!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>  what is the point of retesting guys who have been active for 40 
> >>>>>> years when
> >>>>>> you let FLs loose on to all bands all modes? ......
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The purpose of the licence exams is to verify a level of technical
> >>>>> competence commensurate with the the licence privileges. Those who 
> >>>>> have
> >>>>> been licenced a long time may not even have been active, let alone 
> >>>>> kept
> >>>>> their knowledge current even if they have been active.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We've all heard examples of people referring to 'BR68', which has long
> >>>>> since been superseded. If some people can't even keep such basics
> >>>>> current, it hardly fills one with confidence they are all keeping even
> >>>>> the basics current.
> >>>>
> >>>> Amateur radio is hobby, and not a profession (which will come as a
> >>>> relief to Jim!). We are not chartered engineers, and we have no
> >>>> obligation to keep abreast of the very latest technology if we don't
> >>>> want to - and I can see little virtue in forcing us to do so if we 
> >>>> don't
> >>>> want to. As long as we make sure that we have the up-to-date skills 
> >>>> that
> >>>> are necessary for us to operate within the terms of our licence, and we
> >>>> don't become total anachronisms, we should be left to bumble along in
> >>>> whatever way suits us best.
> >>>
> >>> If you read my post, where did I say otherwise? My concern is some don't
> >>> keep the basics current- even knowing BR68 is long dead for example.
> >>>
> >> As I said, the important thing is that we keep up-to-date with what is
> >> necessary to operate within the terms of our licence - but I doubt if it
> >> is necessary to have periodic testing to do that.
> >>
> >>> Incidently, your post makes a damning case against forced progression or
> >>> time limits on FLs and/or ILs.
> >>
> >> The Full licence is not called Full for nothing. In effect, it's the
> >> standard of the pre-three-tier RAE - ie what you needed to get the
> >> 'normal' amateur licence. If it wasn't, those with pre-tiered licences
> >> would not have the status of Full (which includes thee and me!).
> >>
> >> FL and IL are trainee levels, and it's not unreasonable to expect the
> >> trainees to have at least some intention of eventually becoming fully
> >> qualified.
> >>
> >
> > Only in the eyes of those who want to believe that.
> >
> > Personally, I think people should be encouraged to progress if they
> > wish. 'Force' is counterproductive in this kind of situation.
> >
> >
> >> Possibly it's the oddity of calling the exam 'Advanced' that gives what
> >> is, in reality, the 'normal' Full level of attainment a higher status
> >> than it really has.
> >
> > Again, only to those who see it that way. The history is quite
> > different. The plan was to rename the Full Licence but didn't get
> > through the system before the RA/OFCOM changes and the moment was lost.
> > Essentially the renaming process was more complex than first envisaged
> > as it was tied in to CEPT etc (the Novice wasn't and could be changed).
> > Your licence would have been renamed, as would all of the old Fulls.
> >
> > I've explained this several times, it isn't new.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> how patronising ...... 
> 
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJZa4HjAAoJEJ0q8Kb5p+MeU/YH/R4FsBbngPqHmXBs1A8eJBfU
TbrzglMFCPQyOm0E0snIidBk0Z2E+sH4PLS2vEk8tApJ2HkeQ/EVsgDF3YE0369C
60GfLUJsPw76BRDaXaM+U2uoDtylgAmq7xouxUnHMrf8WOH+OXJgqreOxkjFUxx8
MBNUmZNV0cUtsKlVzc/e6ECkVHjbCEcAPsi1DjnF+9aJQAWnZTB1AkWp1qqlvrHv
gixmv9z9UUdXw/OChENOJIu0NWWro2L8Ujn4lpFgkv0wKjoDBiiWmlWRj+2hwly3
qYtaMqWB+7xOiDrgnFPNWc2KijtE09Eydz7VZesG/ZoEJJniXlsBJfPGPxcR8Ss=
=t1cV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----