wrote:
From: on Wed,Apr 13 2005 4:28 am
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: N2EY on Apr 12, 4:20 pm
wrote:
I simply don't want to read Len's story about ADA again. He's
posted it
here so many times I can recite it from memory. But
he never explains why it has any bearing on amateur radio
policy today.
I've already explained the "bearing it has" years ago.
No, you didn't. Not how *your* experience at ADA (a military radio
station) has any bearing, or relevance, to amateur radio
policy today.
Let's take it again, from the top...
Back in the beginning of the 1950s, the U.S. military
was NOT using any morse code modes for long-distance
point-to-point communications.
How do you know this for sure?
Granted, you didn't see any "morse code modes" in use at
ADA. But to say there was none used at all, anywhere in the
US military is a different thing.
What's interesting is that you have to qualify the statement
as "long-distance point-to-point communications" - because
Morse Code was then still being used *extensively* by the US
Navy, by the maritime radio services, by aircraft and by many
other radio services such as press services.
Your tunnel vision of "long-distance point-to-point communications" by
the US military is about as relevant as the
fact that Morse Code wasn't in use on the AM broadcast band in the
1930s.
Most of that message
"traffic" was written teleprinter that carried the
vast majority of military communications.
Yep.
And it was on fixed, predetermined frequencies, using equipment
most individuals could not afford to buy.
And it was *not* the kind of communications that make up the vast
majority of amateur radio communications.
NO morse code modes were used on such radio circuits
afterwards.
At some point, anyway. The US Navy was still using Morse Code long
after the beginning of the 1950s. So was the Coast Guard. They are "US
military".
That SHOULD have some meaning to rational
persons insofar as the efficacy of morse code for
communications...
There you go, Len, assuming your conclusion.
What you're saying is that because the Army didn't use it,
nobody should use it.
Here's a hint: Ham radio isn't the US Army. When Uncle Sam
is willing to buy radios for all hams, then maybe you'll
have a point.
in short, morse code was way too slow,
For some applications, yes. But not for many applications.
too prone to human errors by its operators,
All communications modes are prone to operator error. The
person typing on a teleprinter can make a mistake, too.
and
generally so inefficient that,
Nope. You just don't like the mode.
by now, EVERY other
radio service has either DROPPED the mode (if they used
it at all in the past) or NEVER CONSIDERED it when that
radio service began.
So what, Len? That's like saying that since almost all motor vehicles
don't have manual transmissions anymore, no vehicles should have them.
gave up having
The main reason Morse Code was replaced by other modes in
other radio services is that it required skilled operators
at both ends of the circuit. Skilled operators cost money
and have to be taken care of, and the speed and accuracy of
communications is limited to their skill level. So the skilled
operator was eliminated by technology, to save time and money.
What you're saying, then, is that you want to eliminate the skilled
operators from ham radio, too.
The sole exception is AMATEUR
radio...
It's all those things - and a lot more.
For over half a century (actually, since before WW2)
the brunt of messaging in the military has been done
by modes OTHER than morse code.
Even if true, (it's not) so what? Ham radio isn't "the military",
and amateur radio communications isn't only about "messaging".
You're argument says that since most US Navy ships stopped relying on
the wind for propulsion long ago, nobody should own a sailboat today,
even for "a hobby pursuit, a recreation, something done on free time
for enjoyment."
Very illogical.
An approximation of
the amount of such military traffic is a minimum of
1 1/2 MILLION messages a MONTH back in 1955.
So what? Hams don't have the same resources, nor the same basis and
purpose.
The old Bell Telephone system handled a lot more than 1.5 million
"messages" a month back then, too.
It was
not trivial, it wasn't confined to a few ship's radio
rooms. It was the logistical supply "glue" that
enabled the United States military to support itself
worldwide. It was necessary to keep "getting the
messages through" as the old, and still current,
Signal Corps phrase puts it.
And it required how many people to do it all? At a cost of how many
millions of taxpayer dollars?
What possible connection does that have to the self-trained,
self-funded amateur radio operator?
It should be obvious to rational people that there is
NO need for any morse code testing for a hobby radio
activity.
There's where you make an illogical jump. You hold up what
the US military allegedly did, then say it's somehow connected
to what hams should do.
But you never say what the connection is. Just that "it's obvious to
rational people" - which it isn't.
It is NOT a "national service."
Actually, amateur radio is internationally recognized by treaty, and
it's a radio service.
It is NOT
needed to "maintain a reserve of 'skilled' radio
operators" for the nation or even a locality.
Sure it is. Just ask those folks who ran the recent emergency drills.
They were very appreciative of the contributions of amateur radio
operators.
What morse code testing for a hobby radio activity
has become is a travesty, a gross artificiality kept
in there by old-timers who managed to pass such tests
and keep insisting that all newcomers MUST do as they
did.
No, that's simply not true at all. It's just your way of
rationalizing your hatred, Len.
There is NO rational reason for that.
Sure there is. Here ya go:
Since amateur radio operators *do* use Morse Code extensively, today,
on the air, for a wide variety of activities, it is perfectly obvious
to rational people that a basic test of Morse code skill is a
reasonable test requirement for a license.
That's the whole thing, right there.
There is
only the artificiality of some hazing exercise so
that those who pass can adopt the artificiality of
doing something that few can.
Nope. It's a bout a basic skill, that's all. Almost anyone can do it.
Nonsense.
Yes, that's what your arguments and insults amount to.
I don't want to read it again.
Naturally, since you are one of those old-timers who
thinks of little else but morse code operation on
the HF amateur bands.
No, that's not true at all. That's just one of my interests.
You want to enforce your own
private desires and accomplishment goals on others
regardless of their wishes or the irrationality of your
demands.
That's a pretty good description of *your* purpose here, Len!
You don't want to read it because someone else was
able to be in a position to do REAL HF communications
all the time.
So what hams do, and did, isn't "REAL"?
Then why are you so concerned about it?
And even you can't do it all the time, Len.
That's way above the average amateur
experience.
No it isn't. It's *different from* the amateur radio experience. Just
like riding in a commercial airliner is different from flying your own
private aircraft.
You resent knowing that another has done
it.
I don't resent it at all, Len. I'm just bored by your constant
repetition of the same old story and illogical conclusions.
But...you are going to have to live with it.
Why?
"It ain't braggin if ya done it..." I did it.
All by yourself? Or were there hundreds - thousands - of others there
too, backed up by the enormous resources of the USA - both civilian and
military?
And you still haven't explained how what happened at ADA a half-century
ago has any relevance to ham radio today.
Here's one more analogy to your alleged logic:
Inexpensive calculators have been around for a couple of decades now.
Almost nobody in business or the professions relies on manual
arithmetic anymore - even the smallest businesses, for example, use
electronic cash registers to do the calculations.
Where such manual calculation was once done, it has been completely
replaced by electronic methods. Manual calculation
is too slow, too error-prone, and too dependent on human skill.
Therefore, we should not require anyone to learn how to do such
calculations as addition, subtraction, multiplication or division, let
alone square roots or other techniques.
That's what you're saying. And it's nonsense.