On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:17:08 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

The original claim wasn't that it makes him more proficient in
everything, just that it makes him a more proficient operator. Being
equal in everything else, but more proficient in code, makes one more
proficient.

Is logic a lost art?

I still hold to the belief, claim, whatever that knowing CW in itself,
does not make an operator more proficient in anything but CW.

Next you'll tell us that the sun rises in the East. Thank you,
Captain Obvious.

Knowledge of any single thing doesn't make an operator more proficient
in anything but that one thing. Should we have testing in TV
techniques, simply because it's a "modern communications mode"? How
about microwaves? Programming? Hey, there's one I'd go for. Let's
be "modern" and make sure that hams can program the computers they're
using for "communications".

I would even submit that some operators who only use CW are less proficient
operators than a modern ham who uses many more modes and methods,
including modern digital modes, to communicate. Follow the logic Al.
Someone who is versed in more facets of Amateur Radio than simply CW is
a more proficient operator.

Someone who is versed in more facets of amateur radio than simply
modern digital modes is also a more proficient operator. Can YOU set
up an internet audio stream without following a set of instructions?

Yes, I guess you are correct, logic is a lost art.

And you proved it again.

Wishing makes it so?

No, desire does.

A distinction without a difference.

Every amateur has their niche that they want to
pursue. Forcing a CW test on someone does not make them have a desire to
use it.

Neither does forcing them to take a test in "modern digital modes".

In fact, forcing someone to test on an archaic mode of
communication may in fact keep them away from the service and therefore
they will never develop an interest in learning and using modern
communication methods.

And forcing someone to test on a "modern digital mode" may in fact
keep them away from the service and therefore they will never develop
an interest in learning and using CW.

Al, you seem to have trouble reading. I never mentioned copying below
the noise level. What I said was CW cannot be copied if the human ear
cannot hear it.

And I said it can, so who has the problem?

I have copied PSK when the audio of the signal could not be copied by the human ear.

And I have copied CW when there wasn't enough signal for a computer to
copy PSK.

It's just that simple.

It sure is.

All the BS about CW being the only true weak signal mode is well just BS. There
are superior modes to CW and PSK is one of them.

No one said that CW is the only weak signal mode, but it can sometimes
be copied when it's weaker than any other mode can be copied. If the
noise frequency is higher than the bit frequency ... well, you know
weak signal analysis, right? Or you wouldn't be discussing it, would
you?

Oh, but CW takes MUCH less power for the same path than any digital
mode, and CW is the ONLY mode you can use when the only thing you have
is a source of RF.

Yup, if all you have is a source of RF and nothing else, I guess you are
screwed. But that is not reality.

Until you have a radio with a broken voice or data circuit and the
only thing standing between you and safety is your inability to
communicate because the radio's broken.

You would have a real problem if you
did not have a source of RF, gee Al, let's call it a transmitter and use
big people words. I wonder why NASA does not have CW capability on the
Shuttle and Space Station

Excuse me? They sure do.

Why have our armed forces stopped using it? What happens in war if
all they have is a transmitter? Get real.

You're comparing military intelligence to actual intelligence? They
die. Soldiers have been known to do that in combat. The prime
mission of the military in wartime is NOT saving the lives of
individual soldiers, it's winning wars at the COST of the lives of
individual soldiers. Why don't YOU "get real"?

Yup CW still lives and it will go on for quite awhile. Forcing people
to learn and use it is not the way to keep it going.

Neither is forcing them to learn electronics. Or the laws they're
going to have to know. Let's just post ham licenses in stores and
people can pick them up if they like. Just like they used to do with
CB licenses. Why keep anyone from having access to a public property?
Just let anyone buy a radio (no knowledge of how to even build a kit
should be required) and use it. Those of us who want to learn
something can petition for a new service that requires actual
knowledge of something.