RadioBanter - View Single Post - What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?

Dee Flint

wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message

Already tried it.

And dismissed it.
esp dimissing the abilty of the human operator of the machine to
fill
in the problems and correct the process

As I said while it is the best that is available, it
is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator.

Correction. ...a few human operators.

indeed the PC alone far exceeds the abilties of many licensed ham
operators but hat doesn't count

I've tried it
under a
wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good
signal to
function.

Dee, N8UZE

Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the
corollary
of
Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through).

Unrelated to my comments.

You would like to think that, but without efforts from folks like
Carl,
Bill, Len, hans, myself and others, you would still be repeating
such
myths, and would never make statements such as "Not all CW signals
are
good."

You can thank us, but that's probably not very likely.

No one has said all CW signals are good.

And they aren't.

If they were always good, CWGet
would always work, which it doesn't. The ones who tout the
software
solution are those who wish that it would always work.

And those who dismiss the software solution think all amateur
operators
are superb morsemen.

In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode
has
its
advantages and disadvantages.

If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think
it is
likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode.

The extremists on each side don't want to
hear that.

Dee, N8UZE

Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over
the
years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are
good
without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk.

well it is a thankless job

Dees coming around in her own way, but the brainwashing that she's
undergone is strong. Perhaps in another decade... if there's still
an
amateur radio. If only she had been able to think spontaneously and
resist, the brainwashing wouldn't have been so well received.

You are mistaken. I've always been one to think spontaneously. Since I
have
personally experienced conditions where it had to be CW or turn off the
radio, I advocate all hams knowing code at a basic level. To insure
that
they do learn it at a basic level, testing at some point in the
licensing is
appropriate. Before entering these news I'd never heard much
discussion
either way on code. My opinions on its usefulness and desireability
were
formed based entirely on actual operating experience. I was surprised
to
learn that there was a big discussion on it in the amateur community.

Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations
equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW
Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total
the scores...

I think you get the point.

What point?

I do NOT and never have believed in the arguments about "keeping out
the
riffraff", maintaining tradition, or the "I had to so you should to".

The "dumbing down" argument is just an extension of the "keeping out
the riff-raff" argument.

No, it isn't.

The requirements for US amateur radio license have been slowly but
steadily reduced for more than 25 years now. Not just the code tests
but also the writtens. That's not the fault of those taking the tests.

It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't
use
any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set.
I've
used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been
licensed.
I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used
smith
charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I
can
choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory
end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it..

Brian, do you think that using a false sexist claim is somehow going to
cause you to win the debate?

You lost.

Besides that, Jim, I'm the one who taught the class where my OM upgraded to
Extra!

Dee, N8UZE