RadioBanter - View Single Post - Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?

[email protected] · November 2nd 06, 11:02 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
From: on Thurs, Oct 26 2006 3:36am

wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am
"Opus-" wrote in message

The major
(in population) nation administrations have dropped their
morse code testing or substitute other tests in lieu of
morse code.

How do you know?

:-) Try reading the No-Code International website and
researching the statements in there.

Which statements?

Those are true statements.

How do you know for sure?

Indeed, all other US radio services operating
below 30 MHz do NOT use morse code radiotelegraphy.

Why is that so important?

It SHOULD be obvious to all but the conditioned-thinking
Believer. :-)

IOW, you can't explain it.

It should be obvious that the so-called "advantages" of
morse code radiotelegraphy are so few...ergo, it isn't
worth having a license TEST for it.

You're presuming your conclusion.

Especially since the
FCC hasn't mandated exclusivity for morse code radio-
telegraphy for years.

Did they ever?

Why should radio amateurs be held elevated to some
special significance?

It's not about 'special significance".

Yes, it is. :-)

See "VANITY" call signs...see the old "Extra" requirements
for 20 WPM code tests.

What's wrong with vanity callsigns?

See all the "gotta upgrade!"
agit-prop from ARRL where morsemanship is promoted way
over all other modes.

Where? All I ever saw was encouragement.

And as far as "promoted way over other modes", the amount of space
given to Morse Code in ARRL publications is not out of line with the
mode's popularity.

The basic fallacy of pro-coder thinking is that "all"
have some innate ability to learn morse code.

There are obviously those who cannot learn it - just as there are those
who cannot learn to speak, or read and write, or who cannot pass the
written tests.

Just as there are some in here who cannot tell time,
cannot understand that a federal court decision in the
early 1970s TOOK AWAY the claimed "firsts" of ENIAC.
:-)

A court cannot change the facts, Len. All that court decision did was
to render an opinion on some patents.

The military aptitude testing was done to find those who could learn
the fastest and reach the highest levels of skill in the least time.

You "KNOW" this by first-hand experience,

Is my statement correct, Len?

No, you could NOT know any of that. In fact, *I* was
the one who FIRST mentioned it in here. :-)

So what? Is the statement correct or not?

I took one of those morse aptitude tests, along with
about a dozen other aptitude tests, back in 1952.

And you didn't score near the top on the Morse Code aptitude, did you?
I think that was the start of your anti-Morse crusade.

The requirements for military radio telegraphers were much higher than
for amateurs, and the military could not afford lots of time to train
them.

The "requirements for military radio telegraphers [sic]"
topped out at 20 WPM for Army Field Radio MOS,

The US Navy had higher requirements, Len.
..
Same rate as amateur extras prior to 2000. Sunnuvagun!

But not the same requirements, Len. Did the Army consider one minute
out of five to be a passing grade? Did the Army use multiple-choice or
fill-in-the-blank Morse Code tests?

I stand by my statement.

btw, the existence of such aptitude testing proves that the US military
needed large numbers of Morse Code skilled radio operators during WW2.

you just crapped. :-)

What do you mean by that, Len?

Is it some odd slang for "made a completely true and convincing
statement"?

All you have for "proof"
of that is what the ARRL has written.

Not at all, Len. It's the reason why such testing was done. Why else?

World War II *ended* 61 years ago. [the Korean War has
*never* ended...it is in a state of truce begun 53 years
ago]

So what? Morse Code played an important role in both.

The "upgrade requirements" were lobbied for to emphasize
morse code radiotelegraphy skill. That is history.

Who lobbied for those requirements, Len?

ARRL, of course. :-)

Where is that documented?

As with all US federal agencies, the FCC does accept
citizen commentary to them regarding radio regulations.
The FCC responds to Petitions submitted by US citizens
in regards to those radio regulations. [however, not
with blinding speeds of decision in regards to amateur
radio] Nowhere does the FCC discriminate between those
are already licensed in amateur radio versus those not
licensed. FCC does not treat the group of already-
licensed as some kind of fraternal order of the already-
licensed to be listened to over and above all other
interested citizens.

The FCC accepts comments from everyone - not just citizens.

No kidding?!? :-)

Then explain the prevailing attitude in *here* (and you
are one of them) about "only" licensed amateurs "should"
comment about amateur radio regulations? :-)

You are telling an untruth, Len. I have never stated anything like
that.

It does NOT affect
those already legally licensed as radio amateurs...except
in the limited conditions of certain already-licensed
Technician classes. That code test does NOT legally
affect ANY other already-licensed US radio amateur.

It affects them in many ways. If amateur radio should change for the
worse because
of changes in license requirements, those who are already licensed
would be affected.

Why "worse," ? Afraid you won't have any new coders
to play with? :-)

Would you suffer Great Emotional Harm if the code test went
away? WHY? You ALREADY have YOUR amateur extra class.

What Great Emotional Harm came to you as a result of the zoning change
in your neighborhood, Len? The change you tried to stop?

Not true. If amateur radio is made worse by rules changes, all involved
are affected. You, who are not involved, are unaffected.

"Not involved?" :-)

Yes, Len. You're not involved. You're not a radio amateur and will
probably never be one. You don't make, sell or buy any products for the
amateur radio market, you don't write books or articles for radio
amateurs, and there's no indication you'll do any of that in the
future. All you do is write a few long, error-filled posts in a couple
of Usenet newsgroups and spam ECFS.

Your boast about "going for Extra right out of the box" remains
unfulfilled after almost 7 years.

Amateur radio isn't like that. We use a shared and limited resource -
the radio spectrum.

So does CB. So does R-C. So does GMRS. So does GPS.
So does Maritime Radio Service. So does GMDSS. So
does Aviation Radio Service. So does Media [radio
broadcasting]. So does the entire PLMRS...which includes
all the public safety radio services, railroad radio
service, business radio, paging services. So does
cellular telephony. So does the US government and US
military.

Is there a point to all that?

Don't get off on your "amateurs are conservators of the
EM spectrum" kick you've done before.

When did I say anything like that?

Let's see your "proof", Len.