In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:
Larry ... you admit that you wouldn't have learned Morse if you had not been
(effectively) forced to ... you happened to decide that you liked it
afterwards.
Many folks that have followed the same path NEVER liked Morse and put
the key in the drawer (or sold it, or gave it away) after passing the Morse
test to get the privs they REALLY wanted, never to use Morse again.
Carl:
That's right. They did. And a lot of them kept the key on the top of the
operating table and continued to use it. Now, in the absence of a code
testing requirement as part of the licensing procedure, how many new hams
will even bother to own a telegraph key?
You don't believe in the requirement, so
obviously, your mileage varies quite a bit. So tell us -- what would it
take
to make you a regular CW operator with 20 WPM proficiency -- something
that I have no doubt you are capable of?
As you well know, I also don't believe in the requirement.
I know that many PCTAs here doubt my claim, but early on while constrained
to CW on the novice bands, I actually got to the point where I could carry
on
a QSO (more or less in my head for std. QSO stuff, writing down details for
the log) at something close to 20 wpm. Once I upgraded to Tech and got
involved in VHF/UHF repeaters, packet, etc. I lost interest and never went
back to Morse.
Well, it was getting on VHF/UHF repeaters that actually spurred my interest
in CW, since the hams I talked to were always talking about their adventures
on HF, particularly in the CW mode, and I enjoyed being able to join in on
the conversation, telling them about the "new one" I had just worked.
Could *I* become proficient at 20 wpm ... certainly, with enough use and
practice. Do I *care* to? The answer is obviously "No."
Well, at least you were exposed to the code and learned it well enough to
make that choice from a vantage point of actual personal experience. In the
future, a lot of hams who may have decided to become active CW users will
no longer get that opportunity, due to the elimination of the code testing
requirement.
There is essentially nothing that could make me interested in becoming "a
regular CW operator with 20 wpm proficiency."
Does this make me a "lesser/2nd class ham?"
Since you tried it and gave it a fair evaluation, I'd have to say that it does
not. Again, future hams will not have had your experience. That is the
difference. Not having "been there, done that" disqualifies them from
making any judgment on the "code" issue whatsoever.
I certainly don't believe
so, Larry, any more than I believe that the fact that I have every reason
to believe that I am more technically competent than you makes me
"superior in all respects" to you.
I have never denied the "superior" technical competence of you or any
other ham who has it. There is nothing I enjoy more than being around
hams who really know what they are doing, technically, and can impart
some of that knowledge to myself and others. However, in my own
experience, some of the most technically competent hams I've known
have also been proficient CW operators. I cannot say the same for the
"no-coders" I've known, with few notable exceptions.
You, however, believe that your Morse
ability makes you "superior to all no-code hams." (You've said that over
and over here, along with all sorts of disparaging remarks about no-code
hams.)
It does give me "superior" operational capability, and I won't mince any
words about that. Moreover, my code proficiency had a direct impact on
my gaining increased technical knowledge, although I'd never classify that
as anything other than "amateur" level.
Why don't you try treating hams who have gotten their licenses (or upgraded)
under the new rules with the same respect that you'd like to be treated
with?
(I promise you, it won't kill you. :-)
I can, and I do -- as long as they don't make a point of whining that the
(former) code testing requirement was causing technical ignorance within
the ARS -- as has been their traditional claim. It just isn't so.
73 de Larry, K3LT
|