Thread
:
where PCTA's fail in logic
View Single Post
#
317
October 1st 03, 10:41 PM
Len Over 21
Posts: n/a
In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:
In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:
Code makes a person more experienced?
Using the mode sure does.
What about when NOT using morse code?
Remember that morse code is only the secondmost used mode and then
only on HF bands.
If that is true, then a person who
passed a code test yesterday is more experienced than a person who got his
license ten years ago without knowing code, and more experienced than all
those in the other radio services where code is not used.
No, that's not what is being said.
That is what was IMPLIED.
More rounded in what?
In the communications methods actually used by radio amateurs. A ham license
is
a license to operate an amateur station in the amateur radio bands, not to
particiapte in other radio services.
US radio amateurs use VOICE more than on-off keying CW.
Nothing is stated in Part 97 CFR referring to amateur radio operators
as "ham" operators or having "ham" licenses.
In the USA, the FDA would regulate ham.
Emergency communications?
To a very small degree. Ask KT4ST - he's been there, done that.
We have NO actual evidence available for that. Being some kind of
local emergency manager is NOT factual evidence of actual
emergency communications.
Moonbounce? Satellites?
A lot of amateur moonbounce and satellite work has been done with Morse code.
Accurately show the values or percentages of US amateur radio
extraterrestrial communications.
And if a person with
code was truly more able to provide communications under adverse conditions,
all radio services would still be relying on code.
No, that's not true.
It is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. Denial does not alter reality.
Other radio services use radio as a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Most
of them have the complete elimination of radio operators and radio operating
skill as a goal. That's why the maritime service phased out Morse code on the
high seas - they wanted to save the cost of having radio officers on their
ships.
The purpose of radio on waterborne vessels is for the purpose of
COMMUNICATIONS. It was never about maintaining some kind of
standards on operating radios, maintaining radio operators, or
preserving some kind of "tradition" of old-time radio.
Feel free to look at Part 1, Title 47 CFR, to see that the FCC has
added more radio license categories for watercraft communications
and safety than ever existed for radiotelegraphy.
They aren't. In the end, these are all code myths.
No, they are misunderstandings by those who don't like the code test.
UNQUESTIONABLE INCORRECT in the reality of world use of radio.
Here, try this one:
"All else being equal, a radio amateur who has Morse Code skills is more
experienced, more qualified, and has more radio communications options
available than a radio amateur with no Morse Code skills."
That is what is referred to as a "loaded" statement which automatically
implies that morse code users are somehow "superior" communicators.
The loading comes from the opening "All else being equal."
US amateur radio regulations do NOT specify that morse code MUST be
used over and above any other mode.
US amateur radio regulations allow free and optional use of ANY
allocated mode, any frequency band.
Your statement would be correct ONLY if morse code was required for
USE by all US radio amateurs. It is not so.
The amateur radio service is NOT the "amateur radiotelegraphy service."
Reply With Quote
