I have been watching this thread for a while and now I must join the
fray.

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:34:18 -0400, Dave spake
thusly:

George Orwell wrote:

Al Klein said:


Eliminating a requirement is dumbing things down. But no one would
expect you to be able to understand that.


Well, let me ask, from the point of view of a potential noob to the hobby. What use is the code requirements?

The 'use' is something you just can't understand. The 'use' is a commitment of
time and talent which adds value to the license. The 'use' is investment.

The term "investment" is very misleading. To explain my position, I am
in agreement that CW testing should go the way of the dinosaurs. I
have no problem with technical testing, as a way to ensure that
potential Hams can operate their radios properly, without causing
interference with neighbors and other Hams world wide. There is also a
safety factor, with transmitters that can kick out a LOT of
potentially dangerous power. So, technical exam = good idea.
Here in Canada, CW is not required IF you achieve at least 80% on your
technical exam. You need at least 55% WITH CW.
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/inter.../sf08435e.html
This seems fair, to me.

As for the "investment", not all investments are valuable. I invested
years of training to be a fully qualified mechanic. There is
considerable value in that investment, obviously, as it is my bread
and butter.

But, would my investment be more valuable if, for example, if an
additional year of carpentry training were required for me to be
certified? I mean, after all, cars had wood frames and bodies at one
time so a mechanic would have needed carpentry skills...back in the
1930's. Such an investment would be a bad one. The skills would have
no value and do nothing to enhance my skills as a mechanic. The extra
investment would have no return with regards to being a mechanic.
Carpentry would not make me a better mechanic and would not prove to
the world that I really wanted to be a mechanic.

CW is as useful to todays Hams as carpentry is to a mechanic. A good
thing to learn, and potentially useful, but should not be a barrier.

But then again, a mechanic *might* need to do urgent bodywork on an
1930's wood-bodied ambulance and therefore save somebodys life. ;-)
{hehe...sorry..just had to pour on more coal..}
Just about as likely a scenario as CW being the only way to save a
life.

But then, if I were stranded on a desert island and found some old war
time aircraft wreckage, I could modify a magneto to be a spark
generator and spark out an S.O.S. My mechanical skills help me there.

Well......could happen!!

--


\|||/ Kilroy was Here.
(@@)
____ooO_(_)_Ooo___________________________________ _
|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|
|___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ |
|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_ _

Please note: All unsolicited e-mail sent to me may, at
my discretion, be posted in this newsgroup verbatim.

"Opus-" wrote in message
...

I have been watching this thread for a while and now I must join the
fray.

lots snipped

The term "investment" is very misleading. To explain my position, I am
in agreement that CW testing should go the way of the dinosaurs. I
have no problem with technical testing, as a way to ensure that
potential Hams can operate their radios properly, without causing
interference with neighbors and other Hams world wide. There is also a
safety factor, with transmitters that can kick out a LOT of
potentially dangerous power. So, technical exam = good idea.
Here in Canada, CW is not required IF you achieve at least 80% on your
technical exam. You need at least 55% WITH CW.
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/inter.../sf08435e.html
This seems fair, to me.

As for the "investment", not all investments are valuable. I invested
years of training to be a fully qualified mechanic. There is
considerable value in that investment, obviously, as it is my bread
and butter.


I'm not sure I recall all the other posters idea of investment - but
"mine" - was referring to the time/cost how ever little - "spent" or
"Invested" - if you will - in the way of time to study or prepare for the
exam - acquire equipment AND to actually go on the air to make use of it.
So - yes it "can" be looked as an investment - even if in a "minimal" sense
of the word.

IN the way I "think" you're referring to - as an investment towards a
"rewarding career" or leap forward into life - eh - depends on the person.
Many do NOT make electronics their lifes work. BUT, many have started from
ham (some from CB and then ham) and went on into some electronics or
electrical field. So for "them" - it "was" an investment of sorts - into
their future.

Just like another part of this thread where "memory and memorization" was
being used, hacked, slanged - the word "investment" could also go that
direction. It is all in how you want to look at it and perceive it.

Just my 2 cents!

L.

L. wrote:
"Opus-" wrote in message
...

As for the "investment", not all investments are valuable. I invested
years of training to be a fully qualified mechanic. There is
considerable value in that investment, obviously, as it is my bread
and butter.


I'm not sure I recall all the other posters idea of investment - but
"mine" - was referring to the time/cost how ever little - "spent" or
"Invested" - if you will - in the way of time to study or prepare for the
exam - acquire equipment AND to actually go on the air to make use of it.
So - yes it "can" be looked as an investment - even if in a "minimal" sense
of the word.

but that doesn't count of course like My g-5500 totor set isn't an
investment in my station

these folks are just in to what I call the "S&M" school of licensure

"Opus-" wrote in message
...

I have been watching this thread for a while and now I must join the
fray.

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:34:18 -0400, Dave spake
thusly:

George Orwell wrote:

Al Klein said:


Eliminating a requirement is dumbing things down. But no one would
expect you to be able to understand that.


Well, let me ask, from the point of view of a potential noob to the
hobby. What use is the code requirements?

The 'use' is something you just can't understand. The 'use' is a
commitment of
time and talent which adds value to the license. The 'use' is investment.

The term "investment" is very misleading. To explain my position, I am
in agreement that CW testing should go the way of the dinosaurs. I
have no problem with technical testing, as a way to ensure that
potential Hams can operate their radios properly, without causing
interference with neighbors and other Hams world wide. There is also a
safety factor, with transmitters that can kick out a LOT of
potentially dangerous power. So, technical exam = good idea.
Here in Canada, CW is not required IF you achieve at least 80% on your
technical exam. You need at least 55% WITH CW.
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/inter.../sf08435e.html
This seems fair, to me.

As for the "investment", not all investments are valuable. I invested
years of training to be a fully qualified mechanic. There is
considerable value in that investment, obviously, as it is my bread
and butter.

But, would my investment be more valuable if, for example, if an
additional year of carpentry training were required for me to be
certified? I mean, after all, cars had wood frames and bodies at one
time so a mechanic would have needed carpentry skills...back in the
1930's. Such an investment would be a bad one. The skills would have
no value and do nothing to enhance my skills as a mechanic. The extra
investment would have no return with regards to being a mechanic.
Carpentry would not make me a better mechanic and would not prove to
the world that I really wanted to be a mechanic.

CW is as useful to todays Hams as carpentry is to a mechanic. A good
thing to learn, and potentially useful, but should not be a barrier.


This is where your analogy falls apart. CW is currently very useful to
hams. It is in daily use. However, the arguments have already been
presented and those with closed minds have rejected them.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 19:19:15 -0400, "Dee Flint"
spake thusly:


"Opus-" wrote in message
.. .

I have been watching this thread for a while and now I must join the
fray.

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:34:18 -0400, Dave spake
thusly:

George Orwell wrote:

Al Klein said:


Eliminating a requirement is dumbing things down. But no one would
expect you to be able to understand that.


Well, let me ask, from the point of view of a potential noob to the
hobby. What use is the code requirements?

The 'use' is something you just can't understand. The 'use' is a
commitment of
time and talent which adds value to the license. The 'use' is investment.

The term "investment" is very misleading. To explain my position, I am
in agreement that CW testing should go the way of the dinosaurs. I
have no problem with technical testing, as a way to ensure that
potential Hams can operate their radios properly, without causing
interference with neighbors and other Hams world wide. There is also a
safety factor, with transmitters that can kick out a LOT of
potentially dangerous power. So, technical exam = good idea.
Here in Canada, CW is not required IF you achieve at least 80% on your
technical exam. You need at least 55% WITH CW.
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/inter.../sf08435e.html
This seems fair, to me.

As for the "investment", not all investments are valuable. I invested
years of training to be a fully qualified mechanic. There is
considerable value in that investment, obviously, as it is my bread
and butter.

But, would my investment be more valuable if, for example, if an
additional year of carpentry training were required for me to be
certified? I mean, after all, cars had wood frames and bodies at one
time so a mechanic would have needed carpentry skills...back in the
1930's. Such an investment would be a bad one. The skills would have
no value and do nothing to enhance my skills as a mechanic. The extra
investment would have no return with regards to being a mechanic.
Carpentry would not make me a better mechanic and would not prove to
the world that I really wanted to be a mechanic.

CW is as useful to todays Hams as carpentry is to a mechanic. A good
thing to learn, and potentially useful, but should not be a barrier.


This is where your analogy falls apart. CW is currently very useful to
hams. It is in daily use. However, the arguments have already been
presented and those with closed minds have rejected them.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Sorry, but your wrong, my analogy is just fine for this subject. CW to
a ham, like carpentry to a mechanic, can be useful BUT is NOT
NECESSARY for each to do what they want to do effectively and
properly.

Don't be one of those closed minds.

Yes, a ham CAN use CW if he wants and more power to him/her to do so.
A mechanic CAN learn to be a carpenter if he wants to and more power
to him/her to do so. But carpentry will not make a mechanic a better
mechanic, no more than CW will make a ham operator a better ham
operator. More useful to themselves and others, but NOT better.

Just because carpentry COULD maybe be useful to a mechanic does not
mean that he should be required to learn carpentry to be a mechanic. A
mechanic can be a damn good mechanic without picking up a hammer and a
ham can be a damn good ham without touching a key.

I said it before and I'll say it again. 70 years ago a good mechanic
needed carpentry skills but no more. 70 years ago a good ham needed to
know code but no more. A code test for todays prospective hams is like
a carpentry test for todays prospective mechanics.

Opus- wrote in
:

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 19:19:15 -0400, "Dee Flint"
spake thusly:


"Opus-" wrote in message
. ..

I have been watching this thread for a while and now I must join the
fray.

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:34:18 -0400, Dave spake
thusly:

George Orwell wrote:

Al Klein said:


Eliminating a requirement is dumbing things down. But no one would
expect you to be able to understand that.


Well, let me ask, from the point of view of a potential noob to the
hobby. What use is the code requirements?

The 'use' is something you just can't understand. The 'use' is a
commitment of
time and talent which adds value to the license. The 'use' is
investment.

The term "investment" is very misleading. To explain my position, I am
in agreement that CW testing should go the way of the dinosaurs. I
have no problem with technical testing, as a way to ensure that
potential Hams can operate their radios properly, without causing
interference with neighbors and other Hams world wide. There is also a
safety factor, with transmitters that can kick out a LOT of
potentially dangerous power. So, technical exam = good idea.
Here in Canada, CW is not required IF you achieve at least 80% on your
technical exam. You need at least 55% WITH CW.
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/inter.../sf08435e.html
This seems fair, to me.

As for the "investment", not all investments are valuable. I invested
years of training to be a fully qualified mechanic. There is
considerable value in that investment, obviously, as it is my bread
and butter.

But, would my investment be more valuable if, for example, if an
additional year of carpentry training were required for me to be
certified? I mean, after all, cars had wood frames and bodies at one
time so a mechanic would have needed carpentry skills...back in the
1930's. Such an investment would be a bad one. The skills would have
no value and do nothing to enhance my skills as a mechanic. The extra
investment would have no return with regards to being a mechanic.
Carpentry would not make me a better mechanic and would not prove to
the world that I really wanted to be a mechanic.

CW is as useful to todays Hams as carpentry is to a mechanic. A good
thing to learn, and potentially useful, but should not be a barrier.


This is where your analogy falls apart. CW is currently very useful to
hams. It is in daily use. However, the arguments have already been
presented and those with closed minds have rejected them.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Sorry, but your wrong, my analogy is just fine for this subject. CW to
a ham, like carpentry to a mechanic, can be useful BUT is NOT
NECESSARY for each to do what they want to do effectively and
properly.

Don't be one of those closed minds.

Yes, a ham CAN use CW if he wants and more power to him/her to do so.
A mechanic CAN learn to be a carpenter if he wants to and more power
to him/her to do so. But carpentry will not make a mechanic a better
mechanic, no more than CW will make a ham operator a better ham
operator. More useful to themselves and others, but NOT better.

Just because carpentry COULD maybe be useful to a mechanic does not
mean that he should be required to learn carpentry to be a mechanic. A
mechanic can be a damn good mechanic without picking up a hammer and a
ham can be a damn good ham without touching a key.

I said it before and I'll say it again. 70 years ago a good mechanic
needed carpentry skills but no more. 70 years ago a good ham needed to
know code but no more. A code test for todays prospective hams is like
a carpentry test for todays prospective mechanics.


When you have to spend time building a skill, you spend more time learning
other related things as well. Hams that haven't had to study to pass a 13
wpm CW exam, probably don't know the written portion of the exam as will
as hams that did. If I hadn't had to pass 20 wpm for my Extra, I would
have taken the exam a lot sooner, but as I had to build my CW abilities, I
also spend more time learning the theory too. It made me a better ham.


You people don't want knowledgable hams anymore. CB'ers dont have to
learn CW, are they better?

SC

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 23:43:31 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly:

Opus- wrote in
:

I said it before and I'll say it again. 70 years ago a good mechanic
needed carpentry skills but no more. 70 years ago a good ham needed to
know code but no more. A code test for todays prospective hams is like
a carpentry test for todays prospective mechanics.


When you have to spend time building a skill, you spend more time learning
other related things as well. Hams that haven't had to study to pass a 13
wpm CW exam, probably don't know the written portion of the exam as will
as hams that did. If I hadn't had to pass 20 wpm for my Extra, I would
have taken the exam a lot sooner, but as I had to build my CW abilities, I
also spend more time learning the theory too. It made me a better ham.

Was code the ONLY way to learn the written portion? Besides, using a
bunch of beeps to spell out characters over the airwaves takes no
technical ability at all. Here in Canada, a no-code license requires
MORE technical skill than a code license. In other words, here in
Canada you need to learn MORE to pass a no-code license since learning
code is a motor skill, not a technical one.

You people don't want knowledgable hams anymore.

Learning code does not impart any type of "knowledge" any more than
learning roller skating.

CB'ers dont have to
learn CW, are they better?

Based on the CBers I used to hear on the higher sideband channels, I
heard very little of the insults I have seen here spewed by some of
the pro-coders. Therefore, I'd say that they were at least better
behaved than the aforementioned pro-coders.

Yes, there were assholes on CB, but CB didn't make them that way. By
the same token, learning code will not turn an asshole into a nice
guy. CB is just a ham radio in the embryo stage, a zygote. The only
real difference between CB and ham is the choices of bands and the
power of the transmitter, when you really look at things in the most
basic sense.

From: Opus- on Wed, Sep 6 2006 11:05 pm

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 23:43:31 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly:

Opus- wrote in
m:

I said it before and I'll say it again. 70 years ago a good mechanic
needed carpentry skills but no more. 70 years ago a good ham needed to
know code but no more. A code test for todays prospective hams is like
a carpentry test for todays prospective mechanics.

When you have to spend time building a skill, you spend more time learning
other related things as well. Hams that haven't had to study to pass a 13
wpm CW exam, probably don't know the written portion of the exam as will
as hams that did. If I hadn't had to pass 20 wpm for my Extra, I would
have taken the exam a lot sooner, but as I had to build my CW abilities, I
also spend more time learning the theory too. It made me a better ham.

Was code the ONLY way to learn the written portion? Besides, using a
bunch of beeps to spell out characters over the airwaves takes no
technical ability at all.

Agreed. But, please remember that Blow Code is a morse bigot.
He (or she) is representative of only a minority of United
States radio amateurs. When the major accomplishment in life
of such morse bigots has been morsemanship, they will naturally
trumpet that singular skill and attempt to moralize it as some
kind of positive attribute that one MUST have.

Here in Canada, a no-code license requires
MORE technical skill than a code license. In other words, here in
Canada you need to learn MORE to pass a no-code license since learning
code is a motor skill, not a technical one.

I applaud Industry Canada's decision on their regulations.
My contact with Canadian regulations has been minimal but
their website on radio regulations explained it all. Blow
Code is confused on the task of the United States FCC in
regulating ALL US civil radio; our FCC is not a booster
organization for amateur radio or any other radio service
here. The FCC only "wants" radio service users to obey the
regulations.

Manual radiotelegraphy skill testing for an amateur radio
license has existed since the first US radio regulating
agency and was maintained mostly out of inertia and the
insistence of the ARRL (once it had risen above its
competition) through lobbying the FCC. Given the vast
scope of today's radio services, the FCC has a far greater
task to keep up with its regulatory task. Amateur radio
here is low on the regulatory task list of the FCC.

Manual telegraphy IS a motor skill (more correct "psycho-
motor" skill) but morse bigots become more psycho about
their personal skills, equating it to intellectual
knowledge and the ability to reason. Morse bigots see
only their kind and want to destroy those who think
differently; that is security for their "tribe."

You people don't want knowledgable hams anymore.

Learning code does not impart any type of "knowledge" any more than
learning roller skating.

^^ [an example of the morse bigot and their confusion over
psycho-motor skills versus intellectual knowledge]

CB'ers dont have to learn CW, are they better?

Based on the CBers I used to hear on the higher sideband channels, I
heard very little of the insults I have seen here spewed by some of
the pro-coders. Therefore, I'd say that they were at least better
behaved than the aforementioned pro-coders.

The gratuitous insults to Citizens Band Radio Service
users has been in existance since 1958 when the USA
authorized its use here (as 'Class D' CB on only 23
27 MHz band channels). That's a time span of 48 years.

From its inception CB has NEVER required ANY testing
to obtain a CB license. The "license" was pro-forma,
a slight revision of the Restricted Class of Radio-
telephone Operator license then common to services
such as both private and civil aviation pilots.

Nearly a half century ago, US radio amateurs developed
a distaste for the US government and these new radio
service users for: (1) "Taking away" their 11 meter
band (little used, sitting below the largest amateur
radio allocation on HF); having the audacity in NOT
requiring any testing plus intolerant bitching over
NOT having to pass any morse code test. That almost-
hatred developed into the bigotry seen today.

The bigotry grew when about a decade after authorization
the offshore electronics industries hit the US market
with less-expensive CB transceivers and long-haul truckers
took to that service. CB users here soon out-numbered
radio amateurs by a large margin. With such a huge base
of users, a common patois/lingo/jargon grew that was NOT
related to amateur radio but had roots in our state
highway patrol police organizations. That lingo became
quite different than amateurs' use of theirs, so that
reinforced the "different-destroy" attitude of the
amateurs' bigotry against CB users. Amateurs like to
make fun of CB lingo but don't realize their jargon is
amusing to other HF radio service users and the military
radio. Amateurs tend to think of themselves as first
and foremost without realizing that they never were
first nor foremost and were always a minority in radio.

Yes, there were assholes on CB, but CB didn't make them that way. By
the same token, learning code will not turn an asshole into a nice
guy.

Morse bigots have the egotistical self-definition of
THEIR skills being the only "true" ones for amateur
radio. They will rationalize that self-righteous
attitude with any number of archaic "reasons" that
defy validity for regulatory purposes by radio
regulating agencies. In last year's Notice of
Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) on the elimination of
morse code testing for US radio amateurs, several
Commenters cited the ability to "thwart terrorism"
by using morse code! :-) Apparently they had taken
a Hollywood motion picture fictional depiction of
aliens-from-outer-space-invasion as a documentary of
a real event [film title was "Independence Day"]!

CB is just a ham radio in the embryo stage, a zygote. The only
real difference between CB and ham is the choices of bands and the
power of the transmitter, when you really look at things in the most
basic sense.

I see it differently. Human beings like to communicate.
That is evident in the enormous growth of cellular
telephony and daily use of that; the US Census Bureau
stated two years ago the one in three Americans had a
cell phone subscription. That is roughly 100 million
users of those tiny full-duplex radio transceivers.
Several million CB users exist on USA highways (exact
figures unknown as CB has been unlicensed for years,
but can be approximated from EIA - Electronic Industry
Association - statistics on manufactured and imported
electronic equipment). FRS and GMRS unlicensed UHF
HTs may exceed the million mark by now. In the maritime
radio service private boat owners' VHF radios exceed
that of commercial ship owners, VHF voice required on
inland waterways and harbors for traffic control.
Private boat owners are increasing their HF radio use
on deep-water travels unsing HF SSB voice (a few radios
marketed for sales to both them and radio amateurs).

CB is 48 years old, hardly a youngster/child/teener.
It is DIFFERENT than amateur radio on HF, therefore
abhored by some radio amateurs stuck in their radio
bigotry attitudes put there long ago by their
ancestors. If truck drivers have spread a DIFFERENT
lingo on CB radio, then they did so out of THEIR need
to communicate about THEIR things, not some self-
righteous and not-required-by-regulation "traditional"
lingo used by hams. Amateurs don't/can't speak to
others on HF and are restricted (in the USA) to
"non-essential" communications (paraphrased from US
regulations). Truck drivers CAN and DO communicate
with others on and off the highways freely and with
much less of the bigotry displayed by some radio
amateurs looking for someone to destroy.

Where does manual radiotelegraphy fit into this?
It doesn't.

" wrote in
ups.com:

From: Opus- on Wed, Sep 6 2006 11:05 pm

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 23:43:31 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly:

Opus- wrote in
:

I said it before and I'll say it again. 70 years ago a good mechanic
needed carpentry skills but no more. 70 years ago a good ham needed
to know code but no more. A code test for todays prospective hams is
like a carpentry test for todays prospective mechanics.

When you have to spend time building a skill, you spend more time
learning other related things as well. Hams that haven't had to study
to pass a 13 wpm CW exam, probably don't know the written portion of
the exam as will as hams that did. If I hadn't had to pass 20 wpm for
my Extra, I would have taken the exam a lot sooner, but as I had to
build my CW abilities, I also spend more time learning the theory too.
It made me a better ham.

Was code the ONLY way to learn the written portion? Besides, using a
bunch of beeps to spell out characters over the airwaves takes no
technical ability at all.

Agreed. But, please remember that Blow Code is a morse bigot.
He (or she) is representative of only a minority of United
States radio amateurs. When the major accomplishment in life
of such morse bigots has been morsemanship, they will naturally
trumpet that singular skill and attempt to moralize it as some
kind of positive attribute that one MUST have.

Here in Canada, a no-code license requires
MORE technical skill than a code license. In other words, here in
Canada you need to learn MORE to pass a no-code license since learning
code is a motor skill, not a technical one.

I applaud Industry Canada's decision on their regulations.
My contact with Canadian regulations has been minimal but
their website on radio regulations explained it all. Blow
Code is confused on the task of the United States FCC in
regulating ALL US civil radio; our FCC is not a booster
organization for amateur radio or any other radio service
here. The FCC only "wants" radio service users to obey the
regulations.

Manual radiotelegraphy skill testing for an amateur radio
license has existed since the first US radio regulating
agency and was maintained mostly out of inertia and the
insistence of the ARRL (once it had risen above its
competition) through lobbying the FCC. Given the vast
scope of today's radio services, the FCC has a far greater
task to keep up with its regulatory task. Amateur radio
here is low on the regulatory task list of the FCC.

Manual telegraphy IS a motor skill (more correct "psycho-
motor" skill) but morse bigots become more psycho about
their personal skills, equating it to intellectual
knowledge and the ability to reason. Morse bigots see
only their kind and want to destroy those who think
differently; that is security for their "tribe."

You people don't want knowledgable hams anymore.

Learning code does not impart any type of "knowledge" any more than
learning roller skating.

^^ [an example of the morse bigot and their confusion over
psycho-motor skills versus intellectual knowledge]

CB'ers dont have to learn CW, are they better?

Based on the CBers I used to hear on the higher sideband channels, I
heard very little of the insults I have seen here spewed by some of
the pro-coders. Therefore, I'd say that they were at least better
behaved than the aforementioned pro-coders.

The gratuitous insults to Citizens Band Radio Service
users has been in existance since 1958 when the USA
authorized its use here (as 'Class D' CB on only 23
27 MHz band channels). That's a time span of 48 years.

From its inception CB has NEVER required ANY testing
to obtain a CB license. The "license" was pro-forma,
a slight revision of the Restricted Class of Radio-
telephone Operator license then common to services
such as both private and civil aviation pilots.

Nearly a half century ago, US radio amateurs developed
a distaste for the US government and these new radio
service users for: (1) "Taking away" their 11 meter
band (little used, sitting below the largest amateur
radio allocation on HF); having the audacity in NOT
requiring any testing plus intolerant bitching over
NOT having to pass any morse code test. That almost-
hatred developed into the bigotry seen today.

The bigotry grew when about a decade after authorization
the offshore electronics industries hit the US market
with less-expensive CB transceivers and long-haul truckers
took to that service. CB users here soon out-numbered
radio amateurs by a large margin. With such a huge base
of users, a common patois/lingo/jargon grew that was NOT
related to amateur radio but had roots in our state
highway patrol police organizations. That lingo became
quite different than amateurs' use of theirs, so that
reinforced the "different-destroy" attitude of the
amateurs' bigotry against CB users. Amateurs like to
make fun of CB lingo but don't realize their jargon is
amusing to other HF radio service users and the military
radio. Amateurs tend to think of themselves as first
and foremost without realizing that they never were
first nor foremost and were always a minority in radio.

Yes, there were assholes on CB, but CB didn't make them that way. By
the same token, learning code will not turn an asshole into a nice
guy.

Morse bigots have the egotistical self-definition of
THEIR skills being the only "true" ones for amateur
radio. They will rationalize that self-righteous
attitude with any number of archaic "reasons" that
defy validity for regulatory purposes by radio
regulating agencies. In last year's Notice of
Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) on the elimination of
morse code testing for US radio amateurs, several
Commenters cited the ability to "thwart terrorism"
by using morse code! :-) Apparently they had taken
a Hollywood motion picture fictional depiction of
aliens-from-outer-space-invasion as a documentary of
a real event [film title was "Independence Day"]!

CB is just a ham radio in the embryo stage, a zygote. The only
real difference between CB and ham is the choices of bands and the
power of the transmitter, when you really look at things in the most
basic sense.

I see it differently. Human beings like to communicate.
That is evident in the enormous growth of cellular
telephony and daily use of that; the US Census Bureau
stated two years ago the one in three Americans had a
cell phone subscription. That is roughly 100 million
users of those tiny full-duplex radio transceivers.
Several million CB users exist on USA highways (exact
figures unknown as CB has been unlicensed for years,
but can be approximated from EIA - Electronic Industry
Association - statistics on manufactured and imported
electronic equipment). FRS and GMRS unlicensed UHF
HTs may exceed the million mark by now. In the maritime
radio service private boat owners' VHF radios exceed
that of commercial ship owners, VHF voice required on
inland waterways and harbors for traffic control.
Private boat owners are increasing their HF radio use
on deep-water travels unsing HF SSB voice (a few radios
marketed for sales to both them and radio amateurs).

CB is 48 years old, hardly a youngster/child/teener.
It is DIFFERENT than amateur radio on HF, therefore
abhored by some radio amateurs stuck in their radio
bigotry attitudes put there long ago by their
ancestors. If truck drivers have spread a DIFFERENT
lingo on CB radio, then they did so out of THEIR need
to communicate about THEIR things, not some self-
righteous and not-required-by-regulation "traditional"
lingo used by hams. Amateurs don't/can't speak to
others on HF and are restricted (in the USA) to
"non-essential" communications (paraphrased from US
regulations). Truck drivers CAN and DO communicate
with others on and off the highways freely and with
much less of the bigotry displayed by some radio
amateurs looking for someone to destroy.

Where does manual radiotelegraphy fit into this?
It doesn't.




There are two ways to communicate when all you have is a transceiver,
phone, & CW. All you need for phone is a microphone, All you need for CW
is a pencil and paper. If you had to build a transmitter in an emergency,
a CW transmitter is simpliest to build. We are after all technical aren't
we? We're not just appliance operators.

Eliminating CW removes a way we can communicate. A simple way, where all
that's required is an ear, a pencil, and paper, and a skill.


SC

Dee Flint wrote:
"Opus-" wrote in message
...

CW is as useful to todays Hams as carpentry is to a mechanic. A good
thing to learn, and potentially useful, but should not be a barrier.


This is where your analogy falls apart. CW is currently very useful to
hams. It is in daily use. However, the arguments have already been
presented and those with closed minds have rejected them.

Pity the morse zealots and their closed minds... :-)