Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Your observation
was absent any clarification that it was only YOUR observation, unsubstantiated by any true facts. Get you head out the sand and look around. See all of your old buddies just hanging around the club meeting doing nothing? is field day as well attended as it was in the 60's? Are new folks welcomed? Is help provided? If so then consider yourself lucky. One aspect of almost all hobbies" is the cost to play which often results in an older cross-section of participants. The same is true for antique cars, model railroading, etc. Add to that the available "free time" which most older folks, especially retirees, have. My observation is as substantiated as yours. You can't prove anything. Regarding cost to play, Ham radio only costs what you want it to cost. I have put together a station for under $100 US. Not new and certainly not the station I really wanted but it did work and I did QSO many other stations. Cost is not a factor. Free time is what you want of it. At 20 I had time if I wanted to take it and at 50 I can still find time for the important things or what is important at this time. Regarding costs, ther lays part of the problem. In the 60's I always wanted that Drake '4' line. Couldn't afford it. Settled on a used equipment and homebrewed many accy's. Todays out of the box operator couldn't solder a connection if their life depended on it. Can't trouble shoot a broken receiver or transmitter. Can't draw a circiut for a simple crystal controlled transmitter, can't figure the length of a half wave dipole, can't scrounge parts, etc..... |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message et... IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos. Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped with an automatic transmission, your driving privilidges were limited to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the "priviliges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess" correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS. Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop, mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the dirver ahead of him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all? The reality is the morse test is past its prime...and the entire body of international countries have seen fit to eliminate morse as an international treaty element. The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry into, the ARS. 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added priviliges have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained. Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?! I've read enough posts here and on the countless code vs. no-code articles on the various ham radio web forums (As well as the actual RM petitions and their respective comments.) to confidently say that neither side can claim an overwhelming numerical advantage over the other. So I think it's safe to say that not all ascribe to the "barrier" notion. What will happen? Well, the squeaky wheel gets the oil so I think we can be reasonably assured of the elimination of Element 1...at least for Technician "+" privies. Personally, I'm prouder to have achieved rather than squeaked. Fair enough. Indeed. Cheers, Bill K2UNK 73 de Bert WA2SI |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Because most topics that are cross posted to this many groups
end up being worthless tripe. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Bert Craig" wrote in message et... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message thlink.net... "JEP" wrote in message e.com... SNIP YES! No code is killing ham radio. See you on channel 22 good buddy. And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim that: "No Code is killing ham radio?" Odds are you haven't a single rational example. Cheers, Bill K2UNK May I, Bill? While I do not think No-Code Int'l. is "killing" ham radio, I do believe it is fostering a bad mindset. If there were truly no no-code AR license available, I'd agree that the Morse code exam is a barrier to those who neither possess the "Morse aptitude" (For lack of a better term.) nor wish to utilize it OTA. However, there's been a no-code ticket available for over a decade now...with some pretty generous RF real estate and power limitations I might add. IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos. This is an excellent point, Bill! And the answer is YES, they did! I have a wife and kid that cannot drive a standard transmission auto or truck. I can drive standard as well as automatic transmissioned vehicles. Who knows more? Does it make any difference at all. The point is that there is no reason for states to test on manual gearbox autos because 95% of new vehicles are automatic. Those that want to will learn to drive a manual without any licensing intervention needed from the state. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
"Bert Craig" wrote in message om... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message et... IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos. Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped with an automatic transmission, your driving privilidges were limited to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the "priviliges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess" correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS. Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop, mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the dirver ahead of him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all? The reality is the morse test is past its prime...and the entire body of international countries have seen fit to eliminate morse as an international treaty element. The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry into, the ARS. So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW? The anology is a joke. There is ZERO element of safety involved with CW knowledge/testing. Had there been any relavent safety aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it. 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added priviliges have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained. Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?! So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW on the only two all-CW only bands. Use does not justify the requirement since there's nothing detrimental about learning on the air at even a one word per minute, look it up on a table rate. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:
Just like you should! I'm amazed by the number of hams that seem to thing that the ARRL has to agree with all their personal opinions. I wonder how many of those type are married! 8^) I wouldn't say they should have to agree 100% but logic would dictate that at least about 1/2 of all or so should be in agreement. I wonder how many of the priveliges we enjoy - and many take for granted - in the ARS, would be around if not for the ARRL. Prove it. Prove it without circumstantial or coincidental evidence. Well, the first thing would be getting back on the air after WW1. Some might disagree on the particulars, but ARRL had a big part in it. I read that in "200 Meters and Down". But remember I said I wonder. Wasn't really claiming anything. 8^) Ryan KC8PMX -- "The Pope has issued a proclamation on Michael Jackson. If he hears any more allegations about little boys, the Pope says he'll have no choice but to make him a priest." I love the quotes, Ryan!!! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Bert Craig" wrote in message v.net... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message arthlink.net... "JEP" wrote in message gle.com... SNIP YES! No code is killing ham radio. See you on channel 22 good buddy. And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim that: "No Code is killing ham radio?" Odds are you haven't a single rational example. Cheers, Bill K2UNK May I, Bill? While I do not think No-Code Int'l. is "killing" ham radio, I do believe it is fostering a bad mindset. If there were truly no no-code AR license available, I'd agree that the Morse code exam is a barrier to those who neither possess the "Morse aptitude" (For lack of a better term.) nor wish to utilize it OTA. However, there's been a no-code ticket available for over a decade now...with some pretty generous RF real estate and power limitations I might add. IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos. This is an excellent point, Bill! And the answer is YES, they did! I have a wife and kid that cannot drive a standard transmission auto or truck. I can drive standard as well as automatic transmissioned vehicles. Who knows more? Does it make any difference at all. The point is that there is no reason for states to test on manual gearbox autos because 95% of new vehicles are automatic. Those that want to will learn to drive a manual without any licensing intervention needed from the state. My XYL refuses to parallel park, as do a number of others. She also doesn't do three point turns. Your logic would eliminate those from the test also. A person CAN drive for years and years, and if they do things a certain way, they don't have to PP or TPT. She can drive 100 percent of the time without it. Of course the odd emergency situation may come up. Bill, if you don't want a Morse code test, that is fine, but you shouldn't use a flawed argument to support it. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Bert Craig" wrote in message om... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message v.net... IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos. Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped with an automatic transmission, your driving privilidges were limited to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the "priviliges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess" correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS. Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop, mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the dirver ahead of him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all? The reality is the morse test is past its prime...and the entire body of international countries have seen fit to eliminate morse as an international treaty element. The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry into, the ARS. So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW? The anology is a joke. There is ZERO element of safety involved with CW knowledge/testing. Had there been any relavent safety aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it. This is your analogy, Bill, not ours. I don't think the analogy fits, I think people should be required to test on standard, or at least not be allowed to drive a standard unless tested for it. 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added priviliges have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained. Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?! So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW on the only two all-CW only bands. Use does not justify the requirement since there's nothing detrimental about learning on the air at even a one word per minute, look it up on a table rate. one of two answers: 1. It's a goofed up rule 2. It's a good way to get Tech's to practice Morse code. Either is probably irrelevant because most tech's that aren't planning on upgrading probably aren't all that interested in Morse code at all, and there are plenty of goofed up rules. - Mike KB3EIA - |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: My XYL refuses to parallel park, as do a number of others. She also doesn't do three point turns. Your logic would eliminate those from the test also. A person CAN drive for years and years, and if they do things a certain way, they don't have to PP or TPT. She can drive 100 percent of the time without it. Of course the odd emergency situation may come up. Bill, if you don't want a Morse code test, that is fine, but you shouldn't use a flawed argument to support it. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - In Michigan, you will fail your driving exam if you can't parallel park and do a 3 point turn. They are mandatory test elements. You can fail one but not both. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message om... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message et... IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar when they stopped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos. Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped with an automatic transmission, your driving privileges were limited to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the "privileges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess" correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS. Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop, mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the driver ahead of him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all? The reality is the Morse test is past its prime...and the entire body of international countries have seen fit to eliminate Morse as an international treaty element. The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry into, the ARS. So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW? Oh, I don't know, Bill…let's see. Let's ask that fellow who just passed Element 2 and just couldn't wait to get OTA. So he bought a nifty little dual-bander, a "killer" Mirage amp, and pumped a few hundred Watts or VHF or UHF RF into his nice long Yagi (You know, the one marketed as a "Boomer.") pointed toward a distant repeater…right through the second floor of his neighbor's house. Heck, he mounted it on the mast that formerly hosted a TV antenna…that ought to be good enough, right? After all, I'm sure that someone who is so bothered at the notion of having to learn and be tested on a skill he deems irrelevant to how he plans on operating, that he joins an "international" movement to remove said offensive task…would certainly be concerned and cognizant of any harmful RF his equipment might be radiating. Heck, he did pass that 35 multiple-guess…er, I meant choice test that proclaimed him "ready." I am fairly certain though that his mode of choice was not CW. ;-) The analogy is a joke. Actually, I am pretty much joking around with you, Bill. (Lighten up.) HOWEVER, the potential for physical harm is there and somewhere the above scenario may be playing out as you read these words…and that's no joke. There is ZERO element of safety involved with CW knowledge/testing. Agreed. It's the mindset I find kinda alarming. Folks that have no problem with putting forth the effort to advance in their endeavors are more likely to exercise that same "work ethic" wrt conscientiously ensuring the safe operation of their station. Conversely, folks that would rather complain about having to put forth some effort (Let's be honest, the effort is rather minimal re. Element 1.) to advance themselves are perceived to be "corner-cutters." (Some might even call them…"slackers.") BIG BIG DISCLAIMER: I am quite aware that this is not true for all no-code Technicians and/or NCI members, HOWEVER, all it takes is one poor soul getting a cranial soaking from some dunderhead who wants to bombard that repeater to validate the concern. Lest the repeater folks feel offended, there is a club here on LI devoted to simplex operation who support VHF/UHF operation with a tad more than the few hundred Watts mentioned above. Had there been any relevant safety aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it. You slay me, Bill. Is this the same FCC that's ready to administer the BPL suppository to AR? "Who's yer daddy now?!" 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added privileges have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained. Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?! So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW on the only two all-CW only bands. That nice slow-code practice you speak of below. Learn to drive in a safe environment before venturing onto the highway. Use does not justify the requirement since there's nothing detrimental about learning on the air at even a one word per minute, look it up on a table rate. Cheers, Bill K2UNK 73 de Bert WA2SI |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
ARRL Propose New License Class & Code-Free HF Access | Antenna | |||
ARRL and the local scene | Policy | |||
NEWS: N2DUP announces for ARRL section manager in Minnesota | General | |||
ARRL's Incoming QSL Burro Screwing NON ARRL members! | Policy | |||
ARRL Dilemmas (Representative KC8LDO a problem-operator) | CB |