"Guy" wrote in message
news:TKMqe.15606$mC.3822@okepread07...
wrote:

Why should people who *want* to use it have to test for it?


Why not? If you want to drive, you have to take a test, if you want to
get into college you have to take a test, so what's wrong with if you are
going to use code only about taking a test?

Landshark

Landshark wrote:


"Guy" wrote in message
news:TKMqe.15606$mC.3822@okepread07...
wrote:

Why should people who *want* to use it have to test for it?


Why not? If you want to drive, you have to take a test, if you want to
get into college you have to take a test, so what's wrong with if you are
going to use code only about taking a test?

Landshark

I don't understand the logic in what you're saying.

Are there other tests that we should introduce into society?

Should we implement taking a test before you are deemed qualified to open a
credit card account?

Should we implement taking a test before you are deemed qualified to take
the mail out of your mailbox and bring it into your house for further
sorting, opening, and reading?

Should we implement taking a test before you are deemed qualified to operate
a gas pump to fill your car with gasoline?

Should we implement taking a test before you are deemed qualified to
reproduce?

Ok, I'm stating some crazy things here to try to make a point...

How about just leaving some space in the ham bands for CW? If it gets used,
fine, keep it. If CW dies out (and it will eventually--us old timers who
got their ham ticket the hard way will eventually RIP) then reallocate it
for other modes.

By the way, I don't remember having to take a test to get into college. I
have a BS in Computer Science and a Masters in Computer Information
Systems. As long as I paid my bill, they allowed me to go to class.

And the reason for the test to drive a car is to show something in the way
of being able to drive a car and not kill someone else while doing it. I
can understand the reason for the test to drive a car. I can explain valid
reasons for some of my crazy examples above also.

So why test for CW? It's not like anyone who attempts to operate CW without
knowing all the letters at an arbitrary speed will endanger anyone or
themselves while doing it.

Why have a test to operate any mode in any ham band these days?

Guy

"Guy" wrote in message
news:F64re.15840$mC.13248@okepread07...
Landshark wrote:


"Guy" wrote in message
news:TKMqe.15606$mC.3822@okepread07...
wrote:

Why should people who *want* to use it have to test for it?


Why not? If you want to drive, you have to take a test, if you want to
get into college you have to take a test, so what's wrong with if you are
going to use code only about taking a test?

Landshark

I don't understand the logic in what you're saying.

Are there other tests that we should introduce into society?

Should we implement taking a test before you are deemed qualified to open
a
credit card account?

Should we implement taking a test before you are deemed qualified to take
the mail out of your mailbox and bring it into your house for further
sorting, opening, and reading?

Should we implement taking a test before you are deemed qualified to
operate
a gas pump to fill your car with gasoline?

Should we implement taking a test before you are deemed qualified to
reproduce?

Ok, I'm stating some crazy things here to try to make a point...

A little, but a couple might have possibilities



How about just leaving some space in the ham bands for CW? If it gets
used,
fine, keep it. If CW dies out (and it will eventually--us old timers who
got their ham ticket the hard way will eventually RIP) then reallocate it
for other modes.

Good, no problem there either.


By the way, I don't remember having to take a test to get into college. I
have a BS in Computer Science and a Masters in Computer Information
Systems. As long as I paid my bill, they allowed me to go to class.


Maybe not a community or Some state college's, but most want some
sort of aptitude test to make sure you are not wasting the teachers
& university's time.

And the reason for the test to drive a car is to show something in the way
of being able to drive a car and not kill someone else while doing it. I
can understand the reason for the test to drive a car. I can explain
valid
reasons for some of my crazy examples above also.

So why test for CW? It's not like anyone who attempts to operate CW
without
knowing all the letters at an arbitrary speed will endanger anyone or
themselves while doing it.

If you can read 20 to 30 WPM, would you want to here somebody
pounding out only 5 WPM? Otherwise would you want to see the bands
allocated to certain speeds? Point being, it would be called a qualifying
test, to make sure you are able to operate in the mode you test for.


Why have a test to operate any mode in any ham band these days?

Most modes you are correct, but CW is almost an art, as such is
dieing out.


Guy

Landshark


--
Some of them are living an illusion
Bounded by the darkness of their minds,
In their eyes it's nation against nation,
With racial pride, sad hearts they hide,
Thinking only of themselves,
They shun the light,
They think they're right
Living in the empty shells.

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:27:31 GMT, "Landshark" wrote:


By the way, I don't remember having to take a test to get into college. I
have a BS in Computer Science and a Masters in Computer Information
Systems.

I am sorry, but this is a poor example. First off, some colleges require a basic
math/algebra and English test. Even where you don't have to take a test to get
into college, you still have to take a ton of tests to graduate.

If your point is that you don't need a test to start something, then you are
correct. But in many skilled professions, jobs, etc, most require some sort of
test taking or licensing procedure. Please find me a college you can attend that
will give you a degree for just showing up, and not taking tests.


As long as I paid my bill, they allowed me to go to class.

So what? Are they going to give you a degree because you paid your bill? Were
you allowed to sit in on advanced classes without passing earlier
pre-requisites, just because you paid your bill?




Vinnie S.

Vinnie S. wrote:

As long as I paid my bill, they allowed me to go to class.

So what? Are they going to give you a degree because you paid your bill?
Were you allowed to sit in on advanced classes without passing earlier
pre-requisites, just because you paid your bill?




Vinnie S.

No, to both questions.

"Vinnie S." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:27:31 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


By the way, I don't remember having to take a test to get into college.
I
have a BS in Computer Science and a Masters in Computer Information
Systems.

I am sorry, but this is a poor example. First off, some colleges require a
basic
math/algebra and English test. Even where you don't have to take a test to
get
into college, you still have to take a ton of tests to graduate.


I agree and yes you are correct on basic requirements.

If your point is that you don't need a test to start something, then you
are
correct. But in many skilled professions, jobs, etc, most require some
sort of
test taking or licensing procedure. Please find me a college you can
attend that
will give you a degree for just showing up, and not taking tests.


As long as I paid my bill, they allowed me to go to class.
So what? Are they going to give you a degree because you paid your bill?
Were
by pass the class. you allowed to sit in on advanced classes without
passing earlier
pre-requisites, just because you paid your bill?

Agreed. In 76 when I was at college, for one computer class I had to take
trig or pass a test to take the class.



Vinnie S.

You were answering Guy, correct? You used my post as a qoute, I hope you
know that I agree with you. I'll take resonable arguements, like the one
with Guy
any day of the week over the BS, the others have tried spew.

Landshark

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 01:25:33 GMT, "Landshark" wrote:


As long as I paid my bill, they allowed me to go to class.
So what? Are they going to give you a degree because you paid your bill?
Were
by pass the class. you allowed to sit in on advanced classes without
passing earlier
pre-requisites, just because you paid your bill?

Agreed. In 76 when I was at college, for one computer class I had to take
trig or pass a test to take the class.



Vinnie S.

You were answering Guy, correct? You used my post as a qoute, I hope you
know that I agree with you. I'll take resonable arguements, like the one
with Guy
any day of the week over the BS, the others have tried spew.


I was answering Guy. I do agree with some of the things he says. But I don't
agree that you don't learn from preparing for the tests. I learned quite a bit
just from the answer pool book.

Vinnie S.

"Vinnie S." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 01:25:33 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


As long as I paid my bill, they allowed me to go to class.
So what? Are they going to give you a degree because you paid your
bill?
Were
by pass the class. you allowed to sit in on advanced classes without
passing earlier
pre-requisites, just because you paid your bill?

Agreed. In 76 when I was at college, for one computer class I had to take
trig or pass a test to take the class.



Vinnie S.

You were answering Guy, correct? You used my post as a qoute, I hope you
know that I agree with you. I'll take resonable arguements, like the one
with Guy
any day of the week over the BS, the others have tried spew.


I was answering Guy. I do agree with some of the things he says. But I
don't
agree that you don't learn from preparing for the tests. I learned quite a
bit
just from the answer pool book.

Vinnie S.

Agreed. When you stop listening & learning, you might
as well lay down and die.

Landshark


--
__
o /' )
/' ( ,
__/' ) .' `;
o _.-~~~~' ``---..__ .' ;
_.--' b) LANDSHARK ``--...____. .'
( _. )). `-._
`\|\|\|\|)-.....___.- `-. __...--'-.'.
`---......____...---`.___.'----... .' `.;
`-` `

Landshark wrote:

If you can read 20 to 30 WPM, would you want to here somebody
pounding out only 5 WPM? Otherwise would you want to see the bands
allocated to certain speeds? Point being, it would be called a qualifying
test, to make sure you are able to operate in the mode you test for.

Landshark



I've always been able to read *much* faster than I can copy code. I don't
understand what you're getting at there.

No need to divide up the freqs for different speeds. Generally, faster is
lower in freq by gentlemen's agreement. Not always, but generally from
what I've seen. FYI, there's currently a proposal to divide up the freqs
based on bandwidth requirements.

What's the difference between someone who passed the 5 WPM code test and has
now forgotten it and someone who never learned 5 WPM? Neither operate the
mode. So why not just have some freqs dedicated to those who want to use
it and quit testing for it? If you can operate voice on 2M, you can
operate voice on HF. Why make people qualify for a mode they have no
interest in? If certain freqs are dedicated to CW, why make someone
qualify for it if they're never going to use those freqs?

There once was a time when the only way you could qualify for the highest
class ham license was to show you could copy 20 WPM code. Someone stood up
and said, "Hey, the international requirement is now at 5 WPM." So we did
away with element 1b and 1c. WRC-03 did away with code entirely. So why
are we still testing element 1a?

Guy

"Guy" wrote in message
news:C_ire.15872$mC.13811@okepread07...
Landshark wrote:

If you can read 20 to 30 WPM, would you want to here somebody
pounding out only 5 WPM? Otherwise would you want to see the bands
allocated to certain speeds? Point being, it would be called a
qualifying
test, to make sure you are able to operate in the mode you test for.

Landshark



I've always been able to read *much* faster than I can copy code. I don't
understand what you're getting at there.

Cool! What I was saying is that even though the code is a basic rate,
wouldn't
you rather have a test with more proficient people, than with people that
aren't
very good, but just enough to get their license?


No need to divide up the freqs for different speeds. Generally, faster is
lower in freq by gentlemen's agreement. Not always, but generally from
what I've seen. FYI, there's currently a proposal to divide up the freqs
based on bandwidth requirements.

Yup I know that, but so is the gentlemen's agreement on 36 to 40 for
sideband
use on cb, but that not always the case.


What's the difference between someone who passed the 5 WPM code test and
has
now forgotten it and someone who never learned 5 WPM? Neither operate the
mode. So why not just have some freqs dedicated to those who want to use
it and quit testing for it? If you can operate voice on 2M, you can
operate voice on HF. Why make people qualify for a mode they have no
interest in? If certain freqs are dedicated to CW, why make someone
qualify for it if they're never going to use those freqs?

Because they at least spent the time to learn it, not take a multiple choice
test and sign their name at the bottom of the paper.


There once was a time when the only way you could qualify for the highest
class ham license was to show you could copy 20 WPM code. Someone stood
up
and said, "Hey, the international requirement is now at 5 WPM." So we did
away with element 1b and 1c. WRC-03 did away with code entirely. So why
are we still testing element 1a?


Don't know, but it's still a requirement to get the upper class license. I
don't agree
with that, but if they were to have a "code" only requirement license, that
would
be fine with me.

Guy

Landshark