"Hugo" wrote in
:


Alun Palmer wrote in message
...
"Landshark" . wrote in
.com:


"D. Stussy" wrote in message
. org...\

Why don't you people pay attention that
your cross posting this troll fodder?

Landshark



I beleive that the word you are searching for is drivel, not dribble


"beleive"? (I before E, except after C) remember..?






I have no spell checker here, but at least I don't confuse things by using
the wrong word

Not being a medical expert...but...it sounds to me like a happening when one
is trying to bust through a certain word per minute barrier. Where you must
learn to copy BEHIND.

Try this. Listen at a rate of sending that you ARE NOT COMFORTABLE with.
In this case TEN or 13 WPM.

ONLY RIGHT DOWN a character that you copy. Forget about ALL the others.
Keep doing this. Do not drop down to the 5 wpm at all. Forget that is the
goal.

As time goes on you will start getting more and more of the characters.
This technique forces the brain to copy BEHIND. This should allow you that
split second of time needed.

It works for getting the speed up.

Like I said, it may be what will help you.

Just a thought.

Dan/W4NTI

"C" wrote in message
...

No I am not doing a memorizing of each dit and dah and converting
method. My problem is my brain does not react fast enough to decide what
each character is before the next one is sent. I just get further
behind. I practice at least 20 to 30 minutes usually twice a day if not
more. I use computer programs and ARRL training CDs.

I will check "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". Thanks for the
encouragement.

C.



In article m,
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

If you were memorizing the code, that was the problem. That's not the
right
way to learn it. There's quite a bit of material out there on the
internet
on the right way to learn code. For starters, work towards a reflex
reaction. i.e. Hear the sound, write the letter. Don't think about the
dots and dashes. Practice every day for 30 mintues per day EVERY day or
almost everyday. There are lots of computer programs out there you can
download from the internet and every person has their favorite. Set it
for
an 18wpm character speed but 5wpm word speed. Try the G4FON program.
It's
available for free on the internet. I apologize for not posting the
website
but I don't happen to have it anymore.

Practicing once or twice a week won't get it. You fall too far
backwards
between sessions. Memorizing dots and dashes and then trying to write
the
letter slows you down so that you can't keep up.

Read "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". It's available for free on
the
internet. The author did extensive research on how code should be
studied.
The biggest problem is that too many people are told to use study
methods
that hold a person back rather than move them forward. Another problem
is
unrealistic expections. They see the whiz kids get it in a week and
think
they should be able to do the same. They're the exception not the rule.

The code is far easier than most things that you have learned in life if
you
find the correct way to study it and put in the amount of time needed.


If my General CSCE expires again (this will be #2) I will never take
it
again and will have lost desire in a hobby that I grew up working in
for
the last 39 years.......

C.

Don't give up. Work with modern training methods and you can do it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Michael Black" wrote in message
...
Mike Coslo ) writes:
C wrote:
No I am not doing a memorizing of each dit and dah and converting
method. My problem is my brain does not react fast enough to decide
what
each character is before the next one is sent. I just get further
behind. I practice at least 20 to 30 minutes usually twice a day if not
more. I use computer programs and ARRL training CDs.

I will check "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". Thanks for the
encouragement.


Ahh, that training CD! I used it, and failed miserably at it. Turns out
I memorized the darn thing. You might try a program that sends out
random groups or even makes up QSO's.

- Mike KB3EIA -

With most people having computers, learning CW should be so much easier
nowadays. Not like when I was ten, and bought a telegraph set so I
could learn Morse Code, not realizing that sending is not he same thing
as receiving.

One of the things I've wondered about is whether one could get used
to the sounds of the letters subconciously via a program that
sends the morse letter everytime you press a key on your keyboard.
You wouldn't really being paying attention, but it would be a positive
reinforcement of what sounds go with what letters. I'm not sure
it would be a completely painless method, but it would either help
get someone used to the sounds, or reinforce the learning already done.

But I'm not sure anyone has cooked up such a program.

At the very least, with people spending so much time at their
computers, I'd suggest running a CW practice program, sending
random letters, while you do something else at your computer.
Set the volume relatively low, and don't even bother trying to
copy it; just use it to get used to the sounds.

I suspect some of the problem some people have is that they are
trying way too hard. They see the code as an obstacle, and are
fighting it all the way. "Now I'm going to do my hour of code
practice". In the old days, that would mean going to a code
practice course, or buying one of those records (I had one to
start, and I think it did help), or listening to a receiver
where the code might not be optimal or under the best conditions.
You sit there with your pen and paper, and struggle to get it
all right. But moving it into the background makes it less important,
and perhaps by simply getting used to the sounds before struggling
to get it all, it might all come easier.

Michael VE2BVW



I like that..sounds plausable. Oh....when I was learning it and I was
riding in the car with mom I would sound out the Morse on all the roadsigns
I could see. Drove mom nuts, but it helped. Not dot dash.....di dah.

Dan/W4NTI

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 03:44:17 GMT, D. Stussy wrote:

But until the FCC acts to remove such a reference, that doesn't mean that it's
not operative in the meantime.

How does one comply with a requirement that doesn't exist?

Carefully..... ggg

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 D. Stussy wrote:

It does not mean that at all. It is another perfect example of FCC
regulation-writer shortsightedness, just like happened with the April 2000
changes.

Yeah. Monty DePont (and the rest of us who were craftsmen in rule
and affidavit and opinion writing) retired before that time and it's
so difficult to get "good help nowadays"......

I disagree. There is a [U.S.] requirement for these licenseholders
to meet the international requirement. Show me how they can do this
if the international requirement doesn't exist....

Sure it exists. It requires each Administration to determine if a
code test is necessary. It's not an "option" - each Administration
MUST determine if a code test is necessary or not. If the
Administration determines that it is, then any test that is ordered
complies with "international requirements".

S25.5 no longer REQUIRES anything. So how can one show that one has
met the requirement? That's impossible.

Having a choice (regardless of whom holds the choice) means that it
is an OPTION, and options aren't requirements. A requirement means
that there is no choice; no option. These are OPPOSITES.

The "international requirement" (inflexible rule) is that the
decision on code proficiency is now up to each Administration. This
isn't an "option" - this is a fixed rule = "requirement".

"Meeting the international requirement" means meeting the rule set
by the FCC. The FCC cannot remove an operating privilege for an
entire class of licensee without a formal rule change unless it is a
temporary or emergency measure. There has not been any formal rule
change, so the situation remains as is.

Whether or not the IRS and the Tax Court works that way, that's how
the FCC works.

Dieter, you've been dealing with the IRS too much to think clearly
on this matter.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ...
"C" wrote in message
...

My only gripe with the code is the testing. It is stated as a 5 word
per minute test. When I challenged the test a few weeks ago I found that
it is actually anywhere from 13 to 18 words per minute, not 5 words per
minute. The 5 words per minute is a lie....

snip

Not trying to be a smart ass here...but...how do you know it was 13 if you
say you can't copy 13???. Could it be he was sending the characters fast
and making the spacing long. I.E. Farnsworth method, which is the
recomended way to conduct a test?

If you want to quit. Thats your choice. I would suggest you go to a
different test place with different folks instead.

Dan/W4NTI

Dan, he probably finished failing the exam again and said to one of
the VE's, "Sheesh, that code seemed awfully fast." Whereas the VE
replied, "Sure, we're sending it at 13-18wpm with long spaces in
between. It all evens out in the end. By the way, we are denying you
access to HF."

That's what happens to people who study Morse Code tapes at 5wpm then
take the Farnsworth exam.

If they don't have a high level understanding of all of this, then
they are just as likely to get a hold of real Morse study material as
opposed to Farnsworth study material.

If they don't pay any more attention than you, that is likely. And a part of the
learning process that you have always missed.

DICK, I pay attention to what the FCC has published in Part 97. It
tends to be the guide book of amateur radio. Your petty little jabs,
half-baked thoughts and incomplete sentences don't rule the ARS. They
merely distract and annoy.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:
D. Stussy wrote:
I disagree that what is left means that any Technician or Novice has any HF
privilege at all. The FCC rule still says that these licensees must show
compliance with a non-existent regulation. Since they CANNOT COMPLY with a
non-existent [international] regulation, they LACK the privilege.

The compliance was met when it was required by international regulation
(and it is still required by FCC regulations). According to your logic
then no license class has any HF privileges since we met the compliance
of an international regulation that no longer exists. So all license
classes that took a code test are now non-compliant, so looks like we
are all off HF until the FCC changes the rules.
GEEEEESSSSHHHH!!

Wrong with respect to the General, Advanced, and Extra license classes. Their
ability to operate on HF is dictated SOLELY by license class, and for these
classes, 47 CFR 97.501 indicates the credits (including element 1). These
classes have NO REFERENCE to any international requirement as necessary to be
met.

You need to re-read the operating frequency privilege rules in 47 CFR 97.301.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:
D. Stussy wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Jim Hampton wrote:

Please re-read Phil's reply again. You missed the point as to each
administration is free to do as they please. So far, the FCC has not seen
to eliminate the Morse requirement. Period.


If any entity has a choice, then how can it be called a requirement?

The international requirement meant that all entities had to require a
code test for HF privileges. Now the international requirement has been
dropped, now each entity can decided for itself if it wants to require a
code test for HF privileges, and until the FCC changes the rules, it is
still required for U.S. hams. What is so hard to understand about that?

That means that there is no international requirement (in your words, "has been
dropped").

I agree exactly: "Until the FCC changes the rules, it is still required ...."

How do you show compliance with a non-existent requirement?
Please demonstrate your proof.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, GM wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:50:19 GMT, D. Stussy wrote:
I disagree to as what it says.

I state that what the FCC wrote is that the licensee is to meet a requirement
that is now impossible to meet because it no longer exists.

You are a troll. You post from ampr.org and easynews.com. You
aren't fooling anyone. We are taking this newsgroup back and nothing
you can do will stop that.

1) I am not a troll, nor have I ever posted from easynews.com. I don't even
have an account at easynews.com.

2) I have asked a legitimate question. 47 CFR 97.301(e) bases the HF
operating privileges for the novice and technician license classes on a
requirement that now no longer exists, but the FCC hasn't removed the
requirement for those licensees to comply with the external requirement. How
are these licensees to show compliance with a[n international] requirement that
no longer exists?

If they can't demonstrate compliance, then they don't have the privilege. Is
that beyond your comprehension?

These are the handles you have used in the past couple of months
including but not limited to--

D. Stussy

This top one is NOT a handle but my name. So what if it's an "ampr.org"
address. It's one of the few that actually WORKS because I know what I'm
doing.

None of the rest are mine nor under my control. Most I've never even seen
before.

666
Anon
Anon
Anus On Line
Aunt Bea
Barabbas
BARF
Big Al
Bob Badblood
Bubba
Bojangles
Claude
Dave Allan
David
DimmyDimwitt
Dobbie
Don Souter
Doug Martin
eaxxyz3
Ed Norton
Enrique Sanchez
Erasmo Hernandez
Firebottle
Floppy Disk
Fwankie
Goodfellows Rule
Goodie Two Shoes
Groan!
Guffaw!!!
Harley1200
Henry
Herb
Ho Ho
Howie
Itell On4zzabc
Itell OnU
I Zorg
Joe Partlan
King Creole
Lloyd
Lloyd
Lloyd/AB4NW mmmm
Llyod mmmm
L Rod Hubbard
Mark Mansfield
Miami Bob
Momma Moron
nookie
Nutcase Bobby
Onxyzzy
Pabst Smear
Pappy
Pat Carter
Patrick C
PCarter
Petey Arnett
Poo Bear
Q ywhere
QRM Billy
QRP
Queenie
Randy Thomas
Rasheed
Ray Dude
Reactance
Richard W
Rob
Roger
Roger
Ron \"Stompin\" James
Sadiq Akhbar
Sammie Adams
Sammy Davis Sr.
Savant
Scammer
SLee
Stagger Lee
Stu Parker
The Moron List _
Timmie TwoShoes
Trash Radio
Troll
Virgil
Voila!
What A HOOT!!!
Wrong Way
Zippo
zzabc

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in
. org:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:52:54 GMT, "Phil Kane"
wrote:

Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the requirement
in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed.

That is NOT what 97.301(e) says. 97.301(e) does not require a tech to
possess
element 1, it requires the tech licensee to meet the international
standards set down in s25.5 to transmit on HF.

I agree with the above as to what 47 CFR 97.301(e) says.

I disagree that what is left means that any Technician or Novice has
any HF privilege at all. The FCC rule still says that these licensees
must show compliance with a non-existent regulation. Since they CANNOT
COMPLY with a non-existent [international] regulation, they LACK the
privilege.

The reason 97.301(e) was written that way is because the FCC expected
the s25.5 reference to be deleted, but it was changed. The fact that
it was changed does not mean a tech licensee is not meeting the
requirements set down in 97.301(e).

I disagree. There is a [U.S.] requirement for these licenseholders to
meet the international requirement. Show me how they can do this if
the international requirement doesn't exist.... It's impossible for
them to demonstrate compliance, and therefore, they cannot meet all of
the U.S. requirements (one of which is to meet the non-existent
international requirement), and thus have no such privilege.


You have posted this in lots of places, so I will reply only once. The
international requirement is that code testing is optional, hence it can
be met either with or without passing a code test, i.e. veryone meets it
all the time.

Please define "optional requirement."

If it's optional, it's not a requirement. If it's required, it's not an option.

47 CFR 97.301(e) is defined in terms of a requirement. That requirement,
having been turned into an option, no longer exists - but the appropriate
licenseholders, in order to execute the privilege, still must demonstrate
compliance with the non-existent requirement. How do they do this? If they
can't, then they don't have the privilege. I say that demonstrating compliance
with a non-existent requirement is an impossible act.

It doesn't mean a tech can get on 20 meters, it should mean he can
operate on
HF in the allocated tech bands according to the FCC rules.

What you think it should mean and what it does mean are as clear as
night and day.