Mike Coslo wrote:
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 -

Put a friggin asterisk next to their call, like Jim said.

* = code lover. Voluntarily added, for the CW fans. No biggie.

-whatever-

Steveo wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
Be an example of what you think a ham ought to be.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Should a ham be like N8WWM!?

http://tinyurl.com/q3xp

No comment, Dee D? I'm in Ohio too.

(replying from rec.radio.cb, where n8wwm hangs out)

Steveo wrote in message ...
Because most topics that are cross posted to this many groups
end up being worthless tripe.

Look here is Steveo trolling ham groups again why am I not surprised.

(No No Not George) wrote:
Steveo wrote in message
...
Because most topics that are cross posted to this many groups
end up being worthless tripe.

Look here is Steveo trolling ham groups again why am I not surprised.

Cuz you're too ****ing stoopid to read the cross post thru four NG's?

Dumbass.

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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.

Apparently the state DOES see a continuing need for PP or TPT...
but does NOT see any public purpose, safety issue, or licensing
ommision by not testing for manual gearboxes.

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^)

The point is that there is ZERO harm if a new ham never
passes a code test and then decides to get on the air and
jump into a code QSO to learn while doing.

The state apparently thinks the same is true for
manual gearbox driving and many other aspects of driving
which aren't tested at all. I can and do drive an extended cab PU-truck
pulling a 5000 lb trailer, combined length about 40 feet.

To the best of my knowledge, no state
tests anyone for that combination of skills.
All that is needed is a regular driver's license.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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.

Which standard, should there be separate licenses for 3 speed column,
4 speed, 5 speed, 6 speed, which shift pattern?

Apparently there is insufficient state
concern to worry about passing a license test with automatic and
then getting behind the wheel of a manual gearbox vehicle. It's
been that way for decades now with no ill results.

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.

Why wouldn't it be a good way to get anone on HF to
practice also if there's no code test at all? That's
the point, there is no rational justification for a CW
mode skill test. The FCC has addressed and dismissed
every known pro-code argument...as has the ITU also
since Code is gone now as a mandatory treaty requirment.

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.

ITU treaty is goofed up too?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote:
ITU treaty is goofed up too?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

What about that BPL thing, I know their using it in Manasass, anyone
hear how good or bad it is to HF comms?

Updates?

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
m...
"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?

And none of this would have happened if only he had known
code? Give me a break.

Answer the question asked...The question is, for those that need
clarity: IF someone became a General or Extra with NO
code skills, and then decided to learn code on-the-air, what's
the harm, danger, etc?

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.

The potential for harm, physical or otherwise is NOT tied
to anyone's knowledge of code. THAT is the point.

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.")

The "effort" has nothing to do with code testing. The goal
of ending code testing is based solely on the lack of
any continued need for code skills to be mandated for
any HF access. There was, in the past, a rational reason
or set of reasons for code knowledge. Those days are gone.
It is that simple.

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.

Again, this dialog isn't about the validity or not of
current writtens. My point(s) here are focused only on
code testing. PERIOD!

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?!"

Sorry to burst your bubble, but its the only
FCC we have. Indeed, had the FCC seriously
errored in their past decion(s) regarding need
or non-need for code skills testing, then I'm
amazed you and others haven't filed court action to
stop the FCC.

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.

If new ham goes OnTheAir to learn code, does that trouble you?
What part of amateur spectrum is considered highway vs
non-highway?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Steveo ) wrote:
Hey Dee D. you see how he operates he is a troll and not only that
he
is an illegal freebander and HF bootlegger. Ask him about his
Collins
S-Line he operates without a license and why it is set up to
transmit
all over the spectrum he will go quiet real fast.

Wrong again, do you need it beat in to you with a clue by four?

You see Dee D. how Steveo gets violent he has a real problem with
anger first thing you know he is threatening to beat someone LOL. But
the part about his bootleg Collins HF station is true he brags about
it many times on rec.radio.cb ask him you know you hear about these
pirating radio spectrum outlaws in the FCC reports but I bet you never
met one well here he is his name is Steve Parks.

(No No Not George) wrote:
Steveo ) wrote:
Hey Dee D. you see how he operates he is a troll and not only that
he
is an illegal freebander and HF bootlegger. Ask him about his
Collins
S-Line he operates without a license and why it is set up to
transmit
all over the spectrum he will go quiet real fast.

Wrong again, do you need it beat in to you with a clue by four?

You see Dee D. how Steveo gets violent?

A clue by four is violent? Leave Dee alone already, leghumper.