Dave Heil wrote:


I don't know about lucky. Fortunate, maybe, that my experience over
forty years in amateur radio hasn't been the unpleasant one you've
obviously been forced to endure.

Do you think this guy would by any chance be Vipul, Dave? Has that same
sort of pro-ham attitude, eh?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"JEP" wrote in message
om...

Thats why I say good riddance to ARRL and QST.

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message

igy.com...

"JEP" wrote in message
e.com...

Just my point. I don't want to belong to ARRL just as I don't care to
belong to AARP, NRA, AAA, Skinheads, etc. I just want to read their
magazine when it has something that interests me. I wouldn't buy it
every month as most of the time it has useless drivel about some
clowntest or whether someone died or some such crap. ARRL and QST have
a short time left as the active Ham population lessens.

Well then you can't expect the magazine to be sold at outlets when you

only

buy it once in a while. They've got to recoup the costs of printing and
distributing and the "once in a while" buyer just doesn't provide that.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Gee ...

I've declined the AARP (for now at least - they started sending me
membership
solicitations on my 50th birthday - maybe some day I'll see a benefit)

The NRA would be of interest if I was still a hunter, but alas, the XYL is a
biologist and state-licensed wildlife rehabilitator, so for the sake of
marital
harmony, I've given up that hobby. (I have so many other things going on,
I don't know when I'd have the time for it anyway ...)

The AAA has never appealed to me ... I get good towing coverage for much
less through my car insurance and my new Ford Explorer also comes with
roadside assistance.

Skinheads ... well 'nuff said, I guess.

However, WRT the ARRL - as much as I've had some policy differences
with them over the years, they DO do a LOT of good things for ham radio,
and their member services and publications are also valuable.

All together, I made the value judgment to support the ARRL by maintaining
membership for the past 25+ years (I should have become a life member years
ago - I'd have really saved money over the years - but I resisted because of
my
policy differences with the ARRL leadership in a couple of areas.)

However, with BPL, CC&Rs (don't affect me, but affect a lot of hams), and
the good work that the ARRL/IARU did at the WRC on 40m expansion, I
finally decided to become a life member and to work my policy differences
from the inside as well as from the outside. If I live an average life span
from
now, I'll just about break even on the $975.00 life membership. I also sent
them $100.00 earmarked to support Ed Hare's work against the BPL threat.

I think that ARRL membership (with QST included) is a good value at the
current
dues rates and find it hard to understand how anyone who's REALLY interested
in ham radio and its future could justify NOT joining and supporting the
good things
that the ARRL does - you don't have to agree with EVERYTHING they do or
every position they take (I don't ...), but on balance they do much more
right than
wrong, so I support them for that and joust with them on the things I
disagree with.


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 wonder how many of the priveliges we enjoy - and many take for
granted - in the ARS, would be around if not for the ARRL.

- Mike KB3EIA -

I've declined the AARP (for now at least - they started sending me
membership
solicitations on my 50th birthday - maybe some day I'll see a benefit)

The NRA would be of interest if I was still a hunter, but alas, the XYL is a
biologist and state-licensed wildlife rehabilitator, so for the sake of
marital
harmony, I've given up that hobby. (I have so many other things going on,
I don't know when I'd have the time for it anyway ...)

The AAA has never appealed to me ... I get good towing coverage for much
less through my car insurance and my new Ford Explorer also comes with
roadside assistance.

Skinheads ... well 'nuff said, I guess.

However, WRT the ARRL - as much as I've had some policy differences
with them over the years, they DO do a LOT of good things for ham radio,
and their member services and publications are also valuable.

All together, I made the value judgment to support the ARRL by maintaining
membership for the past 25+ years (I should have become a life member years
ago - I'd have really saved money over the years - but I resisted because of
my
policy differences with the ARRL leadership in a couple of areas.)

However, with BPL, CC&Rs (don't affect me, but affect a lot of hams), and
the good work that the ARRL/IARU did at the WRC on 40m expansion, I
finally decided to become a life member and to work my policy differences
from the inside as well as from the outside. If I live an average life span
from
now, I'll just about break even on the $975.00 life membership. I also sent
them $100.00 earmarked to support Ed Hare's work against the BPL threat.

I think that ARRL membership (with QST included) is a good value at the
current
dues rates and find it hard to understand how anyone who's REALLY interested
in ham radio and its future could justify NOT joining and supporting the
good things
that the ARRL does - you don't have to agree with EVERYTHING they do or
every position they take (I don't ...), but on balance they do much more
right than
wrong, so I support them for that and joust with them on the things I
disagree with.

--
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
------------------------------------------------------
NCI-1052
Executive Director, No Code International
Fellow, The Radio Club of America
Senior Member, IEEE
Member, IEEE Standards Association
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group
Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Regulatory Committee
Co-Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Legislative Committee
Member, QCWA (31424)
Life Member, ARRL
Member, TAPR
------------------------------------------------------
Join No Code International! Hams for the 21st Century.
Help assure the survival and prosperity of ham radio.
http://www.nocode.org

I can't understand how

Your SIG says it all. An EXTRA in NO CODE INTERNATIONAL? I see you
are a joiner. The more you belong to the better it is.

Help insure the survival and prosperity of ham radio? I think not.
Insure the life of the ARRL and manufacturers? YES! No code is killing
ham radio. See you on channel 22 good buddy.

"JEP" wrote in message
om...


"JEP" snipped the headers - I said the stuff below that's prefaced with "
"

I've declined the AARP (for now at least - they started sending me
membership
solicitations on my 50th birthday - maybe some day I'll see a benefit)

The NRA would be of interest if I was still a hunter, but alas, the XYL
is a
biologist and state-licensed wildlife rehabilitator, so for the sake of
marital
harmony, I've given up that hobby. (I have so many other things going
on,
I don't know when I'd have the time for it anyway ...)

The AAA has never appealed to me ... I get good towing coverage for much
less through my car insurance and my new Ford Explorer also comes with
roadside assistance.

Skinheads ... well 'nuff said, I guess.

However, WRT the ARRL - as much as I've had some policy differences
with them over the years, they DO do a LOT of good things for ham radio,
and their member services and publications are also valuable.

All together, I made the value judgment to support the ARRL by
maintaining
membership for the past 25+ years (I should have become a life member
years
ago - I'd have really saved money over the years - but I resisted
because of
my
policy differences with the ARRL leadership in a couple of areas.)

However, with BPL, CC&Rs (don't affect me, but affect a lot of hams),
and
the good work that the ARRL/IARU did at the WRC on 40m expansion, I
finally decided to become a life member and to work my policy
differences
from the inside as well as from the outside. If I live an average life
span
from
now, I'll just about break even on the $975.00 life membership. I also
sent
them $100.00 earmarked to support Ed Hare's work against the BPL threat.

I think that ARRL membership (with QST included) is a good value at the
current
dues rates and find it hard to understand how anyone who's REALLY
interested
in ham radio and its future could justify NOT joining and supporting the
good things
that the ARRL does - you don't have to agree with EVERYTHING they do or
every position they take (I don't ...), but on balance they do much more
right than
wrong, so I support them for that and joust with them on the things I
disagree with.

--
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
------------------------------------------------------
NCI-1052
Executive Director, No Code International
Fellow, The Radio Club of America
Senior Member, IEEE
Member, IEEE Standards Association
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group
Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Regulatory Committee
Co-Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Legislative Committee
Member, QCWA (31424)
Life Member, ARRL
Member, TAPR
------------------------------------------------------
Join No Code International! Hams for the 21st Century.
Help assure the survival and prosperity of ham radio.
http://www.nocode.org


Your SIG says it all. An EXTRA in NO CODE INTERNATIONAL?

Most of the NCI Directors are extras, of their national equivalent thereof.
One has DXCC CW only. What's your point?

I see you are a joiner. The more you belong to the better it is.

I am ACTIVE in the things I've listed, except for TAPR. I am into
digital communications but have not been active in TAPR projects
for a number of reasons. However, I am VERY active in all of the
others. (I didn't list my local club/RACES/ARES ...) So, it's not a
"the more you belong to the better it is" thing. What's your point?

Help insure the survival and prosperity of ham radio? I think not.
Insure the life of the ARRL and manufacturers? YES! No code is killing
ham radio.

Were it not for the no-code tech license since 1990, I'd bet we'd have
about 1/2 the number of licensed hams in the US that we have now.
(and commercial interests would be better positioned to take some of
our prime spectrum for lack of use)
So, how is no code "killing ham radio" ???

See you on channel 22 good buddy.

Sorry, you'll have to find someone else to talk to on your favorite
frequency.
I don't have any equipment that will transmit there. (But I do have 3 rigs
that cover all of the amateur bands (except the 5 channels at 5 MHz) from
160m-70cm, all modes, and can be run without AC mains power - main station
rig, mobile (I'm in the process of installing that rig in a new vehicle),
and a QRP
station I use for backpack/travel use.)

How many (ham band) rigs do you have? Can you run for extended periods
(weeks or more, if need be) without commercial power? How active and
well-prepared are you?

Oh, you're just trolling? That's become abundantly clear ... why not try
another stream? I think the bites are about to dry up here.

Carl - wk3c

I need to find a can of 'Thread Be Gone'...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

"JEP" wrote in message
om...


"JEP" snipped the headers - I said the stuff below that's prefaced with "
"

I've declined the AARP (for now at least - they started sending me
membership
solicitations on my 50th birthday - maybe some day I'll see a benefit)

The NRA would be of interest if I was still a hunter, but alas, the XYL
is a
biologist and state-licensed wildlife rehabilitator, so for the sake of
marital
harmony, I've given up that hobby. (I have so many other things going
on,
I don't know when I'd have the time for it anyway ...)

The AAA has never appealed to me ... I get good towing coverage for much
less through my car insurance and my new Ford Explorer also comes with
roadside assistance.

Skinheads ... well 'nuff said, I guess.

However, WRT the ARRL - as much as I've had some policy differences
with them over the years, they DO do a LOT of good things for ham radio,
and their member services and publications are also valuable.

All together, I made the value judgment to support the ARRL by
maintaining
membership for the past 25+ years (I should have become a life member
years
ago - I'd have really saved money over the years - but I resisted
because of
my
policy differences with the ARRL leadership in a couple of areas.)

However, with BPL, CC&Rs (don't affect me, but affect a lot of hams),
and
the good work that the ARRL/IARU did at the WRC on 40m expansion, I
finally decided to become a life member and to work my policy
differences
from the inside as well as from the outside. If I live an average life
span
from
now, I'll just about break even on the $975.00 life membership. I also
sent
them $100.00 earmarked to support Ed Hare's work against the BPL threat.

I think that ARRL membership (with QST included) is a good value at the
current
dues rates and find it hard to understand how anyone who's REALLY
interested
in ham radio and its future could justify NOT joining and supporting the
good things
that the ARRL does - you don't have to agree with EVERYTHING they do or
every position they take (I don't ...), but on balance they do much more
right than
wrong, so I support them for that and joust with them on the things I
disagree with.

--
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
------------------------------------------------------
NCI-1052
Executive Director, No Code International
Fellow, The Radio Club of America
Senior Member, IEEE
Member, IEEE Standards Association
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group
Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Regulatory Committee
Co-Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Legislative Committee
Member, QCWA (31424)
Life Member, ARRL
Member, TAPR
------------------------------------------------------
Join No Code International! Hams for the 21st Century.
Help assure the survival and prosperity of ham radio.
http://www.nocode.org


Your SIG says it all. An EXTRA in NO CODE INTERNATIONAL?

Most of the NCI Directors are extras, of their national equivalent thereof.
One has DXCC CW only. What's your point?

I see you are a joiner. The more you belong to the better it is.

I am ACTIVE in the things I've listed, except for TAPR. I am into
digital communications but have not been active in TAPR projects
for a number of reasons. However, I am VERY active in all of the
others. (I didn't list my local club/RACES/ARES ...) So, it's not a
"the more you belong to the better it is" thing. What's your point?

Help insure the survival and prosperity of ham radio? I think not.
Insure the life of the ARRL and manufacturers? YES! No code is killing
ham radio.

Were it not for the no-code tech license since 1990, I'd bet we'd have
about 1/2 the number of licensed hams in the US that we have now.
(and commercial interests would be better positioned to take some of
our prime spectrum for lack of use)
So, how is no code "killing ham radio" ???

See you on channel 22 good buddy.

Sorry, you'll have to find someone else to talk to on your favorite
frequency.
I don't have any equipment that will transmit there. (But I do have 3 rigs
that cover all of the amateur bands (except the 5 channels at 5 MHz) from
160m-70cm, all modes, and can be run without AC mains power - main station
rig, mobile (I'm in the process of installing that rig in a new vehicle),
and a QRP
station I use for backpack/travel use.)

How many (ham band) rigs do you have? Can you run for extended periods
(weeks or more, if need be) without commercial power? How active and
well-prepared are you?

Oh, you're just trolling? That's become abundantly clear ... why not try
another stream? I think the bites are about to dry up here.

Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"JEP" wrote in message
om...
Thats why I say good riddance to ARRL and QST.
[snip] However, WRT the ARRL - as much as I've had some policy differences
with them over the years, they DO do a LOT of good things for ham radio,
and their member services and publications are also valuable.

All together, I made the value judgment to support the ARRL by maintaining
membership for the past 25+ years (I should have become a life member
years
ago - I'd have really saved money over the years - but I resisted because
of
my
policy differences with the ARRL leadership in a couple of areas.)

However, with BPL, CC&Rs (don't affect me, but affect a lot of hams), and
the good work that the ARRL/IARU did at the WRC on 40m expansion, I
finally decided to become a life member and to work my policy differences
from the inside as well as from the outside. If I live an average life
span
from
now, I'll just about break even on the $975.00 life membership. I also
sent
them $100.00 earmarked to support Ed Hare's work against the BPL threat.

I think that ARRL membership (with QST included) is a good value at the
current
dues rates and find it hard to understand how anyone who's REALLY
interested
in ham radio and its future could justify NOT joining and supporting the
good things
that the ARRL does - you don't have to agree with EVERYTHING they do or
every position they take (I don't ...), but on balance they do much more
right than
wrong, so I support them for that and joust with them on the things I
disagree with.

--
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c

Exactly. Working from within is generally the most effective way to bring
about real, long-term change. However too many other people just want to be
back seat drivers or focus on a single policy they don't like and "throw out
the baby with the bathwater" so to speak.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
JEP wrote:

Check the figures yourself then check how many are really active. Yes
you can but NRA and AARP rags on the stand. AAA no. I quoted no data,
I made an observation. Get you head out the sand and look around. See
all of your old buddies just hanging around the club meeting doing
nothing?

Nope.


Our club members are also quite active. They actively participate in the
business meetings and presentations.

is field day as well attended as it was in the 60's?

Better. I just posted some pix on our website, from FD in 1968. My
guess is we have about three times the number as we did then.

Ours is infinitely better attended than it was in the 1960s. Our club did
not even exist back then.


Are new folks welcomed?

Yup. During the day, I do no operating at all, just control op the GOTA
station and talk to new people when any show up. And we have new people
show up.

Is help provided?

Of course

Absolutely. Break time usually finds the newcomers making a beeline to the
oldtimers and lively discussions about items they need help with. Several
of us are on an "Elmer's phone list", all of us regular talk to new people
over the air and give help, and several of us regularly teach classes with
many others putting in a little help at one or more sessions of a class.

If so then consider yourself lucky.

Yeah, lucky enough. If you want, you can bitch about the ARS. Or you
could do something about it.

Or are you one of those hams you bitch about in a previous message?

- Mike KB3EIA -


Yup, change starts with each individual. Don't complain, do something. Be
an example of what you think a ham ought to be.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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.

- Mike KB3EIA -


None as the ARS would have remained closed down after World War I. There
was no intent on the government part to ever re-establish those privileges.
While this is in the distant past, we don't have to look too far back to see
loss of spectrum and proposals from the government for loss of spectrum.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"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

"JEP" wrote in message
om...
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

"JEP" wrote in message
om...
Check the figures yourself then check how many are really active.

And just "how" do you propose anyone can "check how many
are really active?"

Yes
you can but NRA and AARP rags on the stand. AAA no. I quoted no data,
I made an observation.

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.

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"JEP" wrote in message
om...
Just my point. I don't want to belong to ARRL just as I don't care to
belong to AARP, NRA, AAA, Skinheads, etc.

Can you "just buy" the magazines of AARP, NRA, AAA, etc.
without joining? I am always amazed at people that want the "benefits"
of an organization's efforts, in this case the publication, but don't
want
to support the organization by joining. I see the same thing at times
in the antique car hobby. People that bitch about the club rules
at a car show, or otherwise want technical help from club officials
but won't part with the few bucks it takes to join.

I just want to read their
magazine when it has something that interests me. I wouldn't buy it
every month as most of the time it has useless drivel about some
clowntest or whether someone died or some such crap. ARRL and QST have
a short time left as the active Ham population lessens.

Is it lessening? News to me.

If they took a
real survey as to how many real active ham there are they would find
the number far less than they think. I'm not talking about members,
I'm talking about HAMS that really use a radio to transmit a signal.
Doesnt matter what band. How many transmit a signal at least once a
week? Most don't.

Please provide your survey data.

Look at your local HAM clubs, talk to the members(if you can wake them
up). Most show up and act disgusted with the club, Ham radio, life in
general. New folks are never there. Ya I know about your Skywarn in
Flint, MI. Great service! Could be run on CB, NEXTEL, GMRS.

Could be but isn't...there in lies the difference.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
link.net...

"JEP" wrote in message
om...
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."

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'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.

73 es HNY de Bert
WA2SI

SNIP again.

Sorry, you'll have to find someone else to talk to on your favorite
frequency.
I don't have any equipment that will transmit there. (But I do have 3 rigs
that cover all of the amateur bands (except the 5 channels at 5 MHz) from
160m-70cm, all modes, and can be run without AC mains power - main station
rig, mobile (I'm in the process of installing that rig in a new vehicle),
and a QRP
station I use for backpack/travel use.)

How many (ham band) rigs do you have? Can you run for extended periods
(weeks or more, if need be) without commercial power? How active and
well-prepared are you?

Oh, you're just trolling? That's become abundantly clear ... why not try
another stream? I think the bites are about to dry up here.

Carl - wk3c

The bites don't seem to drying up at all. I found a few nibbles yet.
The Extras on the no code board have to 5wpm Extras. Couldn't be real
Extras that had at least one exam in front of a FCC examiner. Passed
at least one test at a real FCC examination site. Actually learned
radio theory.
The radios I own are not your concern. I will say I own enough to
operate all bands and modes. Can stay active as long as some kind of
power is still available.Also have had a Ham ticket long enough to
know exactly what the ARRL has really done with the incentive crap
from the 60's. Remember, it was Maxim not the ARRL thst got the
frequencies back after WW 1. Maxim was a mover and shaker, unlike the
deadheads in there now---The Good Ole Boy Club! You guys keep nibbling
because you are afraid to admit you are wrong.

I misplaced my can of 'Thread Be Gone', does someone know where I can get a
replacement?

JEP wrote:

SNIP again.

Sorry, you'll have to find someone else to talk to on your favorite
frequency.
I don't have any equipment that will transmit there. (But I do have 3 rigs
that cover all of the amateur bands (except the 5 channels at 5 MHz) from
160m-70cm, all modes, and can be run without AC mains power - main station
rig, mobile (I'm in the process of installing that rig in a new vehicle),
and a QRP
station I use for backpack/travel use.)

How many (ham band) rigs do you have? Can you run for extended periods
(weeks or more, if need be) without commercial power? How active and
well-prepared are you?

Oh, you're just trolling? That's become abundantly clear ... why not try
another stream? I think the bites are about to dry up here.

Carl - wk3c

The bites don't seem to drying up at all. I found a few nibbles yet.
The Extras on the no code board have to 5wpm Extras. Couldn't be real
Extras that had at least one exam in front of a FCC examiner. Passed
at least one test at a real FCC examination site. Actually learned
radio theory.
The radios I own are not your concern. I will say I own enough to
operate all bands and modes. Can stay active as long as some kind of
power is still available.Also have had a Ham ticket long enough to
know exactly what the ARRL has really done with the incentive crap
from the 60's. Remember, it was Maxim not the ARRL thst got the
frequencies back after WW 1. Maxim was a mover and shaker, unlike the
deadheads in there now---The Good Ole Boy Club! You guys keep nibbling
because you are afraid to admit you are wrong.

N8KDV wrote:

I need to find a can of 'Thread Be Gone'...

What reader are you using? You can make this disappear in an instant!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
link.net...

"JEP" wrote in message
om...
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.
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.

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.

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.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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."

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'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.

73 es HNY de Bert
WA2SI

Yep, the dumbing down of America. The masses can't pass the test so we
will make the test easier. Notice how they skirt the issue of having
passed any test in front of a FCC examiner. The VEC program is another
farce. Why not put the little piece of paper in a corn flakes box. At
least you would have breakfast.

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.


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."

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?

- Mike KB3EIA -

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.....

"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

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

"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

"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

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 -

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 -

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 -

"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

"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

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.

"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.