Phil Kane wrote:
On 19 Apr 2005 18:16:07 -0700, bb wrote:

Phil Kane wrote:

AFRTS IS NOT Amateur Radio

Hi! Awesome! Can I borrow that sometime?

It's in the public domain. Knock yourself out.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Thanks, Phil. I'll juxtapose it with Steve's similar quote to
illustrate what a sane and what an insane person thinks.

"bb" wrote in message
oups.com...


I can already read Steve's mind at 20WPM. ;^)

Because you've memorized the answers.

dit dit

"bb" wrote in message
oups.com...

cl wrote:
"bb" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:

Most of the computer programs let you select a pitch you like. Of
course
you would have to arrange with the VE team well in advance of the
test to
have one set up at that pitch for her testing.

Dee, not everyone has a ham-husband to tell them all of the
modifications that the VE may make to an examination


That's what you ask in here for! There are VEs in here, myself
included -
who can give guidance to those who ask.

cl

"Here" is all knowing.

Part 97 doesn't define Morse Code, but specifies that it is to be
tested at 5WPM. Part 97 is silent on Farnsworth Code. Part 97 doesn't
say that the VE's must accomodate variations in testing.

Why does a person have to ask RRAP when they should be able to read it
in the governing regulations???


Try reading Part 97.509 Section (h). It covers "administering the exam". I
think you'll find it DOES cover the fact that VEs must accommodate
handicapped applicants.

cl

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

Actually people who are not required to learn something at a basic level
too often bypass the activity altogether because they perceive it to be
harder than it is. Therein lies the loss.

I don't buy that line of reasoning at all.

I was never "required" to learn to set up a "Lindy Rig", but saw other
fishermen doing it and it looked like fun, so decided it must not be too
difficult, so I learned how.

I was never "required" to learn to swim, but saw other kids doing it and
it looked like fun, so decided it must not be too difficult, so I learned
how.

I was never "required" to learn how to kiss a girl, but saw Clark Gable
doing it, and it looked like great fun, so I decided it must not be too
difficult, so I learned how.

I was never "required" to learn Morse Code, but heard it on the Zenith and
was curious about those beeps and boops, so I learned how (a decade before
I decided to be a ham).

I was never "required" to learn RTTY, but saw other hams doing it, and it
looked interesting, so I decided it must not be too difficula, so I
learned how.

You probably get the drift.

73, de Hans, K0HB


But you left out all the things you chose not to do because it "didn't look
interesting" or because "it looked too hard."

Have you tried everything that you have seen others do? And on what basis
did you choose to try some things and not others? Simply because in your,
as yet inexperienced eyes in that arena, it looked interesting? Have you
never tried something because some one else with experience said you should
give it a try? Have you never had the experience of finding something to be
fun and interesting upon being required to do or coaxed to do something that
you thought you wouldn't like?

The real question is not so much the Morse code test per se but what is the
set of basics that all hams should be familiar with whether or not they
personally use that knowledge? Those things should be required whether or
not they are interesting or difficult.

By the way I happen to think that all should be required to learn to swim
whether or not they think they may use it. I happen to consider it a basic
skill in life that all should know.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"cl" wrote in message
o.verio.net...

"bb" wrote in message
oups.com...

cl wrote:
"bb" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:

Most of the computer programs let you select a pitch you like. Of
course
you would have to arrange with the VE team well in advance of the
test to
have one set up at that pitch for her testing.

Dee, not everyone has a ham-husband to tell them all of the
modifications that the VE may make to an examination


That's what you ask in here for! There are VEs in here, myself
included -
who can give guidance to those who ask.

cl

"Here" is all knowing.

Part 97 doesn't define Morse Code, but specifies that it is to be
tested at 5WPM. Part 97 is silent on Farnsworth Code. Part 97 doesn't
say that the VE's must accomodate variations in testing.

Why does a person have to ask RRAP when they should be able to read it
in the governing regulations???


Try reading Part 97.509 Section (h). It covers "administering the exam". I
think you'll find it DOES cover the fact that VEs must accommodate
handicapped applicants.

cl

Ah, it is section (k) now........

(k) The administering VEs must accommodate an examinee whose physical
disabilities require a special examination procedure. The administering VEs
may require a physician's certification indicating the nature of the
disability before determining which, if any, special procedures must be
used.

cl

From: "K=D8=88B" on Wed,Apr 20 2005 3:51 pm

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

We each must choose our activities based on our personal priorities.

Thank you very much, Captain Obvious.

[...or Captain Oblivious...]

[may the aphorisms be with Dee, said Obe-wan...]

But do not whine and cry to change the requirements simply because
it's not
high enough on your priority list
to put some time into it.

I wouldn't characterize it as "whine and cry" (unless I wanted to
prejudice the
audience). Seems more like "this is my opinion on the matter".

Nahhhhh...some REALLY believe in their conditioning,
that morse code testing must ALWAYS be required as
"necessary" to operate transmitters below 30 MHz!

U.S. hams have always had code testing to get a
license...and they MUST always have such a test.
It's engraved on their synapses or something...

Besides if you haven't time to study code 15 minutes
per day, you don't have time to study the theory either.

Is that kinda like when you told your child "if you haven't got room
for more
green beans, then you don't have room for dessert either"

Sometimes the "mothering" bit gets extreme in here...


As you said, a person must get started to learn anything.
The first ones are difficult for all of us. Like anything else it
takes time
to get good.

"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something,
learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is
full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant
without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
---Bokonon in "Cat's
Cradle"

...I'm beginning to appreciate that quote... :-)

The Righteous Wrath of the Deep Conditioned has
become the new fire and brimstone of the
morseatangelous.

"Actually, what is being discussed is freedom of choice of modes
in a hobby in a free society. There is absolutely nothing prohibiting
someone who wants to take full advantage of CW's many
advantages from becoming skillful in the mode."
--- CAM in RRAP

Bless Cecil Moore's heart! :-)

However, according to some of the Deep Conditioned in
here, amateur radio is a SERVICE! "Nowhere in the FCC
regulations do they [FCC] say it is a 'hobby'!" and
other Righteous Wrath of the True Believers (making
like they are the subject of 'Bokonon's' observation).

Sunuvagun!

Right! :-)

"Zere will be NO laughing in zis camp!" - Sessue
Hayakawa's line as the POW commandant in the film,
"Bridge on the River Quai."

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...



But you left out all the things you chose not to do because it "didn't look
interesting" or because "it looked too hard."


Of course! Especially that part about "didn't look interesting".

Have you tried everything that you have seen others do?

Nope. For instance, I never jumped out of a perfectly good airplane, and I've
never tried to jump a motorcycle over 13 burning school buses, and I've never
entered a pie eating contest, and I've never done a whole lot of other hobby
things that didn't appeal to me. Lifes to short to dance with hobbies I don't
like.

The use of Morse in amataur radio is entirely optional. All licensees, even
those not tested, are free to chose to use it (or not). While I'd be perfectly
happy to see written test questions about Morse, just as there are written test
questions about other modes, there is no longer any legitimite argument for a
skill demonstration, other than your "try it, you'll like it" argument.

The real question is not so much the Morse code test per se but what is the
set of basics that all hams should be familiar with whether or not they
personally use that knowledge? Those things should be required whether or not
they are interesting or difficult.

I agree entirely! Yes, I really do.

But "be familiar" and "demonstrate a skill" are not the same thing.

I am required (as I should be), for example, to "be familiar" with a wide
variety of subject matter to obtain an Extra class license, but only in the case
of Morse am I required to "demonstrate a skill". What's wrong with that
picture? Why shouldn't we be required to "demonstrate the skill of safely
measuring high voltage" or "demonstrate the skill of planning a good ground
system" or "demonstrate the skill of tracking down the source of a TVI problem".
All of those basic skills seem much more part of the "basic skill set" that all
hams should possess, more so than requiring a demonstration of skill in only ONE
of a growing list of communications methods and modes.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


..... my point that you can argue yourself out of any testing via your
argument......


No you can't.

I fully support a Morse familiarity test. Cross my heart and hope to die!

I just don't support a "skill demonstration", unless you want to require a
"skill demonstration" of every knowledge area on the test, and deny licenses to
everyone who cannot demonstrate all required skills.

73, de Hans, K0HB

From: "bb" on Wed,Apr 20 2005 5:28 pm

cl wrote:
"bb" wrote in message

That's what you ask in here for! There are VEs in here, myself
included -
who can give guidance to those who ask.

cl

"Here" is all knowing.

Oh YESSS do these hams KNOW things... :-)

Part 97 doesn't define Morse Code, but specifies that it is to be
tested at 5WPM. Part 97 is silent on Farnsworth Code. Part 97
doesn't
say that the VE's must accomodate variations in testing.

Mama Dee would simply say "It's GOOD for you..." and
withold dessert. :-)

Why does a person have to ask RRAP when they should be able to read it
in the governing regulations???

I'm curious about the same thing. I've gotten all
these "interpretations" on it...which are simply
RATIONALIZATIONS anywhere else.

Part 97 is one of the shortest Parts in Title 47 C.F.R.

But, above all, MORSE must SHINE as the A-number-1
thing to DO!

Strange. 52 years ago the Army didn't require me
to know any morsemanship to operate and maintain
high-power HF transmitters (a mere 3 dozen). No
license, either. A year ago, nobody required me
to possess any license to operate a privately-
owned HF SSB transceiver on a boat. NO morse
needed to operate legally below 30 MHz then.

But, the ARS (Archaic RadioTELEGRAPHY Society)
stoutly maintains that *ALL* MUST test for morse
in order to have the "qualifications" to operate
below 30 MHz! FEDERAL Test! It's the LAW!!!

It's always been done that way...CANNOT be
changed. [been told that]

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

I've heard some weird tales about how the Signal Corps
used Draconian methods to quickly pound Morse into
the heads of their WW2 radio ops.Stories about
eight-hours-per-day seven days per weeks drills for 2-4
weeks or some such, nasty punishments for those who
"didn't get it", etc. Have you ever heard any of these tales?

I think the operative word is "tale" (civilian "legend"). I don't go
back that
far,

I realize that but you were "in the business" not too long after WW2 so
I thought maybe you'd heard some "insider's war stories" from that era.


but seems to me a draftee kid who drew Signal Corps billet would
recognize
a cushy job when he saw it and such "motiviation" wouldn't be needed.

Maybe for those who knew what was up then. But a helluva lot of
conscipts are historically cluless no matter what era and want out at
any cost and WW2 days were desperate times.

.. . who knows . . ?

=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv