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


which required code. 5 WPM is not impossible to learn. It only takes a
few minutes a day and about 2 weeks at least to get enough to pass a
test.

Took me 45 minutes a day for over 6 months, plus one failed test to get to
5 wpm.

I'm all in favor of Morse code testing, but you guys have to show some
understanding that it isn't that easy for a lot of people.

I aced the writtens, without a whole lot of study by comparison to a lot
of people. I don't go around calling them retards or stupid.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Ok.... It took "me" 2 weeks, I know others who learned it quickly, but I
can't provide a time frame. Yes, code "can" be harder for others to pick up.
I don't doubt that for a minute. Point is, you have to put one foot in front
of the other and stick with it, to get down the path to learn it. Many don't
want to start, and whine about it without ever putting forth effort. Hell, I
know people who bitched about having to look at the "basic" Q/A manual! One
remark was "Do I "have" to learn all this?" Another - "Do I "have" to read
all these questions?" But yet they want a license. Pure laziness. Licenses
should be "earned" not given away. People are least likely to respect
something "given" to them. The bands are already showing signs of
deterioration from people who just don't care.

cl

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
cl wrote:

Speaking of keyboards, that is a perfect example. MANY who are online
now -
otherwise would never know how to type. BUT to own a computer and/or get
online, they "had" to learn - OR - at least they're in the process of
learning. It becomes "automatic" after so many hours of use. Same with
code.... All it takes is the application of it. Sure, just in computers,
many may not become proficient in computer programming, etc (just like
not
"wanting" to use the code), but they're still learning at some point
along
the way.

cl

I have used computers for over 20 years and I still can't touch
type. I wanted to take a typing class in high school bout "Boys"
weren't allowed to take the class back in the '60s at my high school. I
have to look at the keyboard while i type with two fingers. Carpal
tunnel and nerve damage in my wrists doesn't help the situation either.

I was interested in Amateur Radio back in the late '60s but quickly
lost interest in HF. I wanted to work 144, 432 and up, where code
wasn't used so I went into broadcast and CATV engineering, followed by
working for a company that manufactured microwave telemetry equipment.
I discovered I had more fun making equipment work than using it. Now
I'm 100% disabled and I plan to spend some time restoring the old
Amateur Radio receivers in my small collection.

My current project is a National NC183R. I may use it to listen to
some international broadcasts, but I'll probably sell it after I'm done
working on it. I lose interest in most equipment after I have it
working properly.
--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

I broke into computers with a Radio Shack computer. Model III - I think it
was. Anyway, I typed using hunt and peck. Given the keyboard lay out, if I
had stuck with it, I may have learned to type a lot sooner. I was getting
used to it. But, life changed and I had to sell it. Then later on, I got a
Commodore 64 and it was a pain in the ass - to me, with all those dumb
commands and keyboard functions. Though I used it quite a bit, I despised
it. Then I got a desktop 386. I was still using hunt and peck, but now I
felt I was in the "real" world of computers. I found the keyboard rather
easy to manipulate and understand. It took about a year - maybe a little
less - of hunt and peck typing. I am in positions where I do a lot of typing
of letters and such. One day I was typing a letter and it suddenly dawned on
me, I hadn't looked at the keyboard the whole time I was typing. I was
flabbergasted. At some point, it all kicked in. When I was in high school -
9th grade I believe, I took typing, I had no choice - it was given to all. I
bombed it. I couldn't type to save my ass - of course, back then, I could
care less - I was into girls and other attractions. Now I type pretty well.
Not as good as say some secretaries I know, but pretty damned well for how
it came to be. USE is 1/2 the battle. If you want it bad enough, give it a
little effort, it will come to you.

cl

Mel A. Nomah wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
: cl wrote:

:
: I have never been able to see the difference between reading a book
: that contains the answers to questions, and reading a question pool.
: Both are entered into my memory the same way.
:

You can't be serious! (And here I was under the impression you made you
living in an educational environment.) No wonder "Johnny can't read"!

Yup, I do. And sorry, but I can read the book, or read the pool, and
get the same thing. The answers are just more verbose in the books.



The purpose of the examination is to determine if the prospective licensee
understands some things about amateur rules, about elementary transmitter
and receiver functions, basic electricity, amateur communications procedure,
and safety.

Sure.


Knowing ahead of time the VERBATIM questions and VERBATIM correct answer
reduces the test to a simple test of memory. The applicant need not
UNDERSTAND a damned thing, but only have normally developed memorization
skills.

The concept of "memorizing" the Q and A of say the Extra pool is
amusing. Especially when there is a little scrambling going on for the
answers.

Personally, I took the on-line tests, and those questions that I missed
were looked up. Mostly without reference to the question pool, except
for the ones for band edges. The band edges are rote memorization
anyhow. Then I went back and retook the tests until I aced them just
about every time. That was a lot easier than rote memorization of 800
(IIRC) some questions.

I have no problem with Q&A study aids containing sample questions which
guide the student through the appropriate study material, but the actual
VERBATIM examination material should NOT be available to the student
(applicant), or there is no reason to UNDERSTAND the material --- just
memorize the test.

Well, whatchya gonna do? The tests themselves are only the beginning,
be they the "super easy" tests administered today, or the "incredibly
hard" tests administered under the steely glare of an F.C.C. field agent
at the time when hams were real men and women.

I've looked at some of the older questions. The only thing about them
that is difficult is that they tend to pertain to operating with
equipment and different condition than today.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bert Craig wrote:
"Barry OGrady" wrote in message
...
Morse gone by the beginning of last year.

Barry

Sad that many folks will likely never give themselves the opportunity
to bag
some of that rare DX that seems to only show up on the bottom of the
bands.

Just bagged HZ1EX on 7013 kHz. 99.999% CW op and luvin' it.

'Way to go Bert! That's a tough one, there aren't a whole lot of HZs on
the air. "Back when" the only HZ on the air for years was HZ1HZ. He was
only on 40M CW and usually only in the major DX contests so he was a
real "catch". Problem with him was that he had about the worst bug
swing most of us have ever heard, absolutely indecipherable. Thank God
he wasn't a ragchewer. But that was OK because that swing was his
immediate "identifier" and ya knew who it had to be even if ya could
hardly copy him in the piles. I have no idea what their rules are today
but back then only members of the royal family were allowed to get on
the ham bands.

Serious HF dxers aren't serious unless they work both phone and CW, ya
have to do both or else yer shooting yerself in the foot.

--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384/CC #1736
QRP ARCI #11782

w3rv

Michael Coslo wrote:
Mel A. Nomah wrote:


Well, whatchya gonna do? The tests themselves are only the
beginning,
be they the "super easy" tests administered today, or the "incredibly

hard" tests administered under the steely glare of an F.C.C. field
agent
at the time when hams were real men and women.

I've looked at some of the older questions. The only thing about
them
that is difficult is that they tend to pertain to operating with
equipment and different condition than today.

Hey, wait a minnit here . . we also had to walk uphill both ways to the
FCC offices in raging blizzards.

Ya WEENIES . . . grumble . .


- Mike KB3EIA -

w3rv

In (rec.radio.amateur.misc), Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:

I used to teach Novice classes, and I always assumed that anyone could
learn the code if they really wanted to. I found that some people had
difficulty telling the difference between a dit from a dah unless it was
sent very slowy and the dah made a lot longer than the dit, but when
sending a character that contained several dits or dahs or combinations,
they simply could not tell one from the other. It wasn't that they
lacked the skill to learn the code, I could right out characters in dits
and dahs on the board and they could recoginize them, it was an
interpertation problem with the brain of telling the sound of a dit from
the sound of a dah. People with hearing aids often had a difficult time.

You hit that part right on the head. My XYL has a deep notch in her hearing
response curve, from about 400 Hz to about 2 KHz, due to playing viola in
a symphony orchestra for 15 years, sitting right in front of the brass
section[1]. She's having the very devil of a time with Morse, mostly
because she has problems distinguishing between dit and dah. She has
learned not to trust her ears, and now she's trying to learn to read with
them. The deep notch right where most people tune to read CW and where the
various tapes, CDs, and tutor programs all put the tone, also makes it very
difficult for her.

When she passes Element 1, I have to go learn American Sign Language and
pass a proficiency test.

[1] I'll bet most people don't think much about hearing damage in people
playing in symphony orchestras. It's fairly common.

--
Mike Andrews W5EGO 5WPM
Extra
Tired old sysadmin working on his code speed

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

:
: I've looked at some of the older questions. The only thing about them
: that is difficult is that they tend to pertain to operating with
: equipment and different condition than today.
:

No, the only thing harder was that those were just samples, and you had to
actually understand the underlying material because the question on the
examination would be different.

From your description of "take the online test until I can pass it, then
rush down to the VE session", I expect that you'd be another Len Anderson
under those conditions, on the outside looking in.

M.A.N.
--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord,
make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."
- Voltaire

"Mel A. Nomah" wrote in message
link.net...

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

:
: I've looked at some of the older questions. The only thing about them
: that is difficult is that they tend to pertain to operating with
: equipment and different condition than today.
:

No, the only thing harder was that those were just samples, and you had to
actually understand the underlying material because the question on the
examination would be different.

From your description of "take the online test until I can pass it, then
rush down to the VE session", I expect that you'd be another Len Anderson
under those conditions, on the outside looking in.

M.A.N.
--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord,
make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."
- Voltaire



I have yet, a couple samples of the "FCC" study guides from days gone by.
They told you what areas "may" be covered on their exams and a "typical"
question. For the most part, for each class, they were one side - of a 8.5 x
11 sheet. Not looking at them, I think one or two may have been 2 sides.
They did NOT divulge "actual" test content. You "had" to know electronics
and any rules and regulations when you went there or else you wasted a trip,
pure and simple. One class builds on the other, but back then, the tests got
a hell of a lot harder as you climbed the ladder. They were in some cases,
as tough as the Commercial exams. You couldn't get away with just memorizing
a bunch of answers in a Q/A guide. You were only fooling yourself if you
thought you could get away with that.

cl

In rec.radio.amateur.misc Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Dan/W4NTI wrote:

Look at it this way......how many people do you know that can talk with
their fingers?

Dan/W4NTI

Anyone who can type a message on a keyboard?

Quite a few drivers!
--
Chris Cox, N0UK/G4JEC NIC Handle: CC345
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

In rec.radio.amateur.misc Michael A. Terrell wrote:
I was interested in Amateur Radio back in the late '60s but quickly
lost interest in HF. I wanted to work 144, 432 and up, where code
wasn't used so I went into broadcast and CATV engineering, followed by

Not used by whom? I frequently use CW on the VHF, UHF, and microwave bands -
perhaps moreso than SSB and certainly at least as much.
--
Chris Cox, N0UK/G4JEC NIC Handle: CC345
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.