"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

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

Thank you very much, Captain Obvious.

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".


It's still whining and crying no matter how you sugar coat it.

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"


If you don't have room for good food then you don't have room for junk.
However I did not have to tell my children this because I never served
dessert unless there was company and sometimes not even then. I eat too
much junk during the day at work so try to avoid compounding the problem at
home.

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 only object to those who wish to change the rules without having the
experience to judge for themselves whether they should be changed. You and
I do not agree on the code test but I respect your opinion as you have
experience in the field (but do not agree with it). When and if the
majority of experienced hams say it should go, then I have no problem with
that. So far that doesn't happen to be the majority opinion among the
experienced hams.

"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

Sunuvagun!


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. We will be left with only 25+wpm CW
people on the bands in that mode and everyone else will be too intimidated
to get on. Only the extremely motivated will even bother to try. We will
lose the "casual" CW operator who ragchews at the 13wpm level or so.

I'd like to see people learn a much wider range of "basics" in life not just
ham radio than they do now. For example, personally I believe that everyone
should have a year of art class and a year of a musical instrument, among
other things, to be well rounded. Yet we insist on eliminating more and
more basics in all areas. How is a person to have any idea what they want
to do with their life when they have not had an opportunity to gain some
basic skill in a wide range of areas? Similarly how is a person to have any
real idea as to whether they might like code and wish to pursue it if they
do not have a minimal, basic skill level?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"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

K=D8HB wrote:

You probably get the drift.
=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

Don't be so sure.

"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

"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

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...


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.


That's interesting. I tend to be more libertarian (small "l"), leaving such
decisions up to the individual rather than a societal (government?) "all should
be required" mandate. While it's easy to make the argument that swimming is a
useful skill beyond it's recreational value (just as you might make a slightly
weaker argument that Morse is a useful beyond it's recreational value), society
really has no vested interest strong enough to dictate "all should be required"
to develop the skill of swimming. If they did, then the next layer of
busy-bodies would busy themselves deciding which swimming strokes ought to be
required, which section of the beach we'd be allowed to use (depending on our
tested swimming speed), and requiring that all non-swimmers live only in arid
locations like Arizona and New Mexico.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Dee Flint wrote:


If you don't have room for good food then
you don't have room for junk.


Dessert is junk???? Not when K0CKB puts it on the dining table! Maybe
you need some of her recipes, if your desserts are "junk"!

dit dit

de Hans, K0HB

wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:


If you don't have room for good food then
you don't have room for junk.



Dessert is junk???? Not when K0CKB puts it on the dining table! Maybe
you need some of her recipes, if your desserts are "junk"!




Refined sugar is indeed junk. No matter how good it tastes.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...


Refined sugar is indeed junk. No matter how good it tastes.


How did "refined sugar" enter the conversation? Clearly you need to broaden
your culinary horizons!

Good luck on this one now!

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...


Refined sugar is indeed junk. No matter how good it tastes.


How did "refined sugar" enter the conversation? Clearly you need to broaden
your culinary horizons!

Tell me of your desserts?

- Mike KB3EIA -