Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
 

Jimmie D wrote:
Total agreement here, our obligation of service to earn our privlegdes
doesnt end with what we have done but with what we have done lately.

The "service" provided by the Amateur Radio Service
is a service provided *by* the federal government
*to* the citizens who meet the amateur radio licensing
requirements. There is no governmental requirement or
obligation that amateur radio operators render any public
service at all. Amateur radio licensees are not even
required to own a radio.

"Service", in this context, is just an administrative
division of government.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:
an_old_friend wrote:

But if you and Markie ever get full HF privledges, God & Hiram Help us.

Why? Do you fear us working out of band Frenchmen? We could do that
just as well on 6 Meters.

BB I belieeve you have mentioned passing a code test at some point that
would allow you fullaccess to hf today I could look up your license or
you could tell me

I passed the Novice exam in Nov 1986. 5WPM. I'm presently a General,
so I'm fully qualified to work out of band Frenchmen on 6M or on HF.
Maybe they'll even put me in for the ARRL's A-1 Operator Club.

More Brain Bouncing Blindly
 

wrote:

Just quoting Brain's Stuff...Snipped out the REALLY stupid stuff
which, as you cna see, greatly cut down on "content".

Why must the format be sold? Is it copy righted? If I send a message
using THE FORMAT without purchasing the form, am I guilty of copyright
infringement?

No...You just deliver an unprofessional looking scrap of paper.

WE use the forms.

Hi, hi!

You're 59, OM.

QSL.

Roger.

Every 10 minutes.

10-4.

Authenticate.

Amateur Radio Service = GI Bill.

"Sorry Jim, MARS is Amateur Radio."

Jim knows nothing of military radio.

Here Brain utters out-and out lies, but why stop him when he's on
a roll?

I suspect that Jim was an Extra in "Pump Up The Volume."

Which would mean he has 100% more movie credits than you, Brain.

You know NOTHING of Public Land Mobile Radio Services, never
had one. I did.

When you was LMR, Jim was VFR.

Lennie applied for a license. Plugged in a radio. Now he's a
radio hero and Brain is his cheering section.

You know NOTHING of Aircraft Radio Service, protocal or
procedures, or of actual air-air or air-ground comms.
I've done that, both air-air and air-ground.

Maybe Jim wasn't VFR.

Uhhhhhh...Lennie's knowledge of "Aircraft Radio Service" dates
from before his CB radio "experience", which was pretty lame
in-and-of-itself.

You know NOTHING of Maritime Radio Service, what goes on
and what is used. I've used it on the water, both in
harbors and inland waterways.

Jim is on CH16.

Lennie admitted to talking on the radio OF A
FRIEND....Whoooooopie. That's like me borrowing my daughters cellphone
and claiming I have cellphone service.

No doubt Lennie's "on land" experience was an illiegal use of
Marine Band HT's to keep in touch with Mrs Correspondence School.

You MIGHT know something of Citizens Band Radio Service.
CBers out-number amateurs by at least 4:1, could be twice
that. I've been doing that since 1959.

Jim is on CH19.

Lennie's a CB'er, alright. As if we didn't know already?

Yowsa!

Jim isn't involved in Gov't Radio. But he reads about it.

Jim's Giga Hurts.

I prefer smooth.

Jim once incorrectly calculated the distance to the moon. I think
maybe Coslo aided him with the calculations.

You should have gotten a QSL manager and with the greenstamps earned,
bought both sides of the QSO.

I suspect that Jim is subsidized in many ways.

Perhaps Jim will loan you some tube-type equipment ...

Jim insulted me. Jim insulted Hans. Jim insulted Mark. Jim insulted
Len.

Lennie and Brain insist everyone EXCEPT them inuslts "someone".

Makes them feel better about themselves.

Jim did not insult Dave who apparently thinks little of his service.

But, but, but he has greenlee punches...

That's "Greenlee", actually....

Jim is a follower.

Owch!!!

I guess that was before the days of instant gratification.

Do they require greenlee punches?

That's "Greenlee", acutally...

Come back when you've actually DESIGNED some solid-state
ham radio, not just assembled a kit designed by someone
else.

Plans from a Ham Radio magazine.

We could ask Lennie to live up to his own rhetoric, but hey, it's
been over 10 years now, he's not likely to ever do it now......

He can post attrition numbers on hobby radio.

Which will never include Lennie the Liar.

Steve, K4YZ

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

"an_odd_freak" wrote in
ups.com:


wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:
an_old_friend wrote:

But if you and Markie ever get full HF privledges, God & Hiram Help
us.

Why? Do you fear us working out of band Frenchmen? We could do that
just as well on 6 Meters.
BB I belieeve you have mentioned passing a code test at some point that
would allow you fullaccess to hf today I could look up your license or
you could tell me



The FCC still has the old CB calls in a database?

SC

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

"Jimmie D" wrote in
:


wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 19:27:33 -0500, Nada Tapu
wrote:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:39:47 -0400, wrote:

And you probably answered some theory questions about modes you'll
never use and formulas you'll never see again. Maybe we should just
eliminate the theory exam, too.

and what do we gain by doing that it is certainly an option when
eleimate code testing we eleimate something that makes the ARS look
stpuid obviously we gain by that

Look stupid? Oh, excuse me!
yes you are stupid and anothe rof the usenet cowards


There are a lot of people who don't want to be bothered with the
theory exam, either. And when it comes right down to it, what do we
really need a theory exam for?
you tell me

I think it benifits the ARS by insuring that new hams reconize the
term and the rules involved in the ARS

don't you think it does that?

Most CB'ers and electronic hobbyists
have the technical expertise to put a multi-band rig and antenna on
the air and start operating without any trouble at all.

and many so Indeed we could despense with the technical question sif
it was found to be to our benifit

They feel they
shouldn't need to take a test in order to do that, and a good case may
be made in favor of that approach. Homebrew and experiment? Sure, why
not? They can do that too. I did when I was on CB, so why can't
others? Why should I take a test that includes superflous questions
about operating modes and aspects of electronics and computers that I
have absolutely no intention of employing in my day to day station
operation?

Now allow me to put on the "other hat".

pput on such hats as you please

CW is a part of amateur radio's heritage and history.

agreed
One has to
embrace the past to realize where one is today.
that is merely one method but one is not required to emabrace the past
or to real;ize where we are today
Having said that, CW
is not an obsolete mode by any means;

it is obslete
it is timeless. It was a viable
communications mode 50 years ago, it still is today, and it will still
be perfectly viable 10,000 years from now.

which does not prevent it from being oselte

the Longbow it is still a vaible weapon today will be for some time to
come

it is none the less obeslete
It's spectrum efficient
and highly effective under adverse conditions. So what if it happens
to be dated? There is absolutlely nothing wrong with the preservation
and continued use of old but perfectly good technologies.

and I don't object to YOU doing so but I do object to your insistance
on public specturm being used to do as a complution on all those that
wish to use it
It's just
too bad if some operators feel that a certain operating mode reflects
badly on the amateur community solely because it's been around for a
long time. There is nothing "stupid" about this issue.

what is stupid is this insistance that I must help to preserve some
thing that YOU value and wish preserved and that I think we would be
better off leting it go the way of Spark

Am I supporting the elimination of the theory exam and promoting the
testing of morse skills? Of course not, although I can see how one
would reach that conclusion from my statements. I'm being purposely
obtuse.
and insulting
What amateur radio needs is BALANCE.

which it will lack as long as the ARS insist on worshiping the ONE
mode CW above the rest of the ARS combined as the leicense system does
today
It needs operators with
a rich set of skills and traits that will set it apart from the other
radio services. When those skills and traits cease to exist, the
service will perish, and eventually the spectrum will be sold to the
highest bidder.

My $.02 Draw your own conclusions.
my conclusion is that you will twist truth and logic anyway you like
to achive your end

for that matter so will I

- - . . . . . . - -

NT
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Indeed we could dispense with much of the technical qualifications some
day. The technical part is basically an attempt to make sure the amatuer
is competent enough to operate their equipment in a maner that does not
interfere with other services outside of his designated allocation of
spectrum, in other words, within FCC regulations. At such a time when
all equipment is made idiot proof and all hams use store bought idiot
proofed gear we may see this.So far the one experiment at this has
failed. You think you have something idiot proof and then guess what,
someone makes a better idiot. So I am not worried about requirement of
theory going away. As far a CW is concerned to gain the privledges hams
have today they had to show they were a national asset. Part of being
that asset was our ability to process emergency traffic should the need
arrive. At the time CW was needed to accomplish this. It is no longer
needed to meet our obligation of service. OF course this begs the
question, can we fullfil our obligation. To this I believe we can, but
are we really needed. CW has been replaced by other technologies, it
would make more sense to require typing skills than CW, an idea I dont
think is so bad even though I may have trouble with twenty wpm on a
keyboard.


If CW has been replaced by other technologies, why aren't more amateurs
doing the modernized modes? It's because they don't want too. Ham radio
has been dumbed down and we can't even force hams to use them to be
proficient communicators.

CW isn't preventing the modernization of ham radio, Laziness is.

SC

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

From: Jimmie D on Tues, Oct 17 2006 7:46 pm

wrote in message
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:


no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so
stpupid

The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that
computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW
requirement.

The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.
"Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM
for all such tests happened only 6 years ago.

The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just
3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K
per year ever since]

I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above.

When I ask technical people about why they haven't
acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement
as a response.

Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio-
electronics for over a half century, I DO know some
"technical people." :-)

Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio
as a communications medium. The technology of early
radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed.
On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it
possible to communicate. Morse code was then already
mature and a new branch of communications was open
to use by downsized landline telegraphers.

They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the
face of modern telecommunications.

PART of that IS true. NOT all of it.

What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.
Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use
a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional"
radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70
years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT
professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND
they are pros in front of their ham rigs.

But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum
that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun
of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz.
That can be a very different RF environment, much much
different than the technology available in the 20s and
30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the
rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
technological environment.

Let's face it.. the romance is gone.

Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes,
it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz
has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what
the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago. The solid-state
era came into being about 45 years ago and has
revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that).

Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the
analog VFO, GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver,
GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is
the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, GONE is the not-
knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and
ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable
item that can be found by a computer program). Except
for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE
for nearly everything but high-power transmitters.

The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of
1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing,
advancing, the state of the art never static. For the
stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they
feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become
aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space
cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their
youth, "CW." But, they want to make sure They get
the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so
they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR
level...the code test MUST stay..."because."

There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA
alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the
cellular telephones. There are millions of VHF and UHF
transceivers in the USA, working daily for public
safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as
well as private airplanes. There are tens of thousands
of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being
everyone from government agencies to private boat
owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Where is
the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that
all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes.

But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a
helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We
can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we
can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person
romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the
imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there.
This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't
be legislated into remaining static. The rules and
regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW.

Total agreement here, our obligation of service to to earn our privlegdes
doesnt end with what we have done but with what we have done lately.

Sorry, but I see absolutely NO "obligation to perform
some service [to the nation or community]." That is one
of the myths promulgated by the ARRL and its followers.

The word "service" used by the FCC all throughout Title
47 C.F.R., all Parts, is a regulatory term referring to
a type and kind of radio activity being regulated.
[see Citizens Band Radio SERVICE or Radio Control Radio
SERVICE as two examples in Part 95] Also, as Cecil Moore
mentioned, the government is doing its citizens a service,
NOT the other way around.

If an individual WANTS to VOLUNTARILY perform some service,
then excellent. There is NO "obligation" to do so unless
there is some law requiring it. Personally, I think all
citizens of the USA should do at least one term of Jury
Service. In California there is a state law that eligible
citizens shall serve, for a time and times as stated by
law. [I've done five terms of Jury Service here] Anyone
who WANTS to voluntarily sit in on a court is allowed to
(with some special conditions not permitting certain
trials). Those spectators are NOT obligated to do so.

USA amateur radio service is a VOLUNTARY activity. It is
an avocation, not an occupation. In other words it is a
HOBBY. It's a fine hobby, tens of thousands of citizens
engaged in it. But, it is still a HOBBY. It is NOT
"essential" for the good of the nation. It is high time
that everyone quit dreaming about imaginary glory of
"serving the community" through amateur radio...time to
look at what it IS in the real world.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

From: on Thurs, Oct 19 2006 4:41 am

wrote:
From: Jimmie D on Tues, Oct 17 2006 7:46 pm
wrote in message
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm

Total agreement here, our obligation of service to to earn our privlegdes
doesnt end with what we have done but with what we have done lately.

Sorry, but I see absolutely NO "obligation to perform
some service [to the nation or community]."

That you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

HAAAAAAA!!!!!

That YOU "see something" doesn't mean it is reality.
It can be just your own delusion projecting on your
cranium.


That is one
of the myths promulgated by the ARRL and its followers.

Where? You have just spouted a falsehood, Len.

...all throughout the ARRL's own self-promotion, Jimmie.


The word "service" used by the FCC all throughout Title
47 C.F.R., all Parts, is a regulatory term referring to
a type and kind of radio activity being regulated.
[see Citizens Band Radio SERVICE or Radio Control Radio
SERVICE as two examples in Part 95] Also, as Cecil Moore
mentioned, the government is doing its citizens a service,
NOT the other way around.

Irrelevant.

"Irrelevant?!?" Talk about Jimmie and VAPORWARE!

Jimmie, the FCC grants licenses to US radio amateurs.
The FCC regulates *ALL* of US civil radio. They do that
by LAW, not from some moralistic jingoism spouted by an
amateur organization.

If you (politely) ask the FCC for a definition of how THEY
use the word 'service' you will get the one that I got, the
one I have to repeat every once in a while in here to keep
some of you straight.

Still unconvinced after reviewing the Communications Act of
1934? The Telecommunications Act of 1996? Okay, you just
consider the FCC and the US government "IRRELEVANT."


What about a moral obligation?

What about it? You are going to PREACH something to the
'heathen' in here? :-)

Suppose I were driving on a winding country road and came upon the
scene of a one-car accident that had occurred only a few minutes before
I arrived.

Question should be "why did you force that car off the road?"

Law enforcement people will ask you that after they survey
your damaged fender and bumper.

And suppose the occupants of the car in the accident needed help, and I
had the means to call for help.

Is your throat and larynx working properly? Feel free to call
out all you want.

Would I not have at least a moral obligation, if not a legal one, to
call for help?

I don't know the state of your supposed goody-two-shoes "morals"
but I would imagine that law enforcement folks WILL want to
know WHY you are driving on winding country roads at night?

Suppose the only available communication was by Amateur Radio - would I
not have at least a moral obligation, if not a legal one, to use
Amateur Radio to call for help?

You will NATURALLY do so using radiotelegraphy. :-)

Your "morality" is all tied up in some obsessive knot having
to do with morse code telegraphy...for AMATEURS.

So, law enforcement folks will still want to know WHY you
forcing other cars off the winding country roads...is it to
play 'rescueman' on your little hobby radio?



Personally, I think all
citizens of the USA should do at least one term of Jury
Service.

Even those who are not mentally or physically competent to do so?

Tsk, tsk, tsk, California state law is strict about WHO
can be on a jury panel. The mentally ill won't be on one.
Neither will previously-convicted felons.

However, the mentally-challenged have managed to keep the
morse code test in place by lobbying the FCC about it. So
far.

Why do you want to be associated with the mentally ill?

USA amateur radio service is a VOLUNTARY activity. It is
an avocation, not an occupation. In other words it is a
HOBBY.

But it's not just a hobby.

Sorry, it IS...despite the imaginary pipe-dreaming of being
some kind of 'hero' rescuing folks in times of disaster or
reading ARRL news squibs and associating that imagination
with some 'vital service to the nation' or other pap.

It's a fine hobby, tens of thousands of citizens
engaged in it.

Hundreds of thousands of US citizens.

Including the MENTALLY ILL. :-)

Certainly the over-imaginative self-deluded souls who
describe themselves as 'heroes' without ever doing ONE
thing to PROVE their 'heroism.' :-)


But, it is still a HOBBY. It is NOT
"essential" for the good of the nation.

Says who?

Says the FCC, says every public safety agency and radio service,
including the maritime world, the aviation world, the railroad
world, the trucking industry, etc. etc. etc.

If amateur radio were "essential for the good of the nation,"
there would be NO need for public safety radio services in
the PLMRS. There would be NO need for any government radio
services. AMATEURS could 'do it all.' Except they can't.

Amusing thing is that US amateur radio was SHUT DOWN for two
World Wars. During times of the greatest NEED for all citizens
to do their part, ham radio was SHUT DOWN. Reconcile that.


Does amateur radio not perform any service to the community, Len?

Yes, it keeps some of the mentally ill busy, occupied with
ham radiotelegraphy so that they won't bother the rest of us
normal citizens...normal citizens who ARE doing services to
their community, their state, their nation.

Now you just keep reading the ARRL newsletters like a good little
member, absorbing all the 'praise' for 'your' efforts in having
a radio hobby. That should fuel your ego for a century or two.

As ever to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
 

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
 

Not dropped here.

Even 9 year olds can learn the code.

Barry OGrady wrote:
Not since it was dropped completly 3 years ago.

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
 

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

"Mark in the Dark" wrote in
:

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:58:09 -0400, Dave wrote:

Not dropped here.

Even 9 year olds can learn the code.
some can maening it is worhtless and unneeded for the rest



Eliminating CW will let in more people like 'Mark in the Dark'. That
won't be good for the rest of us if we enjoy having good intelligent
QSO's.

SC

Is the no code license letting really stupid people in to ham radio?
 

wrote in :

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:58:09 -0400, Dave wrote:

Not dropped here.

Even 9 year olds can learn the code.
some can maening it is worhtless and unneeded for the rest

Barry OGrady wrote:
Not since it was dropped completly 3 years ago.

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/




It let Mark in the Dark in.

SC

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
 

Slow Code wrote:

It didnt keep you out

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:28:34 -0400, Dave spake
thusly:

wrote:

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:58:09 -0400, Dave wrote:


Not dropped here.

Even 9 year olds can learn the code.

some can maening it is worhtless and unneeded for the rest

Barry OGrady wrote:

Not since it was dropped completly 3 years ago.


"Worthless and Unneeded"? That was NOT the question!! Learn to answer the
question! READ THE SUBJECT LINE.

No one asked whether it is useful, it absolutely is, the question is: is it
"keeping good people out of ham radio?"

NOPE!!!

Sorry, but I can say for an absolute fact that your 're wrong. It had
kept me out of ham radio and I know exactly what kind of person that I
am. And before the obligatory "lazy" word is trotted out, I have to
work for the pay cheque that buys the radio, pays the rent for the
building that the radio is in and pays for the tower that is in the
back yard. I have to work extra to pay MORE for a place where I am
allowed a tower, as opposed to less expensive digs.

Honestly, I can't believe how some pro-coders look down on no-coders
with such contempt. I was once a member of a "live steam" model
railroad club. These were larger model steam trains that ran with real
steam instead of electric power. They could be run with either propane
or coal, depending on the individual. The guys who built their
locomotives from scratch NEVER looked down on the guys who bought
theirs from a classified ad. The guys burning coal did NOT call the
propane guys "lazy". We all enjoyed a fine hobby and club meetings
were always good fun and most informative. It was great for a
mechanic, like myself, to rub shoulders with experienced retired
machinists who built these locomotives. At one of our "open houses",
which were located outdoors at the club track, my daughter took her
first steps.

Isn't ham radio supposed to be like that? Is there no camaraderie?

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

"Opus-" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Sorry, but I can say for an absolute fact that your 're wrong. It had
kept me out of ham radio and I know exactly what kind of person that I
am. And before the obligatory "lazy" word is trotted out, I have to
work for the pay cheque that buys the radio, pays the rent for the
building that the radio is in and pays for the tower that is in the
back yard. I have to work extra to pay MORE for a place where I am
allowed a tower, as opposed to less expensive digs.

Honestly, I can't believe how some pro-coders look down on no-coders
with such contempt. I was once a member of a "live steam" model
railroad club. These were larger model steam trains that ran with real
steam instead of electric power. They could be run with either propane
or coal, depending on the individual. The guys who built their
locomotives from scratch NEVER looked down on the guys who bought
theirs from a classified ad. The guys burning coal did NOT call the
propane guys "lazy". We all enjoyed a fine hobby and club meetings
were always good fun and most informative. It was great for a
mechanic, like myself, to rub shoulders with experienced retired
machinists who built these locomotives. At one of our "open houses",
which were located outdoors at the club track, my daughter took her
first steps.

Isn't ham radio supposed to be like that? Is there no camaraderie?

Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to help
each other. The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders
appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or
understanding of the requirements. In addition, most of us have experienced
people who said they could not learn code but upon questioning find that
they did not use a good training method and did not train correctly. Yet
when they decided they were tired of waiting did learn it and got their
upgrade. Then finding out how useful it was in ham pursuits were glad that
they had done it.

So far of each of the reasons that people put forth as to why they can't
learn it have been disproven by the example of other people with the same
problem having gone ahead and done it. The 5wpm level is obtainable
although some of the problem do make faster speeds a problem (constant
tinnitus may be a severe problem at 20 wpm for example). My ex-OM had 70%
hearing loss in both ears and severe tinnitus. He passed the 5wpm. I know
people with dyslexia who have passed. The blind have passed. Even the deaf
have passed using flashing lights or vibrating pads.

Do you have competitions in your model railroading activity? If you enter
that competition, you all have to follow the published rules with no
exceptions. If it is a competition for the "homebrewers", then those who
don't do so can enjoy viewing them but they cannot enter into the
competition.

Dee, N8UZE

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
 

Dee Flint wrote:
The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders
appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or
understanding of the requirements.

Speaking as a ham licensed for 50+ years, I would say a
lot of the divisiveness stems from coded hams trying to
substitute Morse code skill for technical knowledge and
intelligence.

Ham#1: "I've got a PhD in RF Engineering."

Ham#2: "Who cares, I flunked out of high school but
I can do 40 wpm at Morse code. So there!"

Eliminate the code requirement and triple the difficulty
of the technical exams. Problem solved.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
t...
Dee Flint wrote:
The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders appear to
want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or
understanding of the requirements.

Speaking as a ham licensed for 50+ years, I would say a
lot of the divisiveness stems from coded hams trying to
substitute Morse code skill for technical knowledge and
intelligence.

Ham#1: "I've got a PhD in RF Engineering."

Ham#2: "Who cares, I flunked out of high school but
I can do 40 wpm at Morse code. So there!"

Eliminate the code requirement and triple the difficulty
of the technical exams. Problem solved.

Nope, won't solve the problem.

The solution is to accept people as true hams that passed the exams existing
at the time they were licensed. PERIOD!!



Dee, N8UZE

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
 

What lie??

No-coders are missing a major portion of the HR experience. That is NOT a lie!
It is a fact.

Example: you can call yourself a marine two days after enlistment. But, you
become a Marine after completion of basic training! The commitment to success
through a period of trial and learning makes the Marine not the uniform.

No-coders have enlisted in the hobby. But, ...

wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:47:14 -0400, "Dee Flint"
wrote:


"Opus-" wrote in message
. ..

[snip]


Sorry, but I can say for an absolute fact that your 're wrong. It had
kept me out of ham radio and I know exactly what kind of person that I
am. And before the obligatory "lazy" word is trotted out, I have to
work for the pay cheque that buys the radio, pays the rent for the
building that the radio is in and pays for the tower that is in the
back yard. I have to work extra to pay MORE for a place where I am
allowed a tower, as opposed to less expensive digs.

Honestly, I can't believe how some pro-coders look down on no-coders
with such contempt. I was once a member of a "live steam" model
railroad club. These were larger model steam trains that ran with real
steam instead of electric power. They could be run with either propane
or coal, depending on the individual. The guys who built their
locomotives from scratch NEVER looked down on the guys who bought
theirs from a classified ad. The guys burning coal did NOT call the
propane guys "lazy". We all enjoyed a fine hobby and club meetings
were always good fun and most informative. It was great for a
mechanic, like myself, to rub shoulders with experienced retired
machinists who built these locomotives. At one of our "open houses",
which were located outdoors at the club track, my daughter took her
first steps.

Isn't ham radio supposed to be like that? Is there no camaraderie?

Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to help
each other. The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders
appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or
understanding of the requirements.

back to lying about the motives and knowledge of the NoCoders again
DEE
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Dave wrote:
What lie??

No-coders are missing a major portion of the HR experience. That is NOT a lie!
It is a fact.

have you done EME or FS-ATV? or used ham radio ofor RC or enaged in
metor scater contacts

OTOH you are lying

all Nocode test persons don't use code is imlied by your statement.
Indeed I one of the stauchest nocoders have explored it. I am missing
nothing it is like the compliants I heard in my youth about membrane
keyboards it was said that you can't toauch type with em, well that
only apllies if you can touch type in the first place

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Not Lloyd wrote:



Oh, but I do Mark.

nope you do not format them corectly you can proerply atrute your
quotes and it seesm you can even read

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Not Lloyd wrote:



Try that again, Mark.
no you got it the first and you can't propely format your usenet
posting meaning you are pretty stupid

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dave wrote:
What lie??

No-coders are missing a major portion of the HR experience. That is NOT a
lie!
It is a fact.

have you done EME or FS-ATV? or used ham radio ofor RC or enaged in
metor scater contacts

OTOH you are lying

all Nocode test persons don't use code is imlied by your statement.
Indeed I one of the stauchest nocoders have explored it. I am missing
nothing it is like the compliants I heard in my youth about membrane
keyboards it was said that you can't toauch type with em, well that
only apllies if you can touch type in the first place
....

Hey, Lone Ranger. I'm up on 20 meters right now. Care to join me? Oh, wait.
You can't.
You're too busy making "scater" contacts. I guess you really do talk scat.
Ho hum.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
 

an_old_friend wrote:

Dave wrote:

What lie??

No-coders are missing a major portion of the HR experience. That is NOT a lie!
It is a fact.


have you done EME or FS-ATV? or used ham radio ofor RC or enaged in
metor scater contacts

OTOH you are lying

all Nocode test persons don't use code is imlied by your statement.
Indeed I one of the stauchest nocoders have explored it. I am missing
nothing it is like the compliants I heard in my youth about membrane
keyboards it was said that you can't toauch type with em, well that
only apllies if you can touch type in the first place



I have not experienced EME or FS-ATV or a great many other areas of
amateur radio but I have done CW. I don't do it anymore but I have
experienced it. CW is the one mode that can get through under almost any
condition. You can (I can't anyway) copy CW in the middle of a thunder
storm, using the Aurora as a reflector, using meteor ionization trails
as a reflector or just direct point to point contact to accomplish this.
Try that with FM, AM, SSB voice or digital.

The problem with this and similar threads is a number of individuals do
not feel that they need to learn CW because they don't intend to use it.

A person of "Quality" may never need the proper etiquette to greet the
Queen but you had better know how to be considered as such a person.

Dave N. WD9BDZ

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:54:16 -0500, "Not Lloyd" anon@anon wrote:



Hey, Lone Ranger. I'm up on 20 meters right now. Care to join me? Oh, wait.
You can't.

and you just serve up proof that code keep good people out and lets
the trash in

you can't even proeprly format a USENET posting
....

Oh, but I do Mark. You can read my posts (unlike the unreadable drivel YOU
post) so apparently they are formatted properly.
Now, if only you'd get off your lazy arse and learn to spell....

Hey! Here you go!
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/add2ie.htm

This little freebie program rides right along with you, your big white
gelding, Tonto, and your email program to help you correct spelling gaffes
on the fly. Get it, use it. That is how you post "proeprly".

I'm glad I could be of assistance.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
ups.com...
Not Lloyd wrote:



Oh, but I do Mark.

nope you do not format them corectly you can proerply atrute your
quotes and it seesm you can even read
....

Try that again, Mark. But please use English the next time. Deciphering your
posts is not unlike dealing with somebody from a third world country.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:23:50 -0400, Dave spake
thusly:

What lie??

It's not a lie that code has kept good people out of ham radio.

No-coders are missing a major portion of the HR experience. That is NOT a lie!
It is a fact.

It's too easy to find hams that know code, used code and hated it.

Example: you can call yourself a marine two days after enlistment. But, you
become a Marine after completion of basic training! The commitment to success
through a period of trial and learning makes the Marine not the uniform.

Poor analogy. The Marines NEED harsh training to be able to do their
difficult jobs properly as lives and the nation depend on them. The
training is not a test of commitment, it is a harsh reality.
Ham radio is just a hobby.

No-coders have enlisted in the hobby. But, ...

Did you not read my last post? It's right below. The guys who built
their own locomotives did NOT go up to the guys who bought theirs and
say "You are not a real model steam train operator!!!"

It's just a hobby.

wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:47:14 -0400, "Dee Flint"
wrote:


"Opus-" wrote in message
...

[snip]


Sorry, but I can say for an absolute fact that your 're wrong. It had
kept me out of ham radio and I know exactly what kind of person that I
am. And before the obligatory "lazy" word is trotted out, I have to
work for the pay cheque that buys the radio, pays the rent for the
building that the radio is in and pays for the tower that is in the
back yard. I have to work extra to pay MORE for a place where I am
allowed a tower, as opposed to less expensive digs.

Honestly, I can't believe how some pro-coders look down on no-coders
with such contempt. I was once a member of a "live steam" model
railroad club. These were larger model steam trains that ran with real
steam instead of electric power. They could be run with either propane
or coal, depending on the individual. The guys who built their
locomotives from scratch NEVER looked down on the guys who bought
theirs from a classified ad. The guys burning coal did NOT call the
propane guys "lazy". We all enjoyed a fine hobby and club meetings
were always good fun and most informative. It was great for a
mechanic, like myself, to rub shoulders with experienced retired
machinists who built these locomotives. At one of our "open houses",
which were located outdoors at the club track, my daughter took her
first steps.

Isn't ham radio supposed to be like that? Is there no camaraderie?

Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to help
each other. The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders
appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or
understanding of the requirements.

back to lying about the motives and knowledge of the NoCoders again
DEE
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

Lloyd Davies NOVFP brags about being a bootlegger no code on 20 meters
 

Lloyd Davies NOVFP posing as"Not Lloyd" anon@anon wrote in message
...
Hey, Lone Ranger. I'm up on 20 meters right now. Care to join me? Oh,
wait.
You can't.

You can't either, legally, lardass lloyd-tard.

http://i14.tinypic.com/2iqgw3p.jpg

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 10:54:45 -0400, "Dee Flint"
spake thusly:


"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
et...
Dee Flint wrote:
The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders appear to
want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or
understanding of the requirements.

Speaking as a ham licensed for 50+ years, I would say a
lot of the divisiveness stems from coded hams trying to
substitute Morse code skill for technical knowledge and
intelligence.

Ham#1: "I've got a PhD in RF Engineering."

Ham#2: "Who cares, I flunked out of high school but
I can do 40 wpm at Morse code. So there!"

Eliminate the code requirement and triple the difficulty
of the technical exams. Problem solved.

Nope, won't solve the problem.

The solution is to accept people as true hams that passed the exams existing
at the time they were licensed. PERIOD!!

The solution is to accept the people who are licensed, regardless of
weather or not you agree with the test method.

My dad got his drivers license back in 1943 with NO test at all! They
just asked him "Are you blind?" He said "No" and the response was
"That will be $1 please".

I got my license in 1978 and I had to take driver training and pass 2
tests. According to some of the pro-code logic here, I should walk up
to him and tell him that he is not a real driver and that I am better
at driving than him. That would go over like a lead balloon.

Mark Morgan is a retard
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 17:30:27 -0400, "Lloyd Davies Slappa"
wrote:


and remains one no matter whose id is being stolen
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

Get back to being led around by Lloyd Davies, you clueless retard. You have
to be the easiest play on the net.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:47:14 -0400, "Dee Flint"
spake thusly:


"Opus-" wrote in message
.. .

[snip]

Sorry, but I can say for an absolute fact that your 're wrong. It had
kept me out of ham radio and I know exactly what kind of person that I
am. And before the obligatory "lazy" word is trotted out, I have to
work for the pay cheque that buys the radio, pays the rent for the
building that the radio is in and pays for the tower that is in the
back yard. I have to work extra to pay MORE for a place where I am
allowed a tower, as opposed to less expensive digs.

Honestly, I can't believe how some pro-coders look down on no-coders
with such contempt. I was once a member of a "live steam" model
railroad club. These were larger model steam trains that ran with real
steam instead of electric power. They could be run with either propane
or coal, depending on the individual. The guys who built their
locomotives from scratch NEVER looked down on the guys who bought
theirs from a classified ad. The guys burning coal did NOT call the
propane guys "lazy". We all enjoyed a fine hobby and club meetings
were always good fun and most informative. It was great for a
mechanic, like myself, to rub shoulders with experienced retired
machinists who built these locomotives. At one of our "open houses",
which were located outdoors at the club track, my daughter took her
first steps.

Isn't ham radio supposed to be like that? Is there no camaraderie?

Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to help
each other. The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders
appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or
understanding of the requirements. In addition, most of us have experienced
people who said they could not learn code but upon questioning find that
they did not use a good training method and did not train correctly. Yet
when they decided they were tired of waiting did learn it and got their
upgrade. Then finding out how useful it was in ham pursuits were glad that
they had done it.

That does NOT justify the snot-nosed attitude.

So far of each of the reasons that people put forth as to why they can't
learn it have been disproven by the example of other people with the same
problem having gone ahead and done it. The 5wpm level is obtainable
although some of the problem do make faster speeds a problem (constant
tinnitus may be a severe problem at 20 wpm for example). My ex-OM had 70%
hearing loss in both ears and severe tinnitus. He passed the 5wpm. I know
people with dyslexia who have passed. The blind have passed. Even the deaf
have passed using flashing lights or vibrating pads.

Bravo for them. But that does not explain why some pro-coders are such
snot-rags.

Do you have competitions in your model railroading activity? If you enter
that competition, you all have to follow the published rules with no
exceptions. If it is a competition for the "homebrewers", then those who
don't do so can enjoy viewing them but they cannot enter into the
competition.

No competitions, just a bunch of guys who like live steam model
trains. The club did not exist for that.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:39:24 GMT, Opus- spake thusly:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 10:54:45 -0400, "Dee Flint"
spake thusly:


"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. net...
Dee Flint wrote:
The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders appear to
want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or
understanding of the requirements.

Speaking as a ham licensed for 50+ years, I would say a
lot of the divisiveness stems from coded hams trying to
substitute Morse code skill for technical knowledge and
intelligence.

Ham#1: "I've got a PhD in RF Engineering."

Ham#2: "Who cares, I flunked out of high school but
I can do 40 wpm at Morse code. So there!"

Eliminate the code requirement and triple the difficulty
of the technical exams. Problem solved.

Nope, won't solve the problem.

The solution is to accept people as true hams that passed the exams existing
at the time they were licensed. PERIOD!!

The solution is to accept the people who are licensed, regardless of
weather or not you agree with the test method.

My dad got his drivers license back in 1943 with NO test at all! They
just asked him "Are you blind?" He said "No" and the response was
"That will be $1 please".

I got my license in 1978 and I had to take driver training and pass 2
tests. According to some of the pro-code logic here, I should walk up
to him and tell him that he is not a real driver and that I am better
at driving than him. That would go over like a lead balloon.

I forgot to mention that my dad has had a perfect driving record, not
one ticket in 63 years. [yes, I did ask him] As for me, I have been
known to fracture a traffic law or two. I ended up paying a hefty
price for that but my record is clean now.

So, you see, lack of testing did not make my dad a bad driver while
training and testing did not make me a good driver [at least not back
in my teen years]. But then, I am a mechanic and I can rebuild a
transmission in my back yard and you're not a real driver if you
can't.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
 

Opus- wrote:
... that does not explain why some pro-coders are such snot-rags.

It is usually because they don't have a clue technically
and base their entire level of self esteem on skill in an
obsolete mode. Kicking out all the people with an IQ of
less than 110 out of amateur radio would probably solve
the whole problem.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Opus- wrote in
:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:23:50 -0400, Dave spake
thusly:

What lie??

It's not a lie that code has kept good people out of ham radio.


Whaaaaaaaaa!

SC

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

"Slow Code" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Opus- wrote in
:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:23:50 -0400, Dave spake
thusly:

What lie??

It's not a lie that code has kept good people out of ham radio.


Whaaaaaaaaa!

SC

It is obvious that it hasn't kept unpleasant people out of Amateur Radio..

Harold
KD5SAK

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

"Opus-" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 10:54:45 -0400, "Dee Flint"
spake thusly:


"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. net...
Dee Flint wrote:
The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders appear to
want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or
understanding of the requirements.

Speaking as a ham licensed for 50+ years, I would say a
lot of the divisiveness stems from coded hams trying to
substitute Morse code skill for technical knowledge and
intelligence.

Ham#1: "I've got a PhD in RF Engineering."

Ham#2: "Who cares, I flunked out of high school but
I can do 40 wpm at Morse code. So there!"

Eliminate the code requirement and triple the difficulty
of the technical exams. Problem solved.

Nope, won't solve the problem.

The solution is to accept people as true hams that passed the exams
existing
at the time they were licensed. PERIOD!!

The solution is to accept the people who are licensed, regardless of
weather or not you agree with the test method.


Which is exactly what I said.

My dad got his drivers license back in 1943 with NO test at all! They
just asked him "Are you blind?" He said "No" and the response was
"That will be $1 please".

I got my license in 1978 and I had to take driver training and pass 2
tests. According to some of the pro-code logic here, I should walk up
to him and tell him that he is not a real driver and that I am better
at driving than him. That would go over like a lead balloon.

Not according to my logic. He met the requirements of the time and you have
met the requirements of yours.

Dee

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

"Opus-" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:47:14 -0400, "Dee Flint"
spake thusly:


"Opus-" wrote in message
. ..

[snip]

Sorry, but I can say for an absolute fact that your 're wrong. It had
kept me out of ham radio and I know exactly what kind of person that I
am. And before the obligatory "lazy" word is trotted out, I have to
work for the pay cheque that buys the radio, pays the rent for the
building that the radio is in and pays for the tower that is in the
back yard. I have to work extra to pay MORE for a place where I am
allowed a tower, as opposed to less expensive digs.

Honestly, I can't believe how some pro-coders look down on no-coders
with such contempt. I was once a member of a "live steam" model
railroad club. These were larger model steam trains that ran with real
steam instead of electric power. They could be run with either propane
or coal, depending on the individual. The guys who built their
locomotives from scratch NEVER looked down on the guys who bought
theirs from a classified ad. The guys burning coal did NOT call the
propane guys "lazy". We all enjoyed a fine hobby and club meetings
were always good fun and most informative. It was great for a
mechanic, like myself, to rub shoulders with experienced retired
machinists who built these locomotives. At one of our "open houses",
which were located outdoors at the club track, my daughter took her
first steps.

Isn't ham radio supposed to be like that? Is there no camaraderie?

Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to help
each other. The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders
appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience,
or
understanding of the requirements. In addition, most of us have
experienced
people who said they could not learn code but upon questioning find that
they did not use a good training method and did not train correctly. Yet
when they decided they were tired of waiting did learn it and got their
upgrade. Then finding out how useful it was in ham pursuits were glad
that
they had done it.

That does NOT justify the snot-nosed attitude.

No it doesn't but there are a lot of "better than thou" types in all areas
of human endeavor. Ignore them or you'll drive yourself nuts.


So far of each of the reasons that people put forth as to why they can't
learn it have been disproven by the example of other people with the same
problem having gone ahead and done it. The 5wpm level is obtainable
although some of the problem do make faster speeds a problem (constant
tinnitus may be a severe problem at 20 wpm for example). My ex-OM had 70%
hearing loss in both ears and severe tinnitus. He passed the 5wpm. I
know
people with dyslexia who have passed. The blind have passed. Even the
deaf
have passed using flashing lights or vibrating pads.

Bravo for them. But that does not explain why some pro-coders are such
snot-rags.


As I said, human nature has a lot of negative aspects no matter what the
activity. All one can do is ignore it and do their personal best.

Do you have competitions in your model railroading activity? If you enter
that competition, you all have to follow the published rules with no
exceptions. If it is a competition for the "homebrewers", then those who
don't do so can enjoy viewing them but they cannot enter into the
competition.

No competitions, just a bunch of guys who like live steam model
trains. The club did not exist for that.

Still my point is that when there are rules, one is obliged to follow them
whether they like them or not.

Dee, N8UZE

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Opus- wrote:
... that does not explain why some pro-coders are such snot-rags.

It is usually because they don't have a clue technically
and base their entire level of self esteem on skill in an
obsolete mode. Kicking out all the people with an IQ of
less than 110 out of amateur radio would probably solve
the whole problem.

Not hardly. A couple of the most obnoxious people I know rate as geniuses
on IQ tests. Brain power and social graces are independent attributes.

Dee, N8UZE