You seem pretty knowledgeable so I need some assistance at
understanding something.

What I can't understand is the the incredibly childish attitude of
some of the pro-coders here. For me, the confusion stems from having
known several old timer hams while growing up. I looked up to them.
They were older gentlemen that had some fascinating knowledge and
great stories to tell about their ham radio hobby. This was back in
the 60's and early 70's so they are all gone now.

I am sure now that they are spinning in their graves, after the spew
puked up by some of the pro-coders.

Not all of them, to be fair, but a few loud ones stand out.

I still can't figure out how a statement about how CW is just beeps[
as opposed to voice on the same hardware] became transmuted into a
requirement that I should hate usenet.
That kind of blatant mis-direction seems to be quite common.

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words. Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited? Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote. Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

Why do some of them feel that insulting my daughter will make their
point valid? Are their points so weak that they resort to vulgar
insults instead of engaging in debate? I usually don't killfile people
but I have made a few exceptions lately.

Now, there will be some spew directed towards my post. They can go
ahead and prove that turning ham into CB will most certainly be a
great improvement to the ARS. I NEVER knew anybody on CB that was as
rude and vulgar as some of the pro-coders here. I can have a nasty
mouth too, at times, but it's always in response to stupidity that is
obviously not to be taken seriously.

And, ironically, *I* am the one told to grow up. That's just too
funny.

Opus- wrote:

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though. It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Jim, N2EY

On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:

Opus- wrote:

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.

One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another
operators "hand" back when I watched him operate. I am not sure how
much more a person can get out of code.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though. It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Fair enough.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

Well, I did say "usually". But wouldn't simpler equipment limit you to
code only?

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

Some very valid points here.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back
when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and
recognize where it was broadcast from.

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad.

I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government
handouts in the 44 years I have been around.

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner.

My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup.
He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between
them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full
length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were
bolted together. I was self-supporting.

Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:
Opus- wrote:

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.

One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another
operators "hand" back when I watched him operate.

Yup. Little things about an op's sending can make it as recognizable as
a familiar voice.

btw, the term "fist" is used in the same context as "hand" was used by
that op.

I am not sure how
much more a person can get out of code.

The words, of course. How they are sent can tell a lot, too. It takes a
bit of experience to recognize all the subtleties of Morse Code.

The main point is that skilled Morse Code operators can convey more
than 'just the words'.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though.

I think that is your main point.

It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Fair enough.

Exactly.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

Well, I did say "usually".

Of course.

But wouldn't simpler equipment limit you to code only?

That depends on the exact situation. The important point is that once
you have Morse Code skills, using code-only equipment isn't really a
limitation in most cases.

Simplicity of equipment can be very important in some situations. For
example, if someone wants to actually build their HF Amateur Radio
equipment, it's much simpler and easier to build a Morse Code station
than an equivalent-performance voice station. In portable operations,
the power requirement, size and weight of a Morse Code station can be
less than that of the equivalent voice station.

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile.

All sorts of things:

A) You can communicate without talking or typing. (In a world where a
lot of us spend a lot of time on the telephone and computer, being able
to communicate another way can be a real treat!)

B) The exercise of a skill is fun. Consider the person who learns how
to play a musical instrument: do you think making music (performing) is
the same experience as listening to recorded music?

C) Once you have the skills, communicating with Morse Code can be as
easy - or even easier - than using voice.

D) You can use Morse Code in situations where voice could not be used.
For example, suppose you are in a small house, apartment, RV, tent,
etc., and you want to operate without disturbing others (who might be
sleeping, talking, etc.). Of course you can put on headphones so they
don't hear the received signals, but in order to transmit, you have to
talk. Even if you keep your voice down, it can bother others. How many
times have you heard people complain about folks using cell phones in
public? But with Morse Code and a good pair of cans, you can operate
and make less noise than someone typing on a keyboard.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

Some very valid points here.

None of which mean that there *must* be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license. I happen to think such a test is a good idea,
but that's just my opinion.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back
when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and
recognize where it was broadcast from.

Exactly! The very fact that it takes some skill is part of the fun and
attraction.

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Here's one mo

5) The amount of "bad behavior" problems resulting in FCC enforcement
actions is much less from radio amateurs using Morse Code. Just look at
the FCC enforcement letters that address violations of deliberate
interference, obscenity, exceeding license privileges, and other "bad
behavior" problems. Almost all of them are for violations committed
using voice modes, not Morse Code. The difference is much greater than
would be expected from the relative popularity of the modes.

This doesn't mean all voice ops are problems or all Morse Code ops are
saints! All it means is that there's a lot less enforcement problems
from hams actually using Morse Code.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad.

Agreed! There's too much of that type of attitude on *both* sides of
the debate.

I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government
handouts in the 44 years I have been around.

How does one define "handout"?

For example, is public education of children a government handout? Yes,
many parents with kids in public school pay school taxes, but in most
districts those taxes paid by parents do not cover all of the costs of
the public schools. And the level of taxation does not depend on how
many children the parents have in school. Is public school a government
handout to people with lots of kids?

Or how about tax deductions? Are they a form of government handout? If
you have a mortgage or home equity loan, the interest is deductible. If
you rent, you don't get that deduction. Is that a government handout to
homeowners?

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get a clear idea of what
is a handout and what isn't.

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner.

My pleasure. Thanks for reading.

My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup.
He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between
them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full
length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were
bolted together. I was self-supporting.

Cool! I recently saw a similar setup used for a repeater antenna in a
wooded area. It blended in much better than metal tower.

--

The question of whether there should be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license really boils down to this: Does such a test do
more good than harm? The answer is always an opinion, not a fact.

Jim, N2EY

wrote:
Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:

Some very valid points here.

None of which mean that there *must* be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license. I happen to think such a test is a good idea,
but that's just my opinion.

and yet you try to impose your opinion on the rest
The question of whether there should be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license really boils down to this: Does such a test do
more good than harm? The answer is always an opinion, not a fact.

no the answer is not to be based on wether it does more harm than good
the question that must be answered isfirst what regulatory prupose does
it serve

no regulatory purpose and the test is ilegeal even if it could be shown
to do more good than harm

the other question is does the test serve the PUBLIC interest interest
no Procder ever deals with the issue of how Code testing benifits
memebrs of the public such as Len Anderson

Jim, N2EY

Sorry I am late in replying. Holiday weekend here in Canada.

On 5 Oct 2006 17:05:58 -0700, spake thusly:

Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:
Opus- wrote:

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.

One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another
operators "hand" back when I watched him operate.

Yup. Little things about an op's sending can make it as recognizable as
a familiar voice.

btw, the term "fist" is used in the same context as "hand" was used by
that op.

Never heard the term "fist" used in this context but it's been a while
since I have spent much time with a coder.

I am not sure how
much more a person can get out of code.

The words, of course. How they are sent can tell a lot, too. It takes a
bit of experience to recognize all the subtleties of Morse Code.

The main point is that skilled Morse Code operators can convey more
than 'just the words'.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though.

I think that is your main point.

More than words, but how much more? I also have to believe that code
is slower than speech. Not usually a big issue but an issue none the
less.

It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Fair enough.

Exactly.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

Well, I did say "usually".

Of course.

But wouldn't simpler equipment limit you to code only?

That depends on the exact situation. The important point is that once
you have Morse Code skills, using code-only equipment isn't really a
limitation in most cases.

Simplicity of equipment can be very important in some situations. For
example, if someone wants to actually build their HF Amateur Radio
equipment, it's much simpler and easier to build a Morse Code station
than an equivalent-performance voice station. In portable operations,
the power requirement, size and weight of a Morse Code station can be
less than that of the equivalent voice station.

With todays electronics, size and weight really aren't much of an
issue.

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile.

All sorts of things:

A) You can communicate without talking or typing. (In a world where a
lot of us spend a lot of time on the telephone and computer, being able
to communicate another way can be a real treat!)

I dunno..I guess I like hearing things like gender or a foreign accent
to add spice to communication.

B) The exercise of a skill is fun. Consider the person who learns how
to play a musical instrument: do you think making music (performing) is
the same experience as listening to recorded music?

Hmm..well..not really a good analogy. Listening to music is only a one
way street while both performing music, as well as radio
communications, is naturally a two way street.

C) Once you have the skills, communicating with Morse Code can be as
easy - or even easier - than using voice.

Not quite sure how, but I'll take your word for it.

D) You can use Morse Code in situations where voice could not be used.
For example, suppose you are in a small house, apartment, RV, tent,
etc., and you want to operate without disturbing others (who might be
sleeping, talking, etc.). Of course you can put on headphones so they
don't hear the received signals, but in order to transmit, you have to
talk. Even if you keep your voice down, it can bother others. How many
times have you heard people complain about folks using cell phones in
public? But with Morse Code and a good pair of cans, you can operate
and make less noise than someone typing on a keyboard.

Not really a common circumstance, but I see your point here.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

Some very valid points here.

None of which mean that there *must* be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license. I happen to think such a test is a good idea,
but that's just my opinion.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back
when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and
recognize where it was broadcast from.

Exactly! The very fact that it takes some skill is part of the fun and
attraction.

But some here seem to suggest that if no or little skill is required
then it's really not worth pursuing. I strongly dispute that.

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Here's one mo

5) The amount of "bad behavior" problems resulting in FCC enforcement
actions is much less from radio amateurs using Morse Code. Just look at
the FCC enforcement letters that address violations of deliberate
interference, obscenity, exceeding license privileges, and other "bad
behavior" problems. Almost all of them are for violations committed
using voice modes, not Morse Code. The difference is much greater than
would be expected from the relative popularity of the modes.

This doesn't mean all voice ops are problems or all Morse Code ops are
saints! All it means is that there's a lot less enforcement problems
from hams actually using Morse Code.

Perhaps the typical ages of people who prefer code could be a factor.
It does tend to be considerably older people who prefer code.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad.

Agreed! There's too much of that type of attitude on *both* sides of
the debate.

I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government
handouts in the 44 years I have been around.

How does one define "handout"?

Based on the comments, it would seem that the offending poster was
referring to something that was unique to Canada. About the only thing
I can think of is our medical care system. And THAT'S not really free
at all, as I will explain further below.

For example, is public education of children a government handout? Yes,
many parents with kids in public school pay school taxes, but in most
districts those taxes paid by parents do not cover all of the costs of
the public schools. And the level of taxation does not depend on how
many children the parents have in school. Is public school a government
handout to people with lots of kids?

Or how about tax deductions? Are they a form of government handout? If
you have a mortgage or home equity loan, the interest is deductible. If
you rent, you don't get that deduction. Is that a government handout to
homeowners?

Now as for mortgages and home equity loans, the interest is NOT a tax
deduction here in Canada. That could be considered a handout that
Americans enjoy, something Canadians can't enjoy. Also, Canada is the
second highest taxed nation in the world. Renters get a wee bit of a
break in some provinces but not here in Alberta, Canada's "Texas".

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get a clear idea of what
is a handout and what isn't.

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner.

My pleasure. Thanks for reading.

My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup.
He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between
them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full
length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were
bolted together. I was self-supporting.

Cool! I recently saw a similar setup used for a repeater antenna in a
wooded area. It blended in much better than metal tower.

Drove by many many years later. Tower gone. Different house on same
lot. I guess you can never go back.

Opus- wrote:
Sorry I am late in replying. Holiday weekend here in Canada.

I hope it was a good one.

On 5 Oct 2006 17:05:58 -0700, spake thusly:

Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:
Opus- wrote:

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.

One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another
operators "hand" back when I watched him operate.

Yup. Little things about an op's sending can make it as recognizable as
a familiar voice.

btw, the term "fist" is used in the same context as "hand" was used by
that op.

Never heard the term "fist" used in this context but it's been a while
since I have spent much time with a coder.

Both terms are used. Some folks use the term "swing" as well, but
that's not exactly a compliment.

I am not sure how
much more a person can get out of code.

The words, of course. How they are sent can tell a lot, too. It takes a
bit of experience to recognize all the subtleties of Morse Code.

The main point is that skilled Morse Code operators can convey more
than 'just the words'.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though.

I think that is your main point.

More than words, but how much more?

Quite a bit, but obviously not as much as a voice. The main point is
that skilled operators get more than 'just the words'.

It's a bit similar to the way that one's perception of the written word
is affected by the font, punctuation, capitalization, etc. Not exactly
the same, but similar.

I also have to believe that code
is slower than speech. Not usually a big issue but an issue none the
less.

Like many things, "it depends".

The raw speed of the spoken word is obviously faster.

But when you really listen to the way most people speak, the speed is
limited by many things. There's a lot of redundancy in the way many
people speak, pauses, repeats, "ums" and "ahs', and little phrases
tossed in while the person thinks of what to say next. Meanwhile, the
skilled Morse Code operator is using abbreviations and other shortcuts
that effectively increase the speed way beyond the raw wpm.

For example, the first response in a voice QSO might go like this:

"VE6QRM, victor-echo-six-quebec-romeo-mike, this is N2EY,
november-two-echo-yankee, thanks for the call. You're five and nine,
five-nine here, good clear signals. I am in Wayne, Pennsylvania, that's
Wayne, whiskey-alpha-yankee-november-echo, Pennsylvania, papa-alpha.
Name here is Jim, john-ida-mike, Jim. How do you copy me?....."

while using Morse Code, the same exchange could be:

"VE6QRM DE N2EY TNX CL BT UR 599 599 GUD SIG IN WAYNE PA WAYNE PA BT OP
JIM JIM BT HW?...."

Same information, two different modes. If the Morse Code ops are
reasonably fast, the time is comparable.

It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Fair enough.

Exactly.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

Well, I did say "usually".

Of course.

But wouldn't simpler equipment limit you to code only?

That depends on the exact situation. The important point is that once
you have Morse Code skills, using code-only equipment isn't really a
limitation in most cases.

Simplicity of equipment can be very important in some situations. For
example, if someone wants to actually build their HF Amateur Radio
equipment, it's much simpler and easier to build a Morse Code station
than an equivalent-performance voice station. In portable operations,
the power requirement, size and weight of a Morse Code station can be
less than that of the equivalent voice station.

With todays electronics, size and weight really aren't much of an
issue.

I disagree to a point! Look at the size, weight and performance of HF
rigs that you can carry with you. Is there any HF ham rig that's
SSB-capable that can compete with the Elecraft KX-1?

For fixed-station use, there isn't much size/weight difference, if any.
But when you need to carry the rig and batteries any real distance, the
differences become apparent. This is also when you will find that the
difference in low power performance really matters.

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile.

All sorts of things:

A) You can communicate without talking or typing. (In a world where a
lot of us spend a lot of time on the telephone and computer, being able
to communicate another way can be a real treat!)

I dunno..I guess I like hearing things like gender or a foreign accent
to add spice to communication.

Of course. And that's part of the point: different communications
experiences.

B) The exercise of a skill is fun. Consider the person who learns how
to play a musical instrument: do you think making music (performing) is
the same experience as listening to recorded music?

Hmm..well..not really a good analogy. Listening to music is only a one
way street while both performing music, as well as radio
communications, is naturally a two way street.

I was thinking of the person who performs the music for themselves vs.
listening to a recording.

Either way, it's still a different experience.

Or consider this analogy: It's one thing to drive a car with all the
modern conveniences - power steering, automatic transmission, power
brakes, cruise control, climate control, etc., and doing it on a smooth
straight highway. It's a different experience to drive a car without
all those things, on a winding country road where the driver's skill
makes a big difference.

C) Once you have the skills, communicating with Morse Code can be as
easy - or even easier - than using voice.

Not quite sure how, but I'll take your word for it.

D) You can use Morse Code in situations where voice could not be used.
For example, suppose you are in a small house, apartment, RV, tent,
etc., and you want to operate without disturbing others (who might be
sleeping, talking, etc.). Of course you can put on headphones so they
don't hear the received signals, but in order to transmit, you have to
talk. Even if you keep your voice down, it can bother others. How many
times have you heard people complain about folks using cell phones in
public? But with Morse Code and a good pair of cans, you can operate
and make less noise than someone typing on a keyboard.

Not really a common circumstance, but I see your point here.

I think it depends on the amateur's situation. I know plenty of hams
with small children in the house, or with limited space for a shack,
where the sound issue is a big one. Being able to operate quietly can
be the difference between operating and not operating.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

Some very valid points here.

None of which mean that there *must* be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license. I happen to think such a test is a good idea,
but that's just my opinion.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back
when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and
recognize where it was broadcast from.

Exactly! The very fact that it takes some skill is part of the fun and
attraction.

But some here seem to suggest that if no or little skill is required
then it's really not worth pursuing. I strongly dispute that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "if little or no skill is required, then
it's really not worth pursuing".

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Here's one mo

5) The amount of "bad behavior" problems resulting in FCC enforcement
actions is much less from radio amateurs using Morse Code. Just look at
the FCC enforcement letters that address violations of deliberate
interference, obscenity, exceeding license privileges, and other "bad
behavior" problems. Almost all of them are for violations committed
using voice modes, not Morse Code. The difference is much greater than
would be expected from the relative popularity of the modes.

This doesn't mean all voice ops are problems or all Morse Code ops are
saints! All it means is that there's a lot less enforcement problems
from hams actually using Morse Code.

Perhaps the typical ages of people who prefer code could be a factor.
It does tend to be considerably older people who prefer code.

I disagree - for two reasons!

First I have found amateurs of all ages who are interested in Morse
Code. I have found that young people are interested *if* Morse Code is
presented correctly.

Some say that, in the modern world, young people who grew up with cell
phones and the internet aren't going to sit still for something like
Morse Code - or amateur radio. And many won't.

However, the very fact that Morse Code is unusual is a big attraction
to some of them - *because* it's so different and unusual. They've seen
voice comms - they all have cellphones! Typing on a keyboard and
reading a screen is something they've seen since they were babies. But
Morse Code is completely different. That's what draws many young people
- just look at the acceptance of the Harry Potter books.

The second reason is that the 'bad behavior' of amateurs on the air
doesn't seem to decrease with age. In fact, it may be the opposite!

One of the worst offenders here in the USA was a Californian named Jack
Gerritsen (ex-KG6IRO). He was found guilty of multiple repeated
offenses, all of which involved on-air behavior like jamming, not
'technical' violations. His bad behavior started on the ham bands but
spread to public service bands as well, giving amateur radio a black
eye. Enforcement efforts up to revoking his license didn't stop him.
The guy was totally out of control, a real problem case. So now he is
going to prison for seven years and has to pay a fairly serious fine
($21,000US, IIRC).

Gerritsen used only voice modes. He is now 70.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad.

Agreed! There's too much of that type of attitude on *both* sides of
the debate.

I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government
handouts in the 44 years I have been around.

How does one define "handout"?

Based on the comments, it would seem that the offending poster was
referring to something that was unique to Canada. About the only thing
I can think of is our medical care system. And THAT'S not really free
at all, as I will explain further below.

I've lost track of who was using the term "handout". I don't think it
was you.

For example, is public education of children a government handout? Yes,
many parents with kids in public school pay school taxes, but in most
districts those taxes paid by parents do not cover all of the costs of
the public schools. And the level of taxation does not depend on how
many children the parents have in school. Is public school a government
handout to people with lots of kids?

I don't know how Canadian public education is funded, but I suspect
that it's not that much different than in the USA - at least to the
extent that parents don't pay the full amount, nor does the tax level
increase with the number of children in school.

Is public education a government handout to people with several
children?

Or how about tax deductions? Are they a form of government handout? If
you have a mortgage or home equity loan, the interest is deductible. If
you rent, you don't get that deduction. Is that a government handout to
homeowners?

Now as for mortgages and home equity loans, the interest is NOT a tax
deduction here in Canada. That could be considered a handout that
Americans enjoy, something Canadians can't enjoy.

Exactly - if one uses the term "handout". A lot of US homeowners would
say that they 'deserve' the tax deduction.

I would say that the USA uses tax policy as a form of social
engineering. By making mortgage and home-equity interest count as a tax
deduction, the government is supporting home ownership over renting.

Also, Canada is the
second highest taxed nation in the world.

Really? Who is #1 - Sweden?

Renters get a wee bit of a
break in some provinces but not here in Alberta, Canada's "Texas".

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get a clear idea of what
is a handout and what isn't.

One person's handout is another's entitlement.

One more "handout": some (not all) Social Security benefits. Most
Americans make payments into Social Security all their working lives.
Some never collect a penny, because they die young.

But if a person receiving Social Security benefits lives long enough,
they will eventually receive more in benefits than they paid into the
system - including reasonable interest.

Is that a "handout"?

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner.

My pleasure. Thanks for reading.

My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup.
He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between
them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full
length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were
bolted together. I was self-supporting.

Cool! I recently saw a similar setup used for a repeater antenna in a
wooded area. It blended in much better than metal tower.

Drove by many many years later. Tower gone. Different house on same
lot. I guess you can never go back.

(sigh)

For many years there was a landmark ham tower near here. Custom
rotating steel pole, over 100 feet high, with multiple HF Yagis and a
full size 2 element 80/75 meter quad. (That's not a typo). All on a
typical suburban lot of less than an acre....

It was built by one ham, and when he passed away another one bought the
place. But when the second ham passed, the big tower and antennas
needed serious work and nobody stepped up to take on the task.

So the tower is all gone and the house is like all the others in the
area...

But some things can be preserved - values, skills, culture. Even if the
people and places change.

73 de Jim, N2EY

From: on Wed, Oct 11 2006 3:38 am

Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 17:05:58 -0700, spake thusly:
Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:
Opus- wrote:


But when you really listen to the way most people speak, the speed is
limited by many things. There's a lot of redundancy in the way many
people speak, pauses, repeats, "ums" and "ahs', and little phrases
tossed in while the person thinks of what to say next. Meanwhile, the
skilled Morse Code operator is using abbreviations and other shortcuts
that effectively increase the speed way beyond the raw wpm.

A comparison between a poor speaker and a skilled
radiotelegrapher is worthy HOW? To shine up the
"skilled radiotelegrapher?" [of course...]

Compare a good speaker and a poor, unskilled radio-
telegrapher's sending and speech becomes way, way
faster.



With todays electronics, size and weight really aren't much of an
issue.

I disagree to a point! Look at the size, weight and performance of HF
rigs that you can carry with you. Is there any HF ham rig that's
SSB-capable that can compete with the Elecraft KX-1?

AN/PRC-104...back-pack HF SSB transceiver, operational
since 1984. Built by (then) Hughes Aircraft Ground
Systems (Hughes purchased by Raytheon).

For civilian-only, try the SGC 2020 SSB HF transceiver
used by private boat owners as well as hams.

For fixed-station use, there isn't much size/weight difference, if any.
But when you need to carry the rig and batteries any real distance, the
differences become apparent. This is also when you will find that the
difference in low power performance really matters.

The PRC-104 has an integral automatic antenna matching
package (to the right of the transceiver itself). This
insures that the manpack set's whip antenna is always
tuned for optimum radiated transmission power.

SGC has several antenna autotuner models available;
separate equipments.


Or consider this analogy: It's one thing to drive a car with all the
modern conveniences - power steering, automatic transmission, power
brakes, cruise control, climate control, etc., and doing it on a smooth
straight highway. It's a different experience to drive a car without
all those things, on a winding country road where the driver's skill
makes a big difference.

You have much experience on "winding country roads?" :-)

[of course you do, you are an amateur extra morseman...]

Are you advocating "no-frills" personal vehicles? Why?

I learned to drive in a 1939 Ford, NO automatic trans-
mission, NO power steering, NO power brakes, No cruise
control, NO "climate control" other than the standard
heater. Training ground was an abandoned army camp, one
which DID have a few "winding (dirt) roads." If you
think for one minute that I would give up a nice,
comfortable, well-equipped 2005 Chevy Malibu MAXX just
to "rough it" for SOMEONE ELSE'S IDEA of what constitutes
"good driving," you've got your head up your ass.

Having earned my Army driving license, I will personally
challenge you to a Jeep gymkhana (Jeep circa 1940s-1960s)
at everything from "smooth straight highways" through
"winding country roads" on to OFF-ROAD ANYTHING. I will
WIN. Been there, did that, got T-shirts, etc.

That standard issue Jeep had NO amenities except for the
post-1950 winch and cable over the front bumper. "Climate
control" was whatever the climate was outside. The "power
transmission" was a couple gear shifts operated by arm
strength and experienced clutch operation. Ptui.

HOW MANY personal vehicles have YOU DESIGNED and BUILT?
Include auto kits if you need to.

HOW MANY thousands of miles have YOU driven? Over "winding
country roads?" [I don't think so unless you count the
old driveway to the Doylestown Barn Cinema...] I've driven
the VERY winding country road (rough surface) to a Wyoming
working ranch (cattle brand registered in Wyoming is "B-1
Bomber") from/to highway.



Perhaps the typical ages of people who prefer code could be a factor.
It does tend to be considerably older people who prefer code.

I disagree - for two reasons!

First I have found amateurs of all ages who are interested in Morse
Code.

If all you have is a hammer, naturally everything looks
like a nail to you...

I have found that young people are interested *if* Morse Code is
presented correctly.

Sado-masochism is still prevalent in the human condition.


Some say that, in the modern world, young people who grew up with cell
phones and the internet aren't going to sit still for something like
Morse Code - or amateur radio. And many won't.

Unquantified numbers. You are waffling on your emotional
reasons.


However, the very fact that Morse Code is unusual is a big attraction
to some of them - *because* it's so different and unusual. They've seen
voice comms - they all have cellphones! Typing on a keyboard and
reading a screen is something they've seen since they were babies.

One in three Americans has a cell phone. Census Bureau said
so in a public statement in 2004.

Back in the late 1940s - a time well before cell phones, personal
computers, with (mostly) only sound broadcasting - there was NO
great "novelty" or "interest" in morse code communications. Been
there, seen that, see no difference now.

But
Morse Code is completely different. That's what draws many young people
- just look at the acceptance of the Harry Potter books.

So, write the author of the "Harry Potter" series and have
her (J. K. Rowling) "introduce" morse code as "magic." :-)

BWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

* M A G I C M O R S E *

BWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


But some things can be preserved - values, skills, culture. Even if the
people and places change.

Preservation of the Past is the job of MUSEUMS.

Why do you insist on keeping a "living museum" in amateur
radio through federal license testing for morse code in
only AMATEUR radio?

YOU had to test for it so everyone else has to...

Fraternal order HAZING having NO tangible value
except to amuse those ALREADY tested for code.

wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, wrote:

Opus- wrote:

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.

bull####

That's the kind of answer that proves you're an uneducated dolt,
Morkie.

As if we NEEDED more "proof" ! ! !

Steve, K4YZ

From: Opus- on Wed, Oct 4 2006 6:58 pm

You seem pretty knowledgeable so I need some assistance at
understanding something.

Jim, that statement is bound to ignite more flame war
stuff in here, heh heh heh heh...

What I can't understand is the the incredibly childish attitude of
some of the pro-coders here.

Part of that is the Nature of the Beast, the computer-
modem mode of communications. The 'Beast' got 'steroids'
with the ability to send 'anonymous' messages (they
think...traceability is possible but only through
systems administrators' access to the 'Net). When that
happened the early male adolescent behavior surfaced
with all its immaturity.

Having participated in computer-modem communications
locally and networked since December 1984, I've seen
quite a bit of that. It is clinically, also morbidly
fascinating to me. Since most of my early experiences
were on local BBSs there was the opportunity to meet
socially with those participants, get real clues to
the person instead of just seeing their words on a
screen. In most their words echoed their up-close
personnae. In perhaps a quarter of them their
fantasies and imaginations ruled their screen words,
their public, social interaction being nowhere near
that and they were relatively subdued, few having
'remarkable' lives. It could be said that their
computer-modem personnae represented their
imaginations given a pseudo-life, something to
fantasize about to relieve their everyday lives'
frustrations.

With the ability to be anonymous (through some 'Net
servers) those imaginations and frustrations can be
let out full force. The 'anonymous' ones become
aggressive, 'in-your-face' types, no longer mindful
of normal social, in-person behavior rules. This is
aided by the relative isolation of time and distance
of messaging. The aggressive ones need have no fear
of physical confrontation as a result of their words,
they can act 'tough' or abusive or insulting in
safety. Ergo, many found emotional 'relief' in the
filthy venting we've all seen in just this newsgroup.

It's a not-nice condition in some humans to have
their (usually suppressed) anger, frustration,
bigotry so close to the surface but it does exist
in them. It can turn to rage and action in rare
cases, thus the stories of violence that show up in
the news. Humans aren't perfect by a long shot.
Civilization requires a greater suppression of that
internal rage, anger, frustration for the common
good but some think internally that they are 'better'
than the common folk. Hence we get the overtones of
'superiority' through sub-groups in which their
capabilities are exaggerated in those groups' self-
righteous descriptions of themselves.

That isn't confined to amateur radio. It exists
all along the human experience.


For me, the confusion stems from having
known several old timer hams while growing up. I looked up to them.

Understandable from the viewpoint of younger people. I
think we've all had such experiences...mine were scarce
in regards to amateur radio in my hometown but there
were lots with other life experiences that were fun to
listen to and to respect.

They were older gentlemen that had some fascinating knowledge and
great stories to tell about their ham radio hobby. This was back in
the 60's and early 70's so they are all gone now.

Being of a younger age, my growing-up days 'old
timers' were rather focussed on the experience of
World War II. "Radio" per se was seldom mentioned
as a part of that.

What is most interesting (to me) is finding out later
that some of them were exaggerating what they said
and a few were downright liars! :-)

If one survives long enough to become the same age
as those 'old timers' (in a relative chronological
way that is), it is easier to see where they are
coming from! Much easier...! :-)

I am sure now that they are spinning in their graves, after the spew
puked up by some of the pro-coders.

Well, if the afterlife allows such observation of
mortals, I'm of the opinion that those old 'old-timers'
are having a good time and laughing at the mortals'
shenanigans!

Not all of them, to be fair, but a few loud ones stand out.

The loud ones stand out because they MUST stand out
and make everyone pay attention to them. Their EGO
demands it. They want to RULE, to control, to judge,
to be in-charge. In here those are confined to the
pro-coders or who USE their tested morsemanship
(however long ago that happened, if it ever did)
to show "how good" they are.

I still can't figure out how a statement about how CW is just beeps[
as opposed to voice on the same hardware] became transmuted into a
requirement that I should hate usenet.

Not surprising to me. Those fixated on their alleged
superiority dispense with logic, go emotional, and
become one with the rabble, the filth-spewers. They
are NOT interested in anything but making themselves
look good to themselves on their own screens. They
have little recognition that the same 'message' they
sent is read by anyone else but the recipient...when
it may be read by thousands of others who never reply.

That kind of blatant mis-direction seems to be quite common.

I agree. Such misdirection is common on just about
every newsgroup, has precedence in the BBSs, even on
the old ARPANET just before it morphed into USENET.
Lacking the validity of anything but their own
experiences, they toss logic out the window and
consentrate on 'conquering' the message thread.

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

You know that, I know that, and hundreds of thousands
of other humans know that. That's the reason that
all other radio services except amateur radio have
dispensed with on-off keying radiotelegraphy for
communications purposes. At least in the USA; I
don't have enough information about Canada's use of
communications modes to verify that.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Logic in such an argument is NOT desired by pro-coders.
They are fixated on the medium, not the message. They
got their rank-status-privileges mainly through their
morsemanship and their egos demand that Their desires
should be those of all.

Part of that fixation on radiotelegraphy in the USA is
a result of the tremendous amount of ham-oriented
publications of the ARRL. The ARRL emphasizes radio-
telegraphy as the ne-plus-ultra of amateur radio skills.
Since the ARRL has a virtual monopoly on amateur radio
publications here, has had that for at least seven
decades, they can and have managed to condition the
thinking of American amateur radio licensees in favor
of radiotelegraphy.

Those who've been conditioned will not understand that
they've been imprinted but insist it like some
'natural order of things.' Further, they tend to out-
rage and the very idea that they've been brainwashed!
Such outrage takes on a religious fervor at times.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote. Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

Few can. In here I'd say that NONE can.

Your 'opponent' wasn't trying to argue logically. Klein
was obviously using emotion as an 'argument,' frustrated
at not being able to 'triumph' in a message exchange.

Why do some of them feel that insulting my daughter will make their
point valid?

It is an emotional ATTACK ploy. It is common in nearly
all newsgroups. Those that do these sort of things can
get away with it, unworried about any direct physical
confrontation that might ensue.

Are their points so weak that they resort to vulgar
insults instead of engaging in debate?

Yes.

Now, there will be some spew directed towards my post.

Of course...and to this reply. One can 'take that to the
bank.' :-)


They can go
ahead and prove that turning ham into CB will most certainly be a
great improvement to the ARS.

Well, the expressed bigotry against CB by hams is a very
old thing going back to 1958 when the FCC created "Class
C and D" CB service on an 11 meter frequency band de-
allocated from amateur radio use down here. Having to
work both with and for some old-time hams, I heard mostly
howls of outrage and indignation that the FCC 'dared' to
take away 'their' band and 'give' it to 'civilians.'
Worse yet, NO TEST, not the slightest requirement to
demonstrate morsemanship in order to use an HF band! :-)

I NEVER knew anybody on CB that was as
rude and vulgar as some of the pro-coders here.

I have to agree with you. The vast majority of CB use
down here is on highways, mostly by truckers but a large
number of RV-driving vacationers are there, too. At
worst, some trucker might go into a long tale of some-
thing (that only a few consider funny) but I have yet
to hear outright personal insults on CB. I quit
using CB mobile in late 1999 after selling my '82
Camaro but a twice-a-year fire-up of CB at home doesn't
indicate anything different; this residence in southern
California is only a half mile from our Interstate 5,
a major highway north-south near the Pacific coast. Our
cell phone now works so well on major highways that we
don't have any consideration of installing any other
radio in our present car.


And, ironically, *I* am the one told to grow up. That's just too
funny.

Well, that's how it goes. :-) Expect more of that
kind of comment. I dare say it will occur under
'moderation' as well.

When a pro-coder says "grow up," they really mean "think
like I think, appreciate only what I like, etc." They
use that little throw-away line in lieu of a personal
insult, a button-pushing phrase to get their 'opponent'
angry. Sometimes it works, but most of the time it is
just their stupid way of attempting retaliation.