wrote:
wrote:
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...]

Listen to the way *most people* speak, Len. 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.

Not mentioned are the fact that voice mode radio ops often do repeats
and phonetic spellings. "My name is Mike--Mike(??????) India Kilo
Echo--Mike."

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

So? Most people don't speak like they're reading a script.

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?" :-)

Yes. Do you?

Note that Len seems to think he is making a joke.

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

Lots of people who aren't radio amateurs, drive on winding country roads.

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

Why not?

Why not indeed?

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.

Sounds like the car I learned to drive in.

It sounds better than my first car, though mine had advanced climate
control--a dashboard vent, crank windows and vent windows.

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.

It's not about *you*, Len.

To Len, it is always about Len.

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.

Why would you give up a nice, comfortable, well-equipped 2005 Chevy
Malibu MAXX just
to "rough it", Len?

It doesn't matter, Jim. Len has thrown the gauntlet. He's out for blood.

I will WIN.

Maybe. Maybe not. You don't really know, you're just bragging because
you know it won't happen.

You saw through the bluster?

Been there, did that, got T-shirts, etc.

That doesn't mean you would win.

It just means that Len has some really old T-shirts.

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.

What's your point - that you spit at Jeeps?

He thought they were technologically challenged then and he still thinks so?

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

What does it matter? I could tell you about the time I took two junker
cars and made one good one out of them, but you'd find fault with that,
somehow.

But that doesn't answer the question "HOW MANY".

HOW MANY thousands of miles have YOU driven?

Gosh, Len, I don't really know. Probably more than you, though.

I think I've driven more miles in the past six years than Len has logged
over the past twenty. Is there a prize for miles driven?

Over "winding
country roads?"

Enough.

Three quarters of mine have been over winding and hilly country roads.
Then again, I live in the country. Go figure. What's the prize?

[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.

What does that have to do with anything, Len?

That was a detour on a winding country road.

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've got a lot more tools than just a hammer. I know how to use them,
too.

If you're a nail, everything headed your way appears to be a hammer.

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

Sado-masochism is still prevalent in the human condition.

And yet you claim you have no problem with people using Morse Code....

But we knew from his past posts, that simply isn't true.

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.

"Amateur" is derived from the Latin word for "love". Means to do
something for the love of the thing alone. Emotional reasons, IOW.

Len is primarily motivated by those things which generate money.

The fact is that there are plenty of young people who like Morse Code
and learn it readily. I think that's one reason you want an age limit
for an amateur radio license - so those code-skilled young folks can't
get a license until they're 14.

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.

So what?

The "so" is that two out of three American *don't* have a cellular phone.

When I was a teenager, practically everyone had a telephone. Why should
anyone have a ham rig at home when they can just talk on the telephone?

My dad discouraged me from talking on the phone when I was a teen. He
didn't do that with amateur radio unless I was trying to operate on 15m
and there was a football game on TV.

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.

Sure there was. Ham radio was growing by leaps and bounds then. You
were not part of it.

Len must have missed a couple of decades.

Been
there, seen that, see no difference now.

IOW, nobody should do what *you* don't enjoy.

I'm more concerned that Len thinks that because he is ignorant of the
historical facts of amateur radio in the late 1940's, everyone is ignorant.

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
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

??


It's a California thing.

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.

Preservation of values, skills and culture is everyone's job.

Len doesn't seem to think that it is his job.

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

It's not a living museum.

Far from it. Radio amateurs use many modes daily. CW is one of 'em.

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

Nope. Morse Code should be a license requirement because amateurs use
it. The skill is part of being a qualified radio amateur. Simple as
that.

There are thousands and thousands of morse QSOs taking place on the ham
bands daily.

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

It's not about hazing, Len. It's about being qualified. You're not
qualified.

There's been enough false material penned here about hazing, hoops,
rituals and the like to last a lifetime.

Len may use all the cellular phones, cordless phones, Family Radio
Service HT's and Citizen's Band transceivers he likes. He isn't a radio
amateur and likely will never become a radio amateur. All of his talk
has been bluster and boast.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Wed, Oct 11 2006 3:38 am

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

It's not about hazing, Len. It's about being qualified. You're not
qualified.

There's been enough false material penned here about hazing, hoops,
rituals and the like to last a lifetime.
and they are told by the MM in isnsiting the Morse Code testing is
nohing but a frat house game

From: "KØHB" on Sat, Oct 14 2006 4:15am

wrote

Lutherans don't go to parochial schools, Jimmie. :-)

Gee, I wonder who goes to these schools...... ****copalians?

http://www.faithlutheran.net/phpw/phpw/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_pag e&PAGE_id=14
http://www.stpetermodesto.org/mainschool.htm
http://stmarkslutheran.com/School/index.htm
http://www.stpaulsfirst.org/school_index.cfm

(Just a few of thousands you could Google up.)

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

Tsk, I was thinking of the "parochial school" run by
the Church of St. Hiram. You can Google it at:

http://www.arrl.org


Beepity beep

From: "KØHB" on Sat, Oct 14 2006 4:15am

wrote

Lutherans don't go to parochial schools, Jimmie. :-)

Gee, I wonder who goes to these schools...... ****copalians?

http://www.faithlutheran.net/phpw/phpw/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_pag e&PAGE_id=14
http://www.stpetermodesto.org/mainschool.htm
http://stmarkslutheran.com/School/index.htm
http://www.stpaulsfirst.org/school_index.cfm

(Just a few of thousands you could Google up.)

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

Tsk, I was thinking of the "parochial school" run by
the Church of St. Hiram. You can Google it at:

http://www.arrl.org


Beepity beep

From: on Fri, Oct 13 2006 3:42pm

[...who, in a desperate effort to prove he is "right" - always -
mumbles on...]


"I can't find ANY relatively modern
computer that needs 6SN7s (a dual triode, octal base),
not even 12AU7s."

2002 is certainly "relatively modern" compared to 1946.

You made a mistake, Len.

Only under
whiny little REdefinition of the
word "mistake." :-)

Nope. You made a mistake, pure and simple. That is, unless you
deliberately wrote an untruth with the intent to deceive, in which case
it was a lie.

What happened, Jimmie, you see an old TV movie about
the glorious USMC heroes and are attempting to out-do
Robeson in the "YOU LIE, YOU LIE!" department? :-)

Are you trying to pull out a SINGLE exception (from
millions of PCs in use daily) which went DEFUNCT less
than two years from its announcement? Of course you
are! You HAVE to. Your ego depends on it.

The original IBM PC that debuted in 1980 (26 years ago)
did NOT have any vacuum tubes in it.

The display that came with it had a CRT.

It was NOT integral with the main unit. In 1980 one could
purchase the main box without the CRT display.


The portable IBM PC, with built-in display, had a CRT as well.

That "portable" didn't last long on the market, did it?

Can you name the CP/M-based PCs that preceded the
original IBM PC? No? Why not? Tens of thousands
were in use, including in businesses.


You wrote that you "can't find ANY relatively modern computer" with
vacuum tubes.

That's true, Jimmie. In row upon row of many makes and
models of personal computers at Frys in Burbank, CA,
(intersection of Hollywood Way and Van Owen street)
there isn't a single one with a vacuum tube in it.
The same thing happens at Best Buy at the Empire Center
(where the main Lockheed factory had been) in Burbank.
I can go to Office Depot or Office Max and see the
same...or Circuit City or Comp USA or PC Club (the one
on Victory Blvd in Burbank at one corner of the OSH
center)...or dozens of smaller shops handling computers.


Did IBM ever produce any AMATEUR RADIO products?

No? Then why do you go on and on and on and on
about this niche subject and the "glory" that was
ENIAC?

To prove a point, Len: That a thing can be practical in its time even
if it is considered impractical in other times, and even if it is never
repeated.

Tsk, tsk, more REdefinition of the word "practical." :-)

That's true whether the device is ENIAC, Fessenden's early AM voice
work with modulated alternators, or something completely different.

Only in Jimmieworld. :-)

Now you just hop on over to your nearest AM BC station
and convince the station manager and chief engineer that
sticking a high-power, special carbon microphone in
series with the antenna feedline is "PRACTICAL."

Then you run over to the nearest ACM group and tell them
that 10 KHz clock rates on computers is "better" and "more
PRACTICAL" than 1 GHz clock rates. Good luck on that.


Did ENIAC ever serve AMATEUR RADIO in any
way?

Yes.

HOW? Name the applications of ENIAC that served ham radio.


You wrote that you "can't find ANY relatively modern computer" with
vacuum tubes.

Absolutely right.

I've had a keen interest in personal computing (as well
as numerical calculation) for over a quarter century.
The ONLY exceptions to personal computers having vacuum
tubes involve the DISPLAY, NOT the "sound output."

Vacuum tubes are just TOO SLOW to be of value in either
computation or the memory sections of computers. The
Information Technology folks found that out a half
century ago and never looked on vacuum tubes as worthy
of computation technology.


Doesn't matter, Len. You could have found the link I provided with just
a few keystrokes.

Oh, my, ruler-spank from Mother Superior again! :-)

Yes, "a few keystrokes" could have brought up "new age-ism"
of "pyramid power" or "ancient astronauts" tales from
author Erich von Daniken, not to mention lots and lots of
PR dreck from all sorts of hustlers.


Are you a musician, Len?

Yes.

That "tube
sound" MYTH has been 'over-driven' to the point of
nausea, about like the "gold-coated speaker cable"
myth that is claimed to produce "golden sound" from
music amplifiers. :-)

Tell it to those who actually play the things.

I have. I get the same response as from morsemen who
believe in the myth that OOK CW telegraphy is the
"best" way to communicate.

It is impossible to communicate with the stone walls of
morsemen Believers.



Gee, Len, you're the one carrying on like an overtired two-year-old.
I'm calm, cool and collected. Not whining, foot stamping, or crying out
anything. I'm just correcting your mistakes with facts.

Tsk, tsk, the Robeson syndrome again. You are "always right"
and your challengers are "always wrong." :-)


You keep making mistakes and I keep correcting some of them.

Tsk, tsk, for years I've shown you YOUR mistakes and
you've never acknowledged them. Hypocrite.


ENIAC did something for RADIO? [I don't think so...]

Actually, it did.

NAME IT. This is the second time you've claimed something
and NOT followed through with specifics.



YOU never worked on ENIAC. You've never claimed to have
worked on ANY computer, main-frame, minicomputer, nor
personal computer.

You are mistaken.

"Mistaken" in WHAT?

You CANNOT have worked on ENIAC prior to 1955.

What mainframe computer did you work on or with?

What minicomputer did you work on or with?

That you USE a personal computer for message communication
isn't valid for "working on" a personal computer.


Are you a member of the ACM? [Association for Computing
Machinery, the first and still-existing professional
association for computing and information technology] I was
a voting member of the ACM for a few years.

And now you're not?

Yes.

Are YOU now, or have you ever been a member of the ACM?

Answer the question I posed. Directly. No misdirection.


Do you believe in democracy, Len?

So much so that I volunteered to serve in the military of
the United States to DEFEND that right guaranteed by the
Constitution of the United States.

YOU never volunteered to serve in the military. YOU haven't
even volunteered to join a civilian government agency to do
support of democracy.


The majority of those who expressed
an opinion on the Morse Code test to FCC want at least some Morse Code
testing to remain.

A very slim margin of "majority," Jimmie. *I* am the one
who bothered to read EVERY comment on FCC 05-235 *and* to
post the updated results in here. Remember? You should,
you were in there heckling me at every turn...:-)

In the first months of Comment on FCC 05-235 the MAJORITY
of respondents were AGAINST the morse code test. You
don't want to remember that, do you? Of course not, it
goes against your morseodist Beliefs.

You MUST have that code test in federal law. You MUST,
you MUST (whiny foot-stamping, arm-waving, and crying
by you against the 'evil' eliminators).

Why do you persist with your must-have-code-test
obsession? There's NOTHING stopping anyone from USING
OOK CW telegraphy, so why is the code test a requirement
for amateur privileges below 30 MHz? You can't give any
rational answer to that, only the EMOTIONAL one, the
personal one where YOU think all must take that test.


As of 2004 the US Census Bureau stated that 1 out of 5
Americans had SOME access to the Internet. That involves
access via a personal computer (or its cousin, the "work-
station"). That is roughly 50 to 60 MILLION Americans.

Old news.

The year 2004 is "relatively modern," isn't it? :-)

The Internet went public in 1991. Is 1991 "relatively
modern?"

The US government, all agencies and officers were on
the Internet since the mid-1990s. Even the US military
(that you never served in) was on the Internet.

Are you still tied to dialup?

No and yes.

The original (and only) ENIAC used an architecture that
is NOT common to present-day personal computers. About
the only term that IS common is that ENIAC used "digital
circuits." That's about the end of it for commonality
with MILLIONS and MILLIONS of personal computers in the
daily use worldwide.

Nope. Wrong.

Sorry, Jimmie, you made one HORRENDOUS technological ERROR!

Do your homework on IT technology, say from 1955 onwards.
Try some basic subjects like "Harvard Architecture" and
all-binary registers, fetch-and-carry, addressing and data.
Forget the old IBM plugboards and patch cords of pre-WW2
technology (what you think as "ROM"?) and all-machine-
language programming transition to "high-level" languages.
That's several HUNDRED specific technological areas that
lie between 1946 through 1980 and on to 2006. Big, big BIG
changes in ALL of them.

I don't claim any "expertise" on computers...but what I DO
know is way, Way, WAY ahead of your misconception of
"practical" computing technology being that of ENIAC.

Your whole tirade in here is tied to YOUR emotional state
about ONE of the first WORKING computers at the Moore
School of Engineering. Emotional infatuation that is
bordering on the religious belief akin to sects.

Sex is still better than sects.



btw, the "Ordnance Corps" are the nice folks who take care of things
like how to do artillery barrages....

No, the "ordnance" folks maintain the ammunition and weaponry.

Then who makes up the firing tables?

Little computers on or with the field pieces and anti-
aircraft weaponry.

The only exception is the field mortars which have been
using the same elementary "firing tables" in use prior to
any ENIAC...i.e., since before WW2.

You can begin by studying "TACFIRE" and its evolution but
RELATIVELY MODERN (since 1980) artillery aiming and firing
has been systemized with field computers doing the "on-line"
tasks of aiming, especially with moving targets. The Abrams
tank turret gun is computer-controlled as one example, that
one may be responsible for its very high "kill" ratio that
ranks among the best of the world's military. Try the AEGIS
missle cruiser fire control system, able to track several
targets simultaneously and direct gun fire as well as missle
firing. Try the modern aircraft fire control systems, in
everything from the old F-102 on up to the F-18 and F-22,
systems which are an integral part of the whole airframe's
control. Cruise missles (around since the 1970s) don't use
"firing tables" or even "sectional charts" to fly to a pre-
set target all by themselves. ALL of those are about as
"related" to ENIAC as the modern word processor-computer-
printer is to clay tablets and cuneiform writing, perhaps
what you would call "practical" writing-recording of data.

Jimmie, you REALLY need to get your head out of your ass
and into the modern world.


As ever to you, the ByteBrothers famous phrase is invoked.

What phrase is that, Len?

"Just a few keystrokes" will get you that phrase, Jimmie.

The late Jimmy Pearson coined it. Lots of us old
ByteBrothers remember it.

From: on Fri, Oct 13 2006 6:27 pm


wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 10 2006 3:40 am
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Sun, Oct 8 2006 3:22 am
wrote:

Len never attended a Roman Catholic parochial school. Was never taught
by nuns or smacked around by them.

Was the parochial school *required*...

How many kids get to choose what school they attend?

Some 14-year-olds chose the "parochial school" run by
the Church of St. Hiram. Google it at www.arrl.org :-)


Then you cannot know what Roman Catholic parochial school was like,
Len.

Is it a deep, dark SECRET, Jimmie? :-)

Something like the Masons?

Is it something like a NON-serving civilian telling
a real veteran "all about" the military?


That's right. You're just not funny, Len.

Awwww...you got hit by a ripe tomato of sarcasm? Tsk, tsk.


No, it's just pathetic.

Nein, alte doppleganger...it was RIGHT ON THE MONEY. :-)


can come out west and tell Mitzi Shore how to run
her Comedy Store Club. :-)

She will tell you that the First Rule applies. If the audience doesn't
laugh, the act isn't funny.

Tsk, tsk, Mitzi let her son Pauly do stand-up there
and he BOMBED. :-) Not once but several times.

His "films" were kept alive only by PR.

Have you EVER been to a comedy club, Jimmie? An
Improv group? Ever DO stand-up comedy? [obviously
not...:-) ]



A couple of Morse-code-skilled radio amateurs were on Leno a while
back. They made mincemeat of the *world champion* text messager.

"World champion?!?"

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No "mincemeat" occurred, Jimmie. Really. If it did
then NBC and KNBC-TV (where the show is taped) would
have made headlines on page 1 with civil suits against
them.



Then why do you use the first person plural pronoun to refer to
yourself?

Is Mother Superior warming up her knuckle-spanking
ruler again? :-)

Yes, she IS!

Bad habit, Jimmie.


Recently you said you wanted rrap to be shut down for an indefinite
length of time. Is that the action of someone who really believes that
all should be heard?

Considering the ANARCHY that has happened in this newsgroup
it sure as hell is NOT "democracy." :-)


Every freedom carries with it a related responsibility.

No problem with me. I volunteered for US Army military
service. You have NEVER volunteered for any military
service. You have NEVER volunteered for any government
service as a civilian.

Do you see enjoying your radio hobby as a "service to
the nation?" Does your license say you are "defending
the Constitution of the United States?


Freedom of Speech carries with it the Responsibility of Truth.

Who said so (besides yourself)?

Have you knuckle-spanked any Political Party member
lately? :-)

You really should do that, Jimmie. Their "responsibility
of truth" is stretched way beyond even your strict
REdefinitions of "truth!" :-)



I *have* several radios....

Ech. MATERIAL things, Jimmie. Can you communicate on
them simultaneously by yourself?



"Who is John Galt?"

I don't know (Ayn Rand did, but she is dead). What was his
(or her) call?



I coined the word.

But you didn't define it, even after several requests.

It should be SELF-DEFINING to anyone with more than four
working neurons.


Language is constantly evolving, Len. You got left behind.

Morse code is a STATIC representation of the English
language, numbers, and common punctuation. It hasn't
"evolved." :-)


I think more people agree with my definition than with yours.

Tsk, your EGO is bigger than your bread box... :-)


Well, that leaves me out. Morse Code is just one small part of my life.

Tsk, tsk. You are OBSESSED with keeping that morse code
test for a US amateur radio license having below-30-MHz
privileges.

That and attempting to defame any no-code-test advocate in
here seem to be the highlight of your free time. :-)


Not me. I'm right here in 2006.

Really? I thought you were still back in 1946 worshipping
ENIAC...

chant "Hail ENIAC, full of grace, wonder of the world..."


As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked.

What phrase is that, Len?

"If you don't know that information, all of your latest
diatribe is rather pointless."

Just do a few keystrokes, Jimmie, you will eventually turn
it up. You DO know how to use a search engine, don't you?
Of course you do...you are an "engineer." :-)

Here's a hint: You might - if searching properly - turn
up the common asterisk-spaced acronym of it. Since you
were never a ByteBrother you will have to ask one. :-)

Ptui.

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
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...]

Listen to the way *most people* speak, Len. 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.

Not mentioned are the fact that voice mode radio ops often do repeats
and phonetic spellings. "My name is Mike--Mike(??????) India Kilo
Echo--Mike."

Of course.

Also, if the transmission is something that needs to be written down,
like a formal message, the effective speed drops to the writing speed
of the person receiving the message.

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

So? Most people don't speak like they're reading a script.

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?" :-)

Yes. Do you?

Note that Len seems to think he is making a joke.

Len does not accept the First Rule of Comedy, even though it applies to
him.

He seems to think that putting a smiley at the end makes something
funny, even when it doesn't.

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

Lots of people who aren't radio amateurs, drive on winding country roads.

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

Why not?

Why not indeed?

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.

Sounds like the car I learned to drive in.

It sounds better than my first car, though mine had advanced climate
control--a dashboard vent, crank windows and vent windows.

The car I learned on didn't have vent windows.

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.

It's not about *you*, Len.

To Len, it is always about Len.

And being better than anyone else.

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.

Ah, a "challenge" - one that has nothing to do with amateur radio.

Why would you give up a nice, comfortable, well-equipped 2005 Chevy
Malibu MAXX just
to "rough it", Len?

It doesn't matter, Jim. Len has thrown the gauntlet. He's out for blood.

What if he got hurt doing this gymkhana thing? He seems ready to bust a
gasket just posting here. What would he do if I actually bested him at
it?

I will WIN.

Maybe. Maybe not. You don't really know, you're just bragging because
you know it won't happen.

You saw through the bluster?

Pretty transparent.

Been there, did that, got T-shirts, etc.

That doesn't mean you would win.

It just means that Len has some really old T-shirts.

I've probably got more than he does. Mine say things like "Philadelphia
Independence Marathon" and "Broad Street 10 miler" and such.

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.

What's your point - that you spit at Jeeps?

He thought they were technologically challenged then and he still thinks so?

I dunno. Len's living in the past - again.

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

What does it matter? I could tell you about the time I took two junker
cars and made one good one out of them, but you'd find fault with that,
somehow.

But that doesn't answer the question "HOW MANY".

As many as Len has, probably.

HOW MANY thousands of miles have YOU driven?

Gosh, Len, I don't really know. Probably more than you, though.

I think I've driven more miles in the past six years than Len has logged
over the past twenty. Is there a prize for miles driven?

Over "winding
country roads?"

Enough.

Three quarters of mine have been over winding and hilly country roads.
Then again, I live in the country. Go figure. What's the prize?

Who knows?

[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.

What does that have to do with anything, Len?

That was a detour on a winding country road.

Where's John Denver when ya need him?

Now about challenges:

Here's one for Len - tell me what ya think:

Field Day 2007. Entry class 1B-1 (one transmitter, one operator). The
challenge is to assemble, transport, set up, operate, and take down a
complete FD station - singlehanded, no outside help - and make the
highest score. Field Day location must not be owned or rented by the
participant and must not be a licensed amateur station location. All
equipment used must be legitimately owned by the operator. All FCC
regulations and ARRL rules that apply to Field Day must be complied
with by all involved. Results report must be submitted to ARRL before
the deadline. Highest official score wins.

Now of course this would mean that Len would actually have to get his
license out of the box.

How's that for a challenge?

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've got a lot more tools than just a hammer. I know how to use them,
too.

If you're a nail, everything headed your way appears to be a hammer.

Yup.

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

Sado-masochism is still prevalent in the human condition.

I think we just found out what Len is *really* all about!

And yet you claim you have no problem with people using Morse Code....

But we knew from his past posts, that simply isn't true.

Y'know, for somebody who claims to have such a good life, Len does an
awful lot of complaining.

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.

"Amateur" is derived from the Latin word for "love". Means to do
something for the love of the thing alone. Emotional reasons, IOW.

Len is primarily motivated by those things which generate money.

I am reminded of the chant from "In Living Color"...

The fact is that there are plenty of young people who like Morse Code
and learn it readily. I think that's one reason you want an age limit
for an amateur radio license - so those code-skilled young folks can't
get a license until they're 14.

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.

So what?

The "so" is that two out of three American *don't* have a cellular phone.

Who cares? It's a short-range radio transceiver that connects to the
telephone network.

When I was a teenager, practically everyone had a telephone. Why should
anyone have a ham rig at home when they can just talk on the telephone?

My dad discouraged me from talking on the phone when I was a teen. He
didn't do that with amateur radio unless I was trying to operate on 15m
and there was a football game on TV.

HAW!

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.

Sure there was. Ham radio was growing by leaps and bounds then. You
were not part of it.

Len must have missed a couple of decades.

Len doesn't like having his version of history shown to be mistaken

Been
there, seen that, see no difference now.

IOW, nobody should do what *you* don't enjoy.

I'm more concerned that Len thinks that because he is ignorant of the
historical facts of amateur radio in the late 1940's, everyone is ignorant.

It's all about Len.

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
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

??


It's a California thing.

Maybe. More like a Lanark thing.

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.

Preservation of values, skills and culture is everyone's job.

Len doesn't seem to think that it is his job.

Nothing is Len's job unless it pays money.

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

It's not a living museum.

Far from it. Radio amateurs use many modes daily. CW is one of 'em.

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

Nope. Morse Code should be a license requirement because amateurs use
it. The skill is part of being a qualified radio amateur. Simple as
that.

There are thousands and thousands of morse QSOs taking place on the ham
bands daily.

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

It's not about hazing, Len. It's about being qualified. You're not
qualified.

There's been enough false material penned here about hazing, hoops,
rituals and the like to last a lifetime.

Len may use all the cellular phones, cordless phones, Family Radio
Service HT's and Citizen's Band transceivers he likes. He isn't a radio
amateur and likely will never become a radio amateur. All of his talk
has been bluster and boast.

Well, maybe.

I think that Len equates being corrected with being humiliated. When he
posts something that is incorrect, and someone corrects it, he feels
humiliated and angry. It's even worse when the person doing the
correcting is someone he considers to be inferior to him - which is
almost everybody.

Thus he behaves according to the profile, driven by anger and
humiliation at being proved wrong.

Really quite sad, when you think about it.....

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
oups.com...

Opus- wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:27 -0400, jawod spake
thusly:

Who the **** are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed,
arrogant PRICK! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up
and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING
to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain
what makes a person an "asset to the service"?

Jeez,
Chill out, eh?

Sorry, but I get upset with people who make statements that are easily
taken as personal insults.

"Stuff happens."

BTW, this "Jawod" signed a message on rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
as "AB8O." I found a blank on that call sign at QRZ.


Yes it's obsolete. Yes, it's fun.

I found it to be cold and impersonal.

I agree. Manual radiotelegraphy has NONE of the body language
or tone of voice or much of anything that is normal in everyday
person-to-person contacts. Using this monotonic form of
very early radio allows any user to be anything they want with
no real references to anything but the ability to send telegraphy.


Should it be used to qualify? Let the FCC decide (soon).

Here in Canada, they already have. I believe the FCC will soon.

If it is eliminated, will that change the "Service"? Maybe.

Probably not.

Heh heh...if the test is eliminated the expressed outrage,
anguish, and horror will be a horrendous wail never to be
silenced until the last code key is pried from cold, dead
fingers! :-)


Will CW disappear? Probably not.
Historically, it defined ham radio, so it has a special place in the
hearts of very many hams. It's natural that they sort of cling to it.

Let them cling, they are free to do so.

I'd say "clog" as in cholesterol clogging those "hearts."

"Jawod" uses "many" AS IF it were quantitative. Not so much
in the USA now. The US Technician class licensees now
number about 49% of all, twice as large a number as the
General class. I doubt they want to hear such facts.


Will CW's elimination be the end of ham radio? Of course not.
Ham radio will cease when all the hams die off. New hams are needed,
with or without code.

I totally agree.

In the USA the number of newcomers is not able to keep pace
with the expirations of licensees. That trend has been evident
for more than a year. [see www.hamdata.com] The majority of
new licensees are Technician class. Novice class, the
supposed traditional "beginner" license has been expiring at a
steady rate for years before the US changes in 2000.


My personal hope is that a significant minority of these new hams will
take up CW and learn to enjoy this mode. It truly is a fun mode. I
hope people will WANT to learn it.

I always found it to be boring.

"Jawod" and other morsemen think that all will "like" what they
like. They really don't understand what other citizens want.


Compulsory things are seldom welcome,,,some are necessary. Is CW a good
requirement for ham radio? I guess it has probably outlived its day.

A requirement related to other digital modes would make a good
replacement. True?

I completely agree. If you want to filter out the less serious, then
use a relevant method. Here in Canada, in order to get a no-code
licence, you must get at least 80% on the technical. And technical
prowess will always be important regardless of the mode of
communication.

That sounds fair. In general I've approved what Industry Canada
does on communications regulations...a bit more than what the
FCC does for US civil radio services.




Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner.
Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor
the licence expires.

Jimmie D wrote:

Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner.
Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor
the licence expires.

Those darned new hams. They never should have been licensured in the
first place. Didn't have the ooomph to get licensed when the tests
were harder so they weren't really that innerested in the first place.
Didn't show the proper dedication.

wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:

Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner.
Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor
the licence expires.

Those darned new hams. They never should have been licensured in the
first place. Didn't have the ooomph to get licensed when the tests
were harder so they weren't really that innerested in the first place.
Didn't show the proper dedication.

and of course none of the failure of hams to reamin hams is due to
bull**** they must endure from other hams