Slow Code wrote:
wrote in
oups.com:

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
according to him anyone not devoted to cw is a lowlfie
That's really sad.
...and pathetic. No one should have to go through life as a
lowlfie.

(extraneous groups deleted)

So who do you think Slow Code is? Kelly? Coslo? Deignan?

I haven't the slightest idea.

Well, I know "Slow Code" is not me.

Beyond that, he could be anybody with a computer and an internet
connection. "Slow Code" could be Len Anderson, who has used at least
seven different screen names here - that we know of. "Slow Code" could
be Brian Burke, N0IMD, who has used a wide variety of screen names
here, ("billy beeper", "hot ham and cheese", to name just a few)
usually without including his name or callsign.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I've never been so insulted in all my life. Calling me Len. May you be
cursed with six weeks of HF QRN and your antenna tip over.

Slow Code

Ha! Jim insulting Jim.

Slow Code wrote:
" wrote in
oups.com:
From: on Sat, Oct 21 2006 4:01pm
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

according to him anyone not devoted to cw is a lowlfie
That's really sad.
...and pathetic. No one should have to go through life as a
lowlfie.

(extraneous groups deleted)

So who do you think Slow Code is? Kelly? Coslo? Deignan?

I haven't the slightest idea.

Well, I know "Slow Code" is not me.

Beyond that, he could be anybody with a computer and an internet
connection. "Slow Code" could be Len Anderson, who has used at least
seven different screen names here - that we know of.

How many screen names have you used here - that you know of?

Jimmie will NEVER admit to using any pseudonyms. :-)

Who is "Jimmie"? There's a "Jimmie D" who has posted to rrap recently.
I'm not him

Jimmie is a proud amateur "serving his country in other ways"
such as playing with his radio hobby, spreading "international
good will" by working DX on HF with CW. :-)

Who is this "Jimmie" person? Can't be me, because I've never claimed to
be "serving...country in other ways". And I work some HF CW DX, but not
as much as many other hams.

"Slow Code" could be Brian Burke, N0IMD,

Slow Code could be Jim/N2EY, despite protests that it isn't him.

No protests from me. Just a statement of fact: I am not "Slow Code".

Not in

petty prissy manner of "always being correct."

You mean like knowing the correct distance from the USSR to Tokyo? Or
the actual length of a quarter-wave whip for 73 MHz?

[i.e., thinking as

thinks...all else is "wrong"]

No, that's *your* game, Len.

One can always tell when Len is losing the debate - he starts following
his profile.

Miccolis already tried at least one pseudonym. That pesudo
STOPPED when confronted. [that's in the Google archives]

Really? Where's your proof?

But, but, but...Miccolis (who never swears) swears "it wasn't
him!" AS IF. :-)

Gee, Len, you've posted to rrap as








and the screen name you use now.

Those are just the ones we know of, too. There are probably more. Many
of your posts are anonymous, too.

Maybe you were "Cutie Boy", Len, doing a bad imitation of "Scratchi".

For all we know, Len or Brian Burke, N0IMD could be "Slow Code". I
don't mean to be insulting, but since "SC" insists on being anonymous,
he could be anybody.

I just know he isn't me.

Ditto
Robesin, Coslo, Bruce, Dan, Larry Roll, or anyone else who "appears" to
be absent from RRAP.

Maybe it is Val Germann, frustrated that he can't get his
(code speed) up? :-)

Your Extra still in its box, Len? In January it will be seven years.

Could even be KH2D after starting the Alzheimer's route...who
knows?

Maybe it is Lamont Cranston? "Who knows what evil lurks in
the hearts of No-Coders?" :-)

who has used a wide variety of screen names
here, ("billy beeper", "hot ham and cheese", to name just a few)
usually without including his name or callsign.

I understand that Brian Burke has received a whole lot less spam email
on his regular user account than when he posted here under his name and
call. I also understand that he let go of "Billy Beeper" at Han's
Brakob's request, as "Billy Beeper" was an invention of Hans, a
fictitious boy who feared evil No-Coders.

There's lots of fictitious BOYS in here fearing evil No-Coders.

Do you still have trouble "integrating young people into...an adult
activity", Len?

Most of them use pseudonyms. No guts. No courage. No brains.

You mean like someone who calls himself "Avery Fine"? And then denies
posting here?

Or "Leo"? Does "Leo" have "No guts. No courage. No brains."?

They hide behind their BFO-enabled beeping, afraid to stray
beyond the anonymity of their monotonic dots and dashes...and
dreams of glory and honor via morsemanship..."serving their
country in 'other' ways." :-)

You hide behind your keyboard, Len.



Wheeew! Thank god you expelled most of your gas in your last post you
didn't have a lot left over for this one.

He's got plenty more, "SC".

No Len. Most RRAPers aren't pro-CW, but you think they're pro code
because they're willing to learn it for a license.

It's really simple, "SC". Len has no tolerance for disagreement with
his cherished views. All you have to do to get him going is to disagree
with him. Or do something even worse: prove he is wrong (mistaken)
about something.

Larry, Dee and Me are the only pro 'Keep the code test' people in the
group anymore.

No, there's me, too. Jim, N2EY. You can read my comments to FCC on
ECFS.

I'm for both keeping the Morse Code test and improving the written
tests.

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message

Already tried it.

And dismissed it.
esp dimissing the abilty of the human operator of the machine to fill
in the problems and correct the process

As I said while it is the best that is available, it
is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator.

Correction. ...a few human operators.

indeed the PC alone far exceeds the abilties of many licensed ham
operators but hat doesn't count

I've tried it
under a
wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good
signal to
function.

Dee, N8UZE

Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary
of
Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through).


Unrelated to my comments.

You would like to think that, but without efforts from folks like Carl,
Bill, Len, hans, myself and others, you would still be repeating such
myths, and would never make statements such as "Not all CW signals are
good."

You can thank us, but that's probably not very likely.

No one has said all CW signals are good.

And they aren't.

If they were always good, CWGet
would always work, which it doesn't. The ones who tout the software
solution are those who wish that it would always work.

And those who dismiss the software solution think all amateur operators
are superb morsemen.

In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has
its
advantages and disadvantages.

If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is
likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode.

The extremists on each side don't want to
hear that.

Dee, N8UZE

Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the
years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good
without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk.

well it is a thankless job

Dees coming around in her own way, but the brainwashing that she's
undergone is strong. Perhaps in another decade... if there's still an
amateur radio. If only she had been able to think spontaneously and
resist, the brainwashing wouldn't have been so well received.

You are mistaken. I've always been one to think spontaneously. Since I have
personally experienced conditions where it had to be CW or turn off the
radio, I advocate all hams knowing code at a basic level. To insure that
they do learn it at a basic level, testing at some point in the licensing is
appropriate. Before entering these news I'd never heard much discussion
either way on code. My opinions on its usefulness and desireability were
formed based entirely on actual operating experience. I was surprised to
learn that there was a big discussion on it in the amateur community.

Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations
equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW
Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total
the scores...

I think you get the point.

I do NOT and never have believed in the arguments about "keeping out the
riffraff", maintaining tradition, or the "I had to so you should to".

The "dumbing down" argument is just an extension of the "keeping out
the riff-raff" argument.

It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't use
any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set. I've
used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been licensed.
I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used smith
charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I can
choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory
end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it..

wrote:
On 27 Oct 2006 16:43:42 -0700, wrote:


an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message

Already tried it.

And dismissed it.
esp dimissing the abilty of the human operator of the machine to fill
in the problems and correct the process

As I said while it is the best that is available, it
is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator.

Correction. ...a few human operators.

indeed the PC alone far exceeds the abilties of many licensed ham
operators but hat doesn't count

I've tried it
under a
wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good signal to
function.

Dee, N8UZE

Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary of
Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through).


Unrelated to my comments.

You would like to think that, but without efforts from folks like Carl,
Bill, Len, hans, myself and others, you would still be repeating such
myths, and would never make statements such as "Not all CW signals are
good."

You can thank us, but that's probably not very likely.

No one has said all CW signals are good.

And they aren't.

If they were always good, CWGet
would always work, which it doesn't. The ones who tout the software
solution are those who wish that it would always work.

And those who dismiss the software solution think all amateur operators
are superb morsemen.

In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has its
advantages and disadvantages.

If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is
likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode.

The extremists on each side don't want to
hear that.

Dee, N8UZE

Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the
years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good
without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk.

well it is a thankless job

Dees coming around in her own way, but the brainwashing that she's
undergone is strong. Perhaps in another decade... if there's still an
amateur radio. If only she had been able to think spontaneously and
resist, the brainwashing wouldn't have been so well received.

thinking ability is not prised by our educational system by and large

The Catholics have done a commendable job in the educational department.

From: "Dee Flint" on Fri, Oct 27 2006 8:16pm

wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message


In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has its
advantages and disadvantages.

If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is
likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode.

Depends on the conditions. One can construct scenarios where whatever mode
they favor is the "best".

"CW always gets through..." :-)

Any one striving to be a knowledgeable ham should
be converstant with those scenarios.

...especially in the Newington, CT, area. :-)

If you need an image, SST or fax are
far better modes than CW. The "best" mode depends on the purpose of the
communication and the conditions under which that communication must be
sent.

There is NO separate pass-fail TEST for "image, SST [sic]
or fax" nor for data or voice required by the FCC for an
amateur license. ["SSTV"]

The ONLY separate pass-fail TEST is for manual telegraphy.


Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the
years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good
without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk.

You are exaggerating.

Hardly. ALL of the pro-code 1x2s in here, plus some 1x3s,
have stated the hoary old Maxim "CW always gets through."

Except N2EY who never admits to doing anything wrong...:-)

None have stated all CW signals are good. What they
have contended is that it is possible to copy a poor CW signal under
conditions where you could not copy other types of signals.

"CW always gets through..." :-)

If morse code radiotelegraphy were so "good," why hasn't
NASA picked up on it for the Deep Space Net? For the
quarter-million-mile 'DX' path to our moon? Why have
the maritime folks GIVEN UP on morse code for Safety Of
Life At Sea? [GMDSS uses a form of data, automated]

PSK will allow 100 WPM data to get through when all the
morsepersons have to use their imaginations to fill in
the garbled morse characters.

Still, the argument over the separate pass-fail "CW"
TEST is there with all the morsepersons wanting it be
kept forever and ever in FCC regulations...WHY?

Rhetorical question. The separate pass-fail "CW" TEST
is there because: (1) The ARRL wants it (they "know
what is best for ham radio"); (2) The already-licensed
had to take a morse test and everyone else had better
take one, too!

wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message

Already tried it.

And dismissed it.
esp dimissing the abilty of the human operator of the machine to fill
in the problems and correct the process

As I said while it is the best that is available, it
is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator.

Correction. ...a few human operators.

indeed the PC alone far exceeds the abilties of many licensed ham
operators but hat doesn't count

I've tried it
under a
wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good
signal to
function.

Dee, N8UZE

Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary
of
Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through).


Unrelated to my comments.

You would like to think that, but without efforts from folks like Carl,
Bill, Len, hans, myself and others, you would still be repeating such
myths, and would never make statements such as "Not all CW signals are
good."

You can thank us, but that's probably not very likely.

No one has said all CW signals are good.

And they aren't.

If they were always good, CWGet
would always work, which it doesn't. The ones who tout the software
solution are those who wish that it would always work.

And those who dismiss the software solution think all amateur operators
are superb morsemen.

In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has
its
advantages and disadvantages.

If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is
likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode.

The extremists on each side don't want to
hear that.

Dee, N8UZE

Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the
years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good
without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk.

well it is a thankless job

Dees coming around in her own way, but the brainwashing that she's
undergone is strong. Perhaps in another decade... if there's still an
amateur radio. If only she had been able to think spontaneously and
resist, the brainwashing wouldn't have been so well received.

You are mistaken. I've always been one to think spontaneously. Since I have
personally experienced conditions where it had to be CW or turn off the
radio, I advocate all hams knowing code at a basic level. To insure that
they do learn it at a basic level, testing at some point in the licensing is
appropriate. Before entering these news I'd never heard much discussion
either way on code. My opinions on its usefulness and desireability were
formed based entirely on actual operating experience. I was surprised to
learn that there was a big discussion on it in the amateur community.

Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations
equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW
Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total
the scores...

I think you get the point.

What point?

I do NOT and never have believed in the arguments about "keeping out the
riffraff", maintaining tradition, or the "I had to so you should to".

The "dumbing down" argument is just an extension of the "keeping out
the riff-raff" argument.

No, it isn't.

The requirements for US amateur radio license have been slowly but
steadily reduced for more than 25 years now. Not just the code tests
but also the writtens. That's not the fault of those taking the tests.

It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't use
any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set. I've
used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been licensed.
I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used smith
charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I can
choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory
end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it..

Brian, do you think that using a false sexist claim is somehow going to
cause you to win the debate?

You lost.

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:14:03 -0400, Dee Flint

wrote:

... Only the finest operators can send code well enough with a
hand
key
that a computer can copy it anyway. Only exceptionally good
operators
can
send well enough with a bug that a computer can copy it. Only very
good
operators can send well enough with paddles that computers can copy
it.
Basically a computer is good at copying computer generated code.

That may have been true in the 80's, back when people were just
getting started on the problem of copying CW with a personal
computer,
but the algorithms have improved greatly since then, and they are
now
quite good at copying manually generated Morse code. Even the area
where humans excelled - copying CW in the presence of QRM and QRN -
is
now handled quite well by most modern algorithms. Currently, the
most
popular program seems to be CwGet - a Windows program which Breakin
Magazine rates very highly. With gigahertz microprocessors and
built-in A/D converters, the modern PC is more than up to the task
of
dealing with computations that were once only practical on
mainframes.

I've tried CWGet and it doesn't copy the signals that I want to copy.
It
still is subject to problems with QRN, QRM, QSB, and less than perfect
fists. It can't copy any of the signals distorted by aurora. So
while
it
is the best of the available programs, it still falls far short of a
good
human operator. And I'm speaking from experience with the program.
It's
not up to the task that I want it to do.

You can sit and struggle with trying to train yourself to receive 20
wpm Morse, or you can download and install CwGet and start copying
the
high speed CW nets immediately. There's no longer any real need for
a
human to be in the decoding loop, a sure sign of just how
anachronistic human-decoded CW really is. Samuel Morse originally
designed his code to be copied by machine, so in reality we're only
catching up with what he intended to do way back in the 1800's.

Already tried it.

And dismissed it.

Based on actually trying it.

Of course!

I did not form an opinion on it until I gave
it a thorough workout. And if the conditions are good enough and they are
going too fast for me, I'll use it to help out. But there's a lot of times
it simply doesn't do the job.

Isn't that kind of cheating? W0EX would inject some non-standard
spacing if he knew you were pulling a stunt like that.

As I said while it is the best that is available, it
is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator.

Correction. ...a few human operators.

Correction: almost any operator who works code on a semi-regular basis. My
code skills are very modest. Typically I am comfortable at 13wpm to 15wpm.
Higher than that is a real strain. Still I often copy better than the
computer despite that.

Dee, you know that's not true. There are countless present hams,
former hams, and people who were denied amateur licenses based upon the
Morse Code exam who actually studied Morse Code and who never got to
the point where they could use morse code on a practical level.

I've tried it
under a
wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good signal to
function.

Dee, N8UZE

Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary of
Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through).


Unrelated to my comments.

You would like to think that, but without efforts from folks like Carl,
Bill, Len, hans, myself and others, you would still be repeating such
myths, and would never make statements such as "Not all CW signals are
good."


No I would not be repeating that myth because I never, ever said that all CW
signals are good and never subscribed to that philosophy.

Didn't say you did. I'm saying that if you had said something as
atrocious as that 10 years ago, W0EX and K3LT would have kicked you
over to the NCI Camp.

If they were the
machines would always work and they don't.

EXpecially if W0EX suspected that you were using a machine.

The other half of the coin is
that some of the anti-code types persist in the myth that "Code can always
be copied by computer". Neither myth is true.

So you're willing to concede that sometimes ham radio won't get
through?

I've always maintained that every mode has its advantages and disadvantages.
A good ham attempts to be conversant with those abilities. However the
extremists on both sides don't want to hear that.

You can thank us, but that's probably not very likely.

Nope because you are ascribing things to me that are not true.

You merely misunderstand.

Nobody has
changed my opinions as stated in the above paragraphs. You make the mistake
of lumping everyone who favors code into one group. That is no more
accurate than lumping the anti-code people all in one group.

So Jim is wrong?

No one has said all CW signals are good.

And they aren't.

If they were always good, CWGet
would always work, which it doesn't. The ones who tout the software
solution are those who wish that it would always work.

And those who dismiss the software solution think all amateur operators
are superb morsemen.

I do not dismiss the software but am realistic to know that it is not the
panacea that some would like to believe. Sometimes it works and sometimes
it fails.

And sometimes CW doesn't get through even with skilled operators. And
sometimes you use CWGet to help you along when you find that your
skills are lacking.

In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has its
advantages and disadvantages.

If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is
likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode.

Depends on the conditions. One can construct scenarios where whatever mode
they favor is the "best". Any one striving to be a knowledgeable ham should
be converstant with those scenarios.

Larry Roll had one scenarion, and in that scenario, CW was the only
mode that would get through, and it would always get through.

If you need an image, SST or fax are
far better modes than CW.

I used to hand plot RADAR image reports that I received over TTY, but
those were the olden days. We've moved far beyond that now.

Satellite remote sensing is digital. A seven layer image could be sent
by CW, but it would take a long time.

The "best" mode depends on the purpose of the
communication and the conditions under which that communication must be
sent.

Glad to hear you say that. Why were you so silent on that subject when
K3LT and W0EX were saying otherwise?

The extremists on each side don't want to
hear that.

Dee, N8UZE

Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the
years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good
without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk.

You are exaggerating. None have stated all CW signals are good. What they
have contended is that it is possible to copy a poor CW signal under
conditions where you could not copy other types of signals.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

What they wouldn't claim is possible is that there are conditions where
even CW wouldn't get through.

wrote:
On 28 Oct 2006 14:01:31 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
On 27 Oct 2006 16:43:42 -0700, wrote:


an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:

Dees coming around in her own way, but the brainwashing that she's
undergone is strong. Perhaps in another decade... if there's still an
amateur radio. If only she had been able to think spontaneously and
resist, the brainwashing wouldn't have been so well received.

thinking ability is not prised by our educational system by and large

The Catholics have done a commendable job in the educational department.

Realy

Yep, and for far less money than the public schools operate on.

i honestly have no real dat on the subject NOT being catholic
and being from a religious background that frowns on Rome we have
tended to avoid thier school

That isn't to say that Catholics don't have a whole host of other
problems.

I do hope some schools are doing a better
job

In public schools? Rare!

I mean Dee equates being able to do Morse Code (which she flasely
claims based on the lies she was taught is somehow related to basis of
Radio Maxwells equations to data that wtries to keep someone from
hurting themselves, shows poor thinking process

Dee's doing the best she can with her self-imposed handicaps.

wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message

Already tried it.

And dismissed it.

esp dimissing the abilty of the human operator of the machine to fill
in the problems and correct the process

As I said while it is the best that is available, it
is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator.

Correction. ...a few human operators.

indeed the PC alone far exceeds the abilties of many licensed ham
operators but hat doesn't count

I've tried it
under a
wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good
signal to
function.

Dee, N8UZE

Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary
of
Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through).

Unrelated to my comments.

You would like to think that, but without efforts from folks like Carl,
Bill, Len, hans, myself and others, you would still be repeating such
myths, and would never make statements such as "Not all CW signals are
good."

You can thank us, but that's probably not very likely.

No one has said all CW signals are good.

And they aren't.

If they were always good, CWGet
would always work, which it doesn't. The ones who tout the software
solution are those who wish that it would always work.

And those who dismiss the software solution think all amateur operators
are superb morsemen.

In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has
its
advantages and disadvantages.

If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is
likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode.

The extremists on each side don't want to
hear that.

Dee, N8UZE

Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the
years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good
without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk.

well it is a thankless job

Dees coming around in her own way, but the brainwashing that she's
undergone is strong. Perhaps in another decade... if there's still an
amateur radio. If only she had been able to think spontaneously and
resist, the brainwashing wouldn't have been so well received.

You are mistaken. I've always been one to think spontaneously. Since I have
personally experienced conditions where it had to be CW or turn off the
radio, I advocate all hams knowing code at a basic level. To insure that
they do learn it at a basic level, testing at some point in the licensing is
appropriate. Before entering these news I'd never heard much discussion
either way on code. My opinions on its usefulness and desireability were
formed based entirely on actual operating experience. I was surprised to
learn that there was a big discussion on it in the amateur community.

Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations
equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW
Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total
the scores...

I think you get the point.

What point?

Try thinking about it just a wee little bit.

I do NOT and never have believed in the arguments about "keeping out the
riffraff", maintaining tradition, or the "I had to so you should to".

The "dumbing down" argument is just an extension of the "keeping out
the riff-raff" argument.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

The requirements for US amateur radio license have been slowly but
steadily reduced for more than 25 years now.

Just 25 years? I guess you forgot about the "Conditional" license
where hams get an upgrade from their buddy.

Not just the code tests
but also the writtens. That's not the fault of those taking the tests.

No, of course not. It's not anyones fault except the FCC that they put
offices so far away from ham's residences.

It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't use
any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set. I've
used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been licensed.
I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used smith
charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I can
choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory
end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it..

Brian, do you think that using a false sexist claim is somehow going to
cause you to win the debate?

No false sexist claim. W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him
these days. Fair is fair, yes?

You lost.

Welp, now that I have your attention again, how many aliases have you
posted under on RRAP?

wrote in message
oups.com...

Slow Code wrote:

Larry, Dee and Me are the only pro 'Keep the code test' people in the
group anymore.

SC

Then the presentation of sound reasoning has been successful.


No most of them have left due to the spam created by Mark Morgan, the
interminable pontification of Len Anderson, the compulsive responses that
some seem to feel that they must post to the spam, the vulgarity of people
like Opus, the slamming that people like Slow Code do to those who licensed
or will license under the current system and so on.

i.e. They left because it was impossible to have a good, spirited debate
without things getting out of hand.

I only drop in occasionally to see what's happening. Mostly I don't bother
to respond as it has proven to be pointless with all the bad eggs on line.

Dee, N8UZE