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:
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 did. It's not clear.

Spell it out for us, please.

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.

Nope.

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

Just 25 years?

I wrote "more than 25 years".

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

What does that mean?

Besides, the Conditional stopped being issued about 30 years ago.

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.

??

The reason FCC stopped doing testing was to save money. They replaced
their paid examiners with unpaid volunteers.

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.

It's a sexist claim to assume that Dee's husband takes care of the
Ohm's Law and Theory
end of her station

W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him
these days.

Where do you get that idea?

Fair is fair, yes?

You're not fair at all.

wrote:
wrote:
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 did. It's not clear.

Spell it out for us, please.

I'll spell it out for you, Jim.

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license. Probably most of the coded licensees never looked back when
they learned the code to get past a licensing hurdle, don't use code,
and couldn't if their lives depended on it.

So put all USA licensed amateurs in fron of a station equipped with a
morse code key and with CWGet and total their scores.

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.

Nope.

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

Just 25 years?

I wrote "more than 25 years".

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

What does that mean?

Besides, the Conditional stopped being issued about 30 years ago.

Yep, but nobody ever claimed that amateur radio was being dumbed down.
The USA amateur service has a proud history of it.

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.

??

The reason FCC stopped doing testing was to save money.

It doesn't cost the FCC anything for an amateur to show up for testing,
unless you want to claim that the examinees got to file a voucher for
their travel.

They replaced
their paid examiners with unpaid volunteers.

Good thing there wasn't a union.

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.

It's a sexist claim to assume that Dee's husband takes care of the
Ohm's Law and Theory
end of her station

Why? She said she hardly, if ever, used it. Somebody's got to be
doing it?

W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him
these days.

Where do you get that idea?

Fair is fair, yes?

You're not fair at all.

Since you have a corner on the fairness market, do you plan to be the
RRAP Moderator?

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
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 did. It's not clear.

Spell it out for us, please.

I'll spell it out for you, Jim.

Thank you, Brian!

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.

You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.

40% is more like it.

Probably most of the coded licensees never looked back when
they learned the code to get past a licensing hurdle, don't use code,
and couldn't if their lives depended on it.

That's not a given at all.

Remember the ARRL survey that was debated so much here? It showed that
less than 40% of those hams who were asked never used Morse Code. And
it included licensees from all license classes, not just those who had
passed code tests.

Sure there are those who learned just enough to pass the Morse Code
test and then never used it - just as there are those who just enough
to pass the *written* tests and then never used it

Heck, your buddy Len couldn't even get the length of a 73 MHz
quarter-wave whip antenna right, and he's a "PROFESSIONAL"!

So put all USA licensed amateurs in fron of a station equipped with a
morse code key and with CWGet and total their scores.

I presume you mean "contest scores"

Why?

Who is going to set up and pay for all those stations? What sort of
stations would they be - HF, VHF, UHF? What sort of antennas, rigs,
computers?

Any ham who wants to operate Morse Code using CWGet or some other
software can do so right now - if they have a station that includes
rig, antenna, and computer.

Yet I don't know of any amateur radio contesters who operate that way.
Do you?

Your "thought experiment" doesn't seem to be thought out very well.

Now here's a *real* challenge:

The ARRL November CW Sweepstakes is this coming weekend. I'm going to
operate in it, using my homebrew 100 watt station and antenna. No CWGet
here.

How about we compare your score with mine a week from now?

Or how about this one:

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 by the participant and must not be
a licensed amateur station location. Field Day location must be located
in a place under FCC jurisdiction.

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.

I've done better than 3000 points under such conditions. Can you?

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

Just 25 years?

I wrote "more than 25 years".

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

What does that mean?

Besides, the Conditional stopped being issued about 30 years ago.

Yep, but nobody ever claimed that amateur radio was being dumbed down.
The USA amateur service has a proud history of it.

How was it "dumbing down" to eliminate the Conditional?

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.

??

The reason FCC stopped doing testing was to save money.

It doesn't cost the FCC anything for an amateur to show up for testing,
unless you want to claim that the examinees got to file a voucher for
their travel.

Actually it cost FCC a lot of money to do testing.

First off, they had to have offices with test facilities. The office
they had in Philadelphia back when I took my exams was on the 10th
floor of the Custom House at 2nd and Chestnut. Lots of square feet of
prime real estate just for the exam room.

Then there was the time of the examiners, all of whom worked for FCC.
Pay and benefits. At least two people per office, three days a week.
Times the number of offices all over the country.

Then add the FCC folks who revised the exams, duplicated them, and
distributed them to the various offices all over the country. And the
cost of doing all that.

The VE system eliminated all that expense. All FCC has to do now wrt
amateur license testing is to look over the QPC submissions and approve
them. And occasionally retest somebody.

Eliminating Element 1 will not save the FCC any expense. Keeping it
will not cost them anything, either. Maybe that's why it's taking them
so long.

They replaced
their paid examiners with unpaid volunteers.

Good thing there wasn't a union.

Why?

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.

It's a sexist claim to assume that Dee's husband takes care of the
Ohm's Law and Theory
end of her station

Why? She said she hardly, if ever, used it. Somebody's got to be
doing it?

You're presuming she's not doing what needs to be done, and is
dependent on someone else to deal with the theory. I don't think that's
the case at all.

W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him
these days.

Where do you get that idea?

Hmmm?

I've put up antennas with W3RV. Or rather, I helped out a little, since
he had it all worked out on his own. No sisters involved.

He does know quite a lot about antennas, particularly the practical
side. He even knows that a quarter wave at 73 MHz is a lot longer than
three and one quarter inches....

Fair is fair, yes?

You're not fair at all.

Since you have a corner on the fairness market, do you plan to be the
RRAP Moderator?

Wait and see.

ARRL November CW Sweepstakes starts Saturday afternoon and ends Sunday
night. I'll be there - will you?

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
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 did. It's not clear.

Spell it out for us, please.

I'll spell it out for you, Jim.

Thank you, Brian!

Any time.

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.

You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.

40% is more like it.

49.5% according to your very own postings.

Probably most of the coded licensees never looked back when
they learned the code to get past a licensing hurdle, don't use code,
and couldn't if their lives depended on it.

That's not a given at all.

I would expect you to say something like that.

Remember the ARRL survey that was debated so much here?

The one where as a member, I did not receive a ballot?

The one that Mike Deignan characterized as "substantive?"

Yes, I recall the survey. Looked as if it had been developed by a
bunch of dems hoping to influence the outcome of an election.

It showed that
less than 40% of those hams who were asked never used Morse Code. And
it included licensees from all license classes, not just those who had
passed code tests.

Add to that those who rarely used code.

Sure there are those who learned just enough to pass the Morse Code
test and then never used it - just as there are those who just enough
to pass the *written* tests and then never used it

Heck, your buddy Len couldn't even get the length of a 73 MHz
quarter-wave whip antenna right, and he's a "PROFESSIONAL"!

And you couldn't even get the distance to the moon, and you're a
"professional."

So put all USA licensed amateurs in fron of a station equipped with a
morse code key and with CWGet and total their scores.

I presume you mean "contest scores"

Why?

Why not? They're operating in a CW Contest. Why wouldn't you total
their scores?

Who is going to set up and pay for all those stations? What sort of
stations would they be - HF, VHF, UHF? What sort of antennas, rigs,
computers?

Think about it.

The Morsemen can bandy about the CQ WW and Field Day CW vs SSB contest
scores all they want without having to standardize station equipment.
I bring up a scenario and NOW station equipment must be standardized.

There's some bias in your approach.

Any ham who wants to operate Morse Code using CWGet or some other
software can do so right now - if they have a station that includes
rig, antenna, and computer.

Yep. I can finally agree with something you said.

Yet I don't know of any amateur radio contesters who operate that way.
Do you?

Nobody knew of anyone who operated amateur radio as in Larry Rolls
"Only CW can save the situation" but I NEVER ONCE saw your objection to
it.

I bring up a scenario and NOW you have a problems with how contestors
operate.

There's some bias in your approach.

Your "thought experiment" doesn't seem to be thought out very well.

Sure it was.

Alternative scenario snipped.


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

Just 25 years?

I wrote "more than 25 years".

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

What does that mean?

Besides, the Conditional stopped being issued about 30 years ago.

Yep, but nobody ever claimed that amateur radio was being dumbed down.
The USA amateur service has a proud history of it.

How was it "dumbing down" to eliminate the Conditional?

Jeez you're thick. It was dumbing down to create such a license class.

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.

??

The reason FCC stopped doing testing was to save money.

It doesn't cost the FCC anything for an amateur to show up for testing,
unless you want to claim that the examinees got to file a voucher for
their travel.

Actually it cost FCC a lot of money to do testing.

It was the travel distance that was key in the creation of the
Conditional license, not the desire for the FCC to save money. Try to
stay on the subject.

First off, they had to have offices with test facilities. The office
they had in Philadelphia back when I took my exams was on the 10th
floor of the Custom House at 2nd and Chestnut. Lots of square feet of
prime real estate just for the exam room.

Then there was the time of the examiners, all of whom worked for FCC.
Pay and benefits. At least two people per office, three days a week.
Times the number of offices all over the country.

Then add the FCC folks who revised the exams, duplicated them, and
distributed them to the various offices all over the country. And the
cost of doing all that.

The VE system eliminated all that expense. All FCC has to do now wrt
amateur license testing is to look over the QPC submissions and approve
them. And occasionally retest somebody.

That's all wunnerful, but you vectored off of the subject. Maybe next
time you'll be able to cut and paste something germane to the subject.

Eliminating Element 1 will not save the FCC any expense. Keeping it
will not cost them anything, either. Maybe that's why it's taking them
so long.

Maybe. But they didn't even make the effort to define Morse Code in
the rules for the last 3 R&Os. Yet they tell you that the exam myst be
5WPM, and you've got all these VEs getting to define what that means.

They replaced
their paid examiners with unpaid volunteers.

Good thing there wasn't a union.

Why?

Are you anti-union? Do you favor scabs?

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.

It's a sexist claim to assume that Dee's husband takes care of the
Ohm's Law and Theory
end of her station

Why? She said she hardly, if ever, used it. Somebody's got to be
doing it?

You're presuming she's not doing what needs to be done, and is
dependent on someone else to deal with the theory. I don't think that's
the case at all.

If I considered your opinion to be wrong, do I get to call you a liar?

W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him
these days.

Where do you get that idea?

Hmmm?

I've put up antennas with W3RV. Or rather, I helped out a little, since
he had it all worked out on his own. No sisters involved.

He does know quite a lot about antennas, particularly the practical
side. He even knows that a quarter wave at 73 MHz is a lot longer than
three and one quarter inches....

Prolly for illegal operation. He has no authorization in that area.

Fair is fair, yes?

You're not fair at all.

Since you have a corner on the fairness market, do you plan to be the
RRAP Moderator?

Wait and see.

ARRL November CW Sweepstakes starts Saturday afternoon and ends Sunday
night. I'll be there - will you?

Nope, but knock yourself out.

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
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 did. It's not clear.

Spell it out for us, please.

I'll spell it out for you, Jim.

Thank you, Brian!

Any time.

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.

You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.

40% is more like it.

49.5% according to your very own postings.

You are mistaken, Brian.

The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of
Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All
Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested).

In addition, many hams whose licenses say "Technician" are code tested
and have some HF privileges. These include:

- all Tech Pluses who have renewed since April 15, 2000
- all Novices who have upgraded to Technician
- all Technicians who have passed Element 1, but not the written exam
for General

btw, no US amateur radio license is "code-free". All of them can use
Morse Code.

Probably most of the coded licensees never looked back when
they learned the code to get past a licensing hurdle, don't use code,
and couldn't if their lives depended on it.

That's not a given at all.

I would expect you to say something like that.

Remember the ARRL survey that was debated so much here?

The one where as a member, I did not receive a ballot?

The one that Mike Deignan characterized as "substantive?"

Yes, I recall the survey. Looked as if it had been developed by a
bunch of dems hoping to influence the outcome of an election.

You mean like this:

http://www.rawstory.com/showoutartic...s/15869924.htm

btw, next Tuesday I get to choose between Curt Weldon and Joe Sestak.
Which do you think I should vote for?

It showed that
less than 40% of those hams who were asked never used Morse Code. And
it included licensees from all license classes, not just those who had
passed code tests.

Add to that those who rarely used code.

Why?

Even if someone rarely uses it, that means they still remember it and
can use it at some level.

Sure there are those who learned just enough to pass the Morse Code
test and then never used it - just as there are those who just enough
to pass the *written* tests and then never used it

Heck, your buddy Len couldn't even get the length of a 73 MHz
quarter-wave whip antenna right, and he's a "PROFESSIONAL"!

And you couldn't even get the distance to the moon,

You are mistaken.

You've repeatedly claimed that I mis-stated the distance from Earth to
the moon on rrap.
Show us where I did that - if you can.

I don't think you can, because it did not happen. If I did it, show us.

Otherwise you're just making things up.

and you're a "professional."

I've never claimed to be a professional astronomer.

Len claims to be a "PROFESSIONAL in radio-electronics" (whatever that
is) but he messes up on the length of an antenna for a radio service he
has claimed to use.

So put all USA licensed amateurs in fron of a station equipped with a
morse code key and with CWGet and total their scores.

I presume you mean "contest scores"

Why?

Why not? They're operating in a CW Contest. Why wouldn't you total
their scores?

What's the point?

Who is going to set up and pay for all those stations? What sort of
stations would they be - HF, VHF, UHF? What sort of antennas, rigs,
computers?

Think about it.

I did. That's why I'm asking the question.

Do you think the taxpayers should subsidize amateur radio stations?

The Morsemen

Who are they?

can bandy about the CQ WW and Field Day CW vs SSB contest
scores all they want without having to standardize station equipment.
I bring up a scenario and NOW station equipment must be standardized.

Who said anything about standardizing station equipment? Not me.

I simply want to know where all those stations are supposed to come
from.

There's some bias in your approach.

None at all.

Any ham who wants to operate Morse Code using CWGet or some other
software can do so right now - if they have a station that includes
rig, antenna, and computer.

Yep. I can finally agree with something you said.

So a version of the experiment you describe can happen in every
contest. But it doesn't.

Yet I don't know of any amateur radio contesters who operate that way.
Do you?

Nobody knew of anyone who operated amateur radio as in Larry Rolls
"Only CW can save the situation" but I NEVER ONCE saw your objection to
it.

So what? I don't read everything written to rrap. Larry hasn't posted
here in *years*.

I bring up a scenario and NOW you have a problems with how contestors
operate.

Not at all.

I just don't see anyone using CWGet to operate a contest - even though
they could. Heck *you* could. Why don't you?

There's some bias in your approach.

None at all.

Your "thought experiment" doesn't seem to be thought out very well.

Sure it was.

Alternative scenario snipped.

Why? Aren't you up to such a simple challenge? Here it is again:

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 by the participant and must not be
a licensed amateur station location. Station location must be under FCC
jurisdiction.

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.

A simple, real-world challenge. What's the problem?

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

Just 25 years?

I wrote "more than 25 years".

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

What does that mean?

Besides, the Conditional stopped being issued about 30 years ago.

Yep, but nobody ever claimed that amateur radio was being dumbed down.
The USA amateur service has a proud history of it.

How was it "dumbing down" to eliminate the Conditional?

Jeez you're thick.

No, Brian, I'm not "thick". You just did a poor job of explaining.

It was dumbing down to create such a license class.

Why? The Conditional and its predecessor Class C go back to before the
FCC.

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.

??

The reason FCC stopped doing testing was to save money.

It doesn't cost the FCC anything for an amateur to show up for testing,
unless you want to claim that the examinees got to file a voucher for
their travel.

Actually it cost FCC a lot of money to do testing.

It was the travel distance that was key in the creation of the
Conditional license, not the desire for the FCC to save money.

I was writing about the reason the FCC stopped doing license testing
for *all* license classes. That's part of the reduction in
requirements.

Try to stay on the subject.

I am on the subject. You're trying to change it.

First off, they had to have offices with test facilities. The office
they had in Philadelphia back when I took my exams was on the 10th
floor of the Custom House at 2nd and Chestnut. Lots of square feet of
prime real estate just for the exam room.

Then there was the time of the examiners, all of whom worked for FCC.
Pay and benefits. At least two people per office, three days a week.
Times the number of offices all over the country.

Then add the FCC folks who revised the exams, duplicated them, and
distributed them to the various offices all over the country. And the
cost of doing all that.

The VE system eliminated all that expense. All FCC has to do now wrt
amateur license testing is to look over the QPC submissions and approve
them. And occasionally retest somebody.

That's all wunnerful, but you vectored off of the subject.

Nope.

Maybe next
time you'll be able to cut and paste something germane to the subject.

The subject was the reduction in license requirements by FCC giving
over the testing to VEs.

Eliminating Element 1 will not save the FCC any expense. Keeping it
will not cost them anything, either. Maybe that's why it's taking them
so long.

Maybe. But they didn't even make the effort to define Morse Code in
the rules for the last 3 R&Os.

Why should they? Is there any doubt?

Yet they tell you that the exam myst be
5WPM, and you've got all these VEs getting to define what that means.

It's not a problem to anyone with common sense.

They replaced
their paid examiners with unpaid volunteers.

Good thing there wasn't a union.

Why?

Are you anti-union?

No. Are you?

Do you favor scabs?

Bandages are better.

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.

It's a sexist claim to assume that Dee's husband takes care of the
Ohm's Law and Theory
end of her station

Why? She said she hardly, if ever, used it. Somebody's got to be
doing it?

You're presuming she's not doing what needs to be done, and is
dependent on someone else to deal with the theory. I don't think that's
the case at all.

If I considered your opinion to be wrong, do I get to call you a liar?

Why would you do that?

Have I ever called *anyone* here a liar?

W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him
these days.

Where do you get that idea?

Hmmm?

I've put up antennas with W3RV. Or rather, I helped out a little, since
he had it all worked out on his own. No sisters involved.

He does know quite a lot about antennas, particularly the practical
side. He even knows that a quarter wave at 73 MHz is a lot longer than
three and one quarter inches....

Prolly for illegal operation. He has no authorization in that area.

Actually, he does. Part 95 remote control, same as your buddy Len. And
everybody else.

Fair is fair, yes?

You're not fair at all.

Since you have a corner on the fairness market, do you plan to be the
RRAP Moderator?

Wait and see.

ARRL November CW Sweepstakes starts Saturday afternoon and ends Sunday
night. I'll be there - will you?

Nope, but knock yourself out.

I'll be awake and operating. CWGet won't be part of it.

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
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 did. It's not clear.

Spell it out for us, please.

I'll spell it out for you, Jim.

Thank you, Brian!

Any time.

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.

You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.

40% is more like it.

49.5% according to your very own postings.

You are mistaken, Brian.

No, I'm not.

The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of
Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All
Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested).

The FCC did away with the Technician Plus class of license. They are
all Technicians now. The Technician license has no requirement for a
code exam. Should a Technician wish to use what were once Technician
Plus priveleges, they're on their own to show eligibility.

In addition, many hams whose licenses say "Technician" are code tested
and have some HF privileges. These include:

- all Tech Pluses who have renewed since April 15, 2000
- all Novices who have upgraded to Technician
- all Technicians who have passed Element 1, but not the written exam
for General

Welp, that's something we'll just have to live with. It's also the
reason I upgraded to General.

btw, no US amateur radio license is "code-free". All of them can use
Morse Code.

And they can all use CWGet.

Probably most of the coded licensees never looked back when
they learned the code to get past a licensing hurdle, don't use code,
and couldn't if their lives depended on it.

That's not a given at all.

I would expect you to say something like that.

Remember the ARRL survey that was debated so much here?

The one where as a member, I did not receive a ballot?

The one that Mike Deignan characterized as "substantive?"

Yes, I recall the survey. Looked as if it had been developed by a
bunch of dems hoping to influence the outcome of an election.

You mean like this:

http://www.rawstory.com/showoutartic...s/15869924.htm

btw, next Tuesday I get to choose between Curt Weldon and Joe Sestak.
Which do you think I should vote for?

Who did you vote for last time?

It showed that
less than 40% of those hams who were asked never used Morse Code. And
it included licensees from all license classes, not just those who had
passed code tests.

Add to that those who rarely used code.

Why?

Even if someone rarely uses it, that means they still remember it and
can use it at some level.

It means they don't like it and they have to struggle through it. It
means they are perfect candidates for CWGet.

Sure there are those who learned just enough to pass the Morse Code
test and then never used it - just as there are those who just enough
to pass the *written* tests and then never used it

Heck, your buddy Len couldn't even get the length of a 73 MHz
quarter-wave whip antenna right, and he's a "PROFESSIONAL"!

And you couldn't even get the distance to the moon,

You are mistaken.

Right.

You've repeatedly claimed that I mis-stated the distance from Earth to
the moon on rrap.
Show us where I did that - if you can.

I don't think you can, because it did not happen. If I did it, show us.

Otherwise you're just making things up.

You're making that up.

and you're a "professional."

I've never claimed to be a professional astronomer.

What? Only astronomers get to calculate path loss in space?

Len claims to be a "PROFESSIONAL in radio-electronics" (whatever that
is) but he messes up on the length of an antenna for a radio service he
has claimed to use.

How can you be sure?

So put all USA licensed amateurs in fron of a station equipped with a
morse code key and with CWGet and total their scores.

I presume you mean "contest scores"

Why?

Why not? They're operating in a CW Contest. Why wouldn't you total
their scores?

What's the point?

The same point that you and W3RV are making when you kick around SSB vs
CW in your field day and other scores. Why is it that comparing scores
is only something that you can do?

Who is going to set up and pay for all those stations? What sort of
stations would they be - HF, VHF, UHF? What sort of antennas, rigs,
computers?

Think about it.

I did. That's why I'm asking the question.

Do you think the taxpayers should subsidize amateur radio stations?

Who sets up your field day station? Who pays for it?

The Morsemen

Who are they?

There used to be four of them...

can bandy about the CQ WW and Field Day CW vs SSB contest
scores all they want without having to standardize station equipment.
I bring up a scenario and NOW station equipment must be standardized.

Who said anything about standardizing station equipment? Not me.

Yes, you. You!

I simply want to know where all those stations are supposed to come
from.

Where do stations come from now?

There's some bias in your approach.

None at all.

Hi, hi, hi! You're just making that up.

Any ham who wants to operate Morse Code using CWGet or some other
software can do so right now - if they have a station that includes
rig, antenna, and computer.

Yep. I can finally agree with something you said.

So a version of the experiment you describe can happen in every
contest. But it doesn't.

Many, many, many amateur just aren't interested in morse code, and
many, many, many amateurs just aren't interested in contests.

But if we were able to have have 100% participation and every amateur
were offered a manual morse code key and a downloaded copy of CWGet....

Yet I don't know of any amateur radio contesters who operate that way.
Do you?

Nobody knew of anyone who operated amateur radio as in Larry Rolls
"Only CW can save the situation" but I NEVER ONCE saw your objection to
it.

So what? I don't read everything written to rrap. Larry hasn't posted
here in *years*.

Sure he has. He's posted as himself and he's probably posting as
someone else.

I bring up a scenario and NOW you have a problems with how contestors
operate.

Not at all.

I just don't see anyone using CWGet to operate a contest - even though
they could. Heck *you* could. Why don't you?

I don't enjoy morse code.

There's some bias in your approach.

None at all.

I think you're making that up.

Your "thought experiment" doesn't seem to be thought out very well.

Sure it was.

Alternative scenario snipped.

Alternative scenario snipped.

A simple, real-world challenge. What's the problem?

The problem is that there isn't 100% participation in field day. It
fails to meet the requirements of my scenario.

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

Just 25 years?

I wrote "more than 25 years".

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

What does that mean?

Besides, the Conditional stopped being issued about 30 years ago.

Yep, but nobody ever claimed that amateur radio was being dumbed down.
The USA amateur service has a proud history of it.

How was it "dumbing down" to eliminate the Conditional?

Jeez you're thick.

No, Brian, I'm not "thick". You just did a poor job of explaining.

No, you vectored off when it was clear that the creation of the
Conditional Class license using the "buddy-system" of testing was the
original dumbing down of the ARS.

It was dumbing down to create such a license class.

Why? The Conditional and its predecessor Class C go back to before the
FCC.

So there's a long, long tradition in the dumbing down of the amateur
radio service.

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.

??

The reason FCC stopped doing testing was to save money.

It doesn't cost the FCC anything for an amateur to show up for testing,
unless you want to claim that the examinees got to file a voucher for
their travel.

Actually it cost FCC a lot of money to do testing.

It was the travel distance that was key in the creation of the
Conditional license, not the desire for the FCC to save money.

I was writing about the reason the FCC stopped doing license testing
for *all* license classes. That's part of the reduction in
requirements.

Then you strayed off the subject.

Try to stay on the subject.

I am on the subject. You're trying to change it.

If you choose to comment on somthing I say, then confine it to what I
said. If you stick with that simple concept, you'll do OK.

First off, they had to have offices with test facilities. The office
they had in Philadelphia back when I took my exams was on the 10th
floor of the Custom House at 2nd and Chestnut. Lots of square feet of
prime real estate just for the exam room.

Then there was the time of the examiners, all of whom worked for FCC.
Pay and benefits. At least two people per office, three days a week.
Times the number of offices all over the country.

Then add the FCC folks who revised the exams, duplicated them, and
distributed them to the various offices all over the country. And the
cost of doing all that.

The VE system eliminated all that expense. All FCC has to do now wrt
amateur license testing is to look over the QPC submissions and approve
them. And occasionally retest somebody.

That's all wunnerful, but you vectored off of the subject.

Nope.

Maybe next
time you'll be able to cut and paste something germane to the subject.

The subject was the reduction in license requirements by FCC giving
over the testing to VEs.

Nope. I twas the creation of the Conditional License.

Eliminating Element 1 will not save the FCC any expense. Keeping it
will not cost them anything, either. Maybe that's why it's taking them
so long.

Maybe. But they didn't even make the effort to define Morse Code in
the rules for the last 3 R&Os.

Why should they? Is there any doubt?

There appears to be. The ARRL VEC and other VECs are giving el 1 exams
at 13-15WPM when Part 97 says 5WPM.

Yet they tell you that the exam myst be
5WPM, and you've got all these VEs getting to define what that means.

It's not a problem to anyone with common sense.

It appears to be a violation of Part 97.

They replaced
their paid examiners with unpaid volunteers.

Good thing there wasn't a union.

Why?

Are you anti-union?

No. Are you?

Do you favor scabs?

Bandages are better.

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.

It's a sexist claim to assume that Dee's husband takes care of the
Ohm's Law and Theory
end of her station

Why? She said she hardly, if ever, used it. Somebody's got to be
doing it?

You're presuming she's not doing what needs to be done, and is
dependent on someone else to deal with the theory. I don't think that's
the case at all.

If I considered your opinion to be wrong, do I get to call you a liar?

Why would you do that?

Have I ever called *anyone* here a liar?

You're making that up, right?

W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him
these days.

Where do you get that idea?

Hmmm?

I've put up antennas with W3RV. Or rather, I helped out a little, since
he had it all worked out on his own. No sisters involved.

He does know quite a lot about antennas, particularly the practical
side. He even knows that a quarter wave at 73 MHz is a lot longer than
three and one quarter inches....

Prolly for illegal operation. He has no authorization in that area.

Actually, he does. Part 95 remote control, same as your buddy Len. And
everybody else.

Part 95 requires no authorization, so he doesn't. And knowing his
background, he'd probably violate the Part 95 rules.

Fair is fair, yes?

You're not fair at all.

Since you have a corner on the fairness market, do you plan to be the
RRAP Moderator?

Wait and see.

ARRL November CW Sweepstakes starts Saturday afternoon and ends Sunday
night. I'll be there - will you?

Nope, but knock yourself out.

I'll be awake and operating. CWGet won't be part of it.

Bless you.

From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 4:17 am

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

[ etc., etc., etc.... :-) ]


Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.

You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.

40% is more like it.

49.5% according to your very own postings.

You are mistaken, Brian.

No, I'm not.

The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of
Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All
Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested).

The FCC did away with the Technician Plus class of license. They are
all Technicians now. The Technician license has no requirement for a
code exam. Should a Technician wish to use what were once Technician
Plus priveleges, they're on their own to show eligibility.

Miccolis can't seem to understand the LAW. No matter how
often it is explained to him, he falls back on the Speroni
'definition' of 'What Technicians Are.' Of course, AH0A
is a PCTA morseman of unchangeable ideas.

Miccolis also insisted that ENIAC was "the first electronic
computer" because he got brainwashed by Moore School PR,
being in eastern PA. Funny thing, but the LAW was decided
in the early 1970s by a Federal Court trial and the Atanasof-
Berry Computer of 1939-1942 was declared "first."


btw, no US amateur radio license is "code-free". All of them can use
Morse Code.

And they can all use CWGet.

...and they can all toss their morse keys into the dumpster. :-)



btw, next Tuesday I get to choose between Curt Weldon and Joe Sestak.
Which do you think I should vote for?

Who did you vote for last time?

...and why in hell should WE care?



And you couldn't even get the distance to the moon,

You are mistaken.

Right.

If'n Jimmie he say "mistaken" he be da Judge! He be da Law!

:-)

You've repeatedly claimed that I mis-stated the distance from Earth to
the moon on rrap.
Show us where I did that - if you can.

I don't think you can, because it did not happen. If I did it, show us.

Otherwise you're just making things up.

You're making that up.

Miccolis ought to move to L.A. and get in the make-up biz.
Lotsa money to be made here in the entertainment capitol
of show business. Especially around Halloween time...:-)


and you're a "professional."

I've never claimed to be a professional astronomer.

What? Only astronomers get to calculate path loss in space?

A quarter-million-mile distance was in all the newspapers
since the Apollo Program began. Perhaps he thinks only
astronomers read newspapers? :-)


Len claims to be a "PROFESSIONAL in radio-electronics" (whatever that
is) but he messes up on the length of an antenna for a radio service he
has claimed to use.

How can you be sure?

Tsk. Miccolis is hell-bent on character-assassination lately.
I make a typo in a message and he makes it into a HEADLINE
STORY charging some kind of ineptitude! :-)

Not only that, his Waffen SS buddie has to chime in like it
is a capital offense! :-)

Tsk, Miccolis is now under Typo Alert Status, condition Red.
Each and every typo HE makes will be FEATURED INEPTITUDES of
his own! Regardless of his 'explanations' of his typos, he
will be charged with violations of all mankind! :-)

That's all in the sense of "justice, fair play, common sense,
(etc.)" to "HELP" others. :-)



The same point that you and W3RV are making when you kick around SSB vs
CW in your field day and other scores. Why is it that comparing scores
is only something that you can do?

He has declared himself Ultimate Authority, therefore 'judge.'


The Morsemen

Who are they?

There used to be four of them...

The "Four Morsemen of the Apocalypse." :-)


I simply want to know where all those stations are supposed to come
from.

Where do stations come from now?

The stork brings them from Japan? :-)


Many, many, many amateur just aren't interested in morse code, and
many, many, many amateurs just aren't interested in contests.

Blasphemy! Heresy! The Church of St. Hiram may begin
the Inquisition with you tied on the stake, Brian!

But if we were able to have have 100% participation and every amateur
were offered a manual morse code key and a downloaded copy of CWGet....

Hmmm...interesting mental picture...350 thousand radio amateurs
on the few HF ham bands ALL busy 'contesting' in relatively the
same time period. That would result in the Ultimate QRM that
would cause meltdown of all the scores checkers... :-)


So what? I don't read everything written to rrap. Larry hasn't posted
here in *years*.

Sure he has. He's posted as himself and he's probably posting as
someone else.

Las Vegas odds-makers are with your assessment... :-)



I just don't see anyone using CWGet to operate a contest - even though
they could. Heck *you* could. Why don't you?

I don't enjoy morse code.

We can only, repeat ONLY, "see" what Miccolis sees. All else
is a 'mistake.'



Why? The Conditional and its predecessor Class C go back to before the
FCC.

So there's a long, long tradition in the dumbing down of the amateur
radio service.

By all those olde-tyme morsemen REFUSING to allow modernization
of the US amateur radio service in going to, and trying out NEW
modes, methods, and lobbying for UPDATING the ARS regulations.

BTW, Miccolis hasn't existed since AFTER the end of WW II, let
alone the creation of the FCC in 1934...but he is "knowledgeable"
by "experience" of all those old pioneers (in his heart he knows
he is 'right').

Miccolis hadn't learned to read yet when the amateur SSB boom
began...over two decades AFTER the commercial and military
radio world had begun using SSB for long-haul HF comms. He
has NO direct experience to the radio world of the 1950s
except in some juvenile way. He wasn't working for a living
among amateurs who were divided about the SSB issues nor was
he party to some of those amateurs' (of long standing then)
rather abject ignorance of basic modulation concepts. [John
Carson of AT&T had published the mathematical proof in 1915,
the basis of the 'phasing' concept...the rest of the radio
world accepted Carson's proof and those specializing in FM
adopted "Carson's Rule" on FM modulation index]

Miccolis never tuned up any SSB transmitter in the early 1950s
as I had to do, never QSYed one. Not on HF and sure as hell
not IN the military (he never served). Neither did he tune
up or QSY any RTTY of MUX TTY transmitter on HF in that time
frame. But...he "knows" all about it by reading about it in
QST and the ARRL Handbook.

Miccolis is a MORSEMAN. Those of the "CW gets through when
nothing else will" DUMBED-DOWN amateur persuasion. All they
can conceive is switching RF off and on using morse code.
Methods that were used in the very first 'radios' of the
Spark Tx and 'crystal detector' era. On-off keying of a CW
carrier. Wow, real "technical" and full of smarts to bang-
bang switch a carrier!

Did the ARRL *ever* lobby to improve regulations for the
'new' modes in the ARS? Hell, the DSSS and FHSS modes were
kept hamstrung by ARS regulations into the 1990s...when the
commercial and military radio services were already using
DSSS and FHSS...DSSS being the major player in the commercial
WLAN and 'wireless' market. RTTY is still struggling along
with OLD speed limits. PSK31 was innovated by a Brit (Peter
Martinez) and was trial-tested in Europe for five years
before it got any publicity in US ham magazines. Non-US
hams have been using PM for extremely-weak radio comms for
years, on bands below the lowest allocated US ham bands;
the ARRL is finally getting around to 'requesting help' for
frequencies as 'low' as a small sliver just above 500 KHz,
helped get an 'experimental net' going there in this new
millennium. Wow, really 'advanced technology' there,
"exploring 'long wave' comms" with "CW."

"CW gets through when nothing else will." One of the 1930s
era MYTHS, born when hams were trying out DSB AM in days
before WW II. "CW" does NOT 'get through' better than PM
or some of the other modes, but the DUMBED-DOWN morsemen
just can't understand that. They think that OOK CW is
"smart!" 1906 thinking in the year 2006. Ptui.


Try to stay on the subject.

I am on the subject. You're trying to change it.

If you choose to comment on somthing I say, then confine it to what I
said. If you stick with that simple concept, you'll do OK.

Brian, you KNOW Miccolis will NEVER do that. He runs off
at the keyboard into dozens of wild trips off the thread.
Mainly it is an attempt at MISDIRECTION so he won't have to
explain his own errors, mistakes, false assumptions, and
general ignorance of ALL radio, not the kind of radio that
was spoon-fed to him by ARRL publications.


First off, they had to have offices with test facilities. The office
they had in Philadelphia back when I took my exams was on the 10th
floor of the Custom House at 2nd and Chestnut. Lots of square feet of
prime real estate just for the exam room.

Then there was the time of the examiners, all of whom worked for FCC.
Pay and benefits. At least two people per office, three days a week.
Times the number of offices all over the country.

[Yawn...like Philly is the Center of the USA? I can't remember
the floor of the FCC Field Office in the Federal Building in
Chicago, IL, as it was located in 1956...other than it was
upstairs...might have been the 3rd floor, but the location
wasn't important. Several being examined for Radiotelegraph
licenses were audible QRM in the same room when I took my
Radiotelephone written test (lots of Great Lakes shipping used
"CW" then) The Chicago FCC office didn't need "lots of room
for equipment"...one paper-tape code reproducer was good enough
and the jacks for various keys didn't take up much space. Tables
and chairs for examinees was standard government-issue stuff,
tables too high and chairs uncushioned to make all uncomfortable]

[The Long Beach, CA, FCC Field Office of today is only slightly
better. Was never there for any test (didn't need to), only to
get a pile of paper for own business radio (non-amateur) cleared
away. By that time the FCC was busy, busy, busy with lots of
commercial radio and the new radio services and the rather
explosive growth of PLMRS that was opening the "high band"]


Then add the FCC folks who revised the exams, duplicated them, and
distributed them to the various offices all over the country. And the
cost of doing all that.

[Apparently Miccolis thinks ALL the FCC does is to regulate
amateur radio?!? He is blissfully UNaware of the fantastic
growth of ALL radio services in the last half century. He still
won't acknowledge the COLEM (who do privatized testing of non-
amateur radio operator licenses) nor of the privatized PLMRS
frequency coordinators nor of the fact of reduced paperwork and
licensing of the private maritime radio users (Long Beach is at
the heart of the maritime import-export top harbor and in the
center of dozens of large marinas). The FCC is concerned with
regulation of ALL US civil radio services, not just amateur.]


Maybe next
time you'll be able to cut and paste something germane to the subject.

The subject was the reduction in license requirements by FCC giving
over the testing to VEs.

Nope. I twas the creation of the Conditional License.

Miccolis did his misdirection thing, then attempted to impose
'lawn order' by saying HE was 'judge' over what was being
discussed. Gotta love it. He's been doing that for years...
and manages to get away with it. :-)

Then he gets caught and he bleats, "Show me where? Provide
the posting!" He has been "hurt" or maybe "insulted" when
folks disagree with him, poor guy.


Eliminating Element 1 will not save the FCC any expense. Keeping it
will not cost them anything, either. Maybe that's why it's taking them
so long.

Maybe. But they didn't even make the effort to define Morse Code in
the rules for the last 3 R&Os.

Why should they? Is there any doubt?

There appears to be. The ARRL VEC and other VECs are giving el 1 exams
at 13-15WPM when Part 97 says 5WPM.

"It's for newcomers' own good" is probably the morsemen's only
good-enough answer. Yawn...keep on with 1906 thinking in 2006,
morse code uber alles...blah, blah, blah...


Yet they tell you that the exam myst be
5WPM, and you've got all these VEs getting to define what that means.

It's not a problem to anyone with common sense.

It appears to be a violation of Part 97.

It's a grey area in LEGAL terms. The WORD RATE is not
specifically defined in Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R., and only
"assumed." FCC's Definitions cite the old CCITT-ITU Telegram
regulation as to coding and bit and length spacings. That
referenced International Telegram Standard doesn't
specifically define WORD RATE either.

Apparently the FCC gave the VEC Council written permission
to do characters at the higher rate, keeping the 'word rate'
at 5 words per minute. A problem is that this specific
"permission" has NOT made it into the (radio regulation)
LAW document yet. That makes it the "grey area" in legal
terms since it can be argued both ways.

REAL attorneys can comment on whether or not I am "mistaken."
Miccolis hasn't been admitted to a Legal Bar Association
yet and is unqualified to comment on law. But, he WILL
comment on that AS IF he IS the law...("truth, justice,
and the American way" spoken by SuperHam)

Happy Halloween, Brian.

wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

[snip]
It's a sexist claim to assume that Dee's husband takes care of the
Ohm's Law and Theory
end of her station

Why? She said she hardly, if ever, used it. Somebody's got to be
doing it?

You're presuming she's not doing what needs to be done, and is
dependent on someone else to deal with the theory. I don't think that's
the case at all.


No he's simply presuming that every aspect of amateur radio needs to deal
with every aspect of theory. That is a fundamental fallacy that too often
is used in an attempt to sidetrack a debate.

Dee, N8UZE

From: on Mon, Oct 30 2006 3:58
pm

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

EXCESSIVE QUOTING not germane to posting elided


Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.

You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.

40% is more like it.

49.5% according to your very own postings.

You are mistaken, Brian.

Tsk, everyone not in-line with your prissy pedantry of
"exact word definition" is "mistaken." :-)

Or "in error." Or just about any other adjective set
stopping short of actually USING the word "LIAR." :-)

The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of
Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All
Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested).

Do all those Plusses love, honor, and obey morsemanship?

Do you have 'accurate' statistics on that? Or just the
PCTA-biased 'stats' from Joe Speroni?

In addition, many hams whose licenses say "Technician" are code tested
and have some HF privileges.

Yes, in YOUR mind they DO love, honor, and obey morse...

So, if one strips away the Micollis massaging of morse,
the NO-CODE-TEST Technician class is STILL the LARGEST
US amateur radio class. Overwhelmingly.

The MAJORITY (no shaving of fractions there) of newcomers
are getting INTO US amateur radio via the NO-CODE-TEST
Tech class. Just enough to barely keep the total of all
licensees at the same level they were three years ago.

Attrition is keeping the EXPIRED numbers so large. Some
must be quitting the ARS before their lives are over...


btw, no US amateur radio license is "code-free". All of them can use
Morse Code.

BY THE WAY, prissy pedant, the phrase "code-free" refers
to the LICENSE TEST. TEST, Mother Superior. TEST.


Add to that those who rarely used code.

Why?

Even if someone rarely uses it, that means they still remember it and
can use it at some level.

I was wrong to write only two adjectives. It should be
three: Prissy, ****Y pedant. You have morse code on
the brain. [there might be a medical cure for that...]


Len claims to be a "PROFESSIONAL in radio-electronics" (whatever that
is) but he messes up on the length of an antenna for a radio service he
has claimed to use.

So, you did NOT see my own acknowledgement of my typo?

Of course not. You are operating in character-assassin mode
and SELECTIVELY highlight 'errors.' :-)

I've gotten money in return for services rendered. In the legal
sense that means I have done "professional work." The IRS thinks
so, the California Franchise Tax Board thinks so, and both have
been given the proper income tax copies.

I don't "claim" anything when I've handled an R-C control box
and flown a model aircraft. I simply DID it. :-) No morse
code or test for same required, NO license needed!


The Morsemen

Who are they?

Tsk, tsk, tsk, a worshipper at the shrine of Eniac and double-
dipped EE who CAN'T FIGURE THAT OUT?!? :-)

It is all those PCTAs who do 1906 thinking in the year 2006.

One of them is YOU. Another one is the knuckle-spanking
Mother Superior that you turn into when you go cross-dressing.
:-(


I simply want to know where all those stations are supposed to come
from.

...from off-shore manufacturers? :-)

...for "under $100" using salvage from "old TV sets?" :-)



So what? I don't read everything written to rrap. Larry hasn't posted
here in *years*.

All of three...that we know about. :-)



Jeez you're thick.

No, Brian, I'm not "thick". You just did a poor job of explaining.

You ARE thick. You couldn't figure out what "morsemen" are.


The reason FCC stopped doing testing was to save money.

It doesn't cost the FCC anything for an amateur to show up for testing,
unless you want to claim that the examinees got to file a voucher for
their travel.

Actually it cost FCC a lot of money to do testing.

It was the travel distance that was key in the creation of the
Conditional license, not the desire for the FCC to save money.

I was writing about the reason the FCC stopped doing license testing
for *all* license classes. That's part of the reduction in
requirements.

Oh, my, ON-LINE REDEFINITIONS! Goll-eeee, Gomer, you sure
NEED to win each and every argument, don't you? :-)

Tsk, tsk, tsk, the FCC privatized *ALL* radio operator
license testing. That's not just amateur...it involves
ALL RADIO SERVICES.

Hello? If you are going to MISDIRECT, at least be
ACCURATE about it! That's only common sense, and a
bit of fair play.

Justice.


The subject was the reduction in license requirements by FCC giving
over the testing to VEs.

The FCC "gave over" nothing to the COLEMs? Tsk, tsk!


Maybe. But they didn't even make the effort to define Morse Code in
the rules for the last 3 R&Os.

Why should they? Is there any doubt?

LEGALLY, the FCC does NOT define morse code WORD RATE.

The FCC defines a lot of technical requirements in Part 97.
Yet they keep thinking the CCITT-ITU Telegram Standard will
define word rate. It does not.


Yet they tell you that the exam myst be
5WPM, and you've got all these VEs getting to define what that means.

It's not a problem to anyone with common sense.

Tsk, you prattle on about "common sense." You haven't figured
out what "morsemen" are or "morsemenship" is after over a year
of use in here?!? :-)


If I considered your opinion to be wrong, do I get to call you a liar?

Why would you do that?

Have I ever called *anyone* here a liar?

You don't KNOW?!? :-)

You need to go Google yourself. :-)

Maybe not. The narcisstic would enjoy it too much. That
would be like emotional masturbation. :-)

Enjoy!