|
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net NNTP-Posting-Time: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 10:46:20 -0500 (CDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: !^^9?1k-WX65bPG1a"NO (Encoded at Airnews!) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: Bottom line: Knowledge of morse is neither a positive or negative indication of any individual's interest(s) in ham radio. It is if a person refuses to learn it, or waits until the requirement goes away. Balogny... What this states is that all non-coded techs have insufficiient interest in "ham radio." Note the above does not specify any license level whereas below the poster changes to a specific referral to Extra. That is NOT how the original post started out. EXACTLY. I'm waiting to see ( another post in this thread from me) when the campaign is going to start against everyone who's *"never bothered"* to TAKE a ham radio exam. And, how can it be *"explained away"* that there is probably a higher percentage of General-and-above license holders who are no longer even active. WOW, now that's interest for you! THEN, and not least of all, I agree Bill. These guys are bouncing all over the topic. Mike, I think you'll be quite disappointed if you "trust" in someone's interest level based on their relationship (or lack of) with CW. Not the CW, Kim. It's any part of the testing regimen that a person "won't" take. If a person refuses to take the Extra test, they aren't that interested in being an Extra. So what. They may have less interest in Extra, but that does not equate to a broader lack of interest in "ham radio" (rather than just Extra) as the original post was first articulated. Let's even take your own case. You're a Tech Plus, IIRC. Are you interested in taking the General test? If yes, you'll be studying for it. If not, then you aren't that interested in becoming a General. - Mike KB3EIA - Fair enough on the specific application to General. BUT, would you state that Kim doesn't have a positive interest in "ham radio" just because she doesn't upgrade? THANK YOU!! Let's see what the answer is. Because, I'm willing to bet that the answer is going to do one of two things: 1) it will skirt around the question entirely and never be answered or, 2) it will be totally ignored. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Kim W5TIT |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: And you obviously can't regognize that taking a series of written exams proves probably more interest in ham radio than one single CW test. That depends on the written exams, doesn't it? Big difference between a nobrainer exam and one that requires real understanding of the material. For example, one problem could show a known voltage source and two resistors of a given value, and ask what the current flow is. Another problem could show a complex network of sources and resistors, some known, some unknown, and ask what value(s) of certain components are needed to cause certain voltages and currents to appear elsewhere in the network. And that's just ONE question. Imagine an exam full of questions of that complexity. Q&A pool? No biggie - just have a couple hundred network problems of the type described above, all with different topologies, values and solutions. How about Smith Chart questions? Same principles apply. But the current writtens aren't like that. The key point is that most prospective hams have to learn code from ground zero, but don't have to learn the written material that way. Then again, there could be questions like "what is the air-speed velocity of an unladen sparrow?" 73 de Jim, N2EY WWHD |
Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: Bottom line: Knowledge of morse is neither a positive or negative indication of any individual's interest(s) in ham radio. It is if a person refuses to learn it, or waits until the requirement goes away. Balogny... What this states is that all non-coded techs have insufficiient interest in "ham radio." Where did I say insufficient, Bill? I'm talking levels of interest here. Note the above does not specify any license level whereas below the poster changes to a specific referral to Extra. That is NOT how the original post started out. I Gots no clue here, Bill. Mike, I think you'll be quite disappointed if you "trust" in someone's interest level based on their relationship (or lack of) with CW. Not the CW, Kim. It's any part of the testing regimen that a person "won't" take. If a person refuses to take the Extra test, they aren't that interested in being an Extra. So what. They may have less interest in Extra, but that does not equate to a broader lack of interest in "ham radio" (rather than just Extra) as the original post was first articulated. The tech might be interested in only the things that the technician license gives him or her. The person who wants to experience more of what the ARS has to offer will be *more* interested. I feel sorry for the person who is *more* interested, but won't get involved. I have to say that doesn't make much sense to me either. Let's even take your own case. You're a Tech Plus, IIRC. Are you interested in taking the General test? If yes, you'll be studying for it. If not, then you aren't that interested in becoming a General. - Mike KB3EIA - Fair enough on the specific application to General. BUT, would you state that Kim doesn't have a positive interest in "ham radio" just because she doesn't upgrade? I think Kim probably does have a pretty positive interest in Ham radio. But I would hazard a guess that it isn't as intense as say mine. As far as I know, she is content with her current privleges. To me, she is operating at her present interest level and is happy with that. And that is just fine. I think you are getting my "levels of interest" idea mixed up with some sort of positive/negative thing. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
I did a bunch of trimming here, Kim. I think your Netnews ISP is getting mad at the length of the posts! 8^) Then, I would suggest that both of you carry your angst out on the populace of the entire community that has not even chosen to take a ham radio exam! Hardly! I'm not preaching condemnation on anyone because of their lack of interest. A no-code tech has a limited interest in *becoming a General Class, or above, licensee* and that is it. For someone to believe that interest level in ham radio as a whole is guided by how "high" a license class someone is, is absolutely ludicrous. I was a no NCT. But my interests extended beyond that. If they didn't, I would still be a NCT. I would daresay that, if one could accurately measure somehow, there are no doubt a higher PERCENTAGE of General-and-above hams who aren't even active any more. Note that I have said percentage, so it has nothing to do with numbers. So, how would you geniuses explain that a Extra class ham has so much "more interest" in ham radio that they've DROPPED OUT of the hobby, while a Novice or Tech is still in? It is entirely possible to *lose* interest also. If the ham becomes inactive, that is the case. It's a dynamic sort of hobby. I would say an Active Extra has more interest in the hobby than an inactive one. Good grief. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
Some more trimming here for ths long post EXACTLY. I'm waiting to see ( another post in this thread from me) when the campaign is going to start against everyone who's *"never bothered"* to TAKE a ham radio exam. And, how can it be *"explained away"* that there is probably a higher percentage of General-and-above license holders who are no longer even active. WOW, now that's interest for you! THEN, and not least of all, I agree Bill. These guys are bouncing all over the topic. Let me phrase the issue as I see it. People often have hobbies as a part of their spare time. Generally, a person takes up a hobby that interests them. If there is some requirement of the hobby that the person does not like, they have two choices put up with the requirement or not get involved. Examples might be I though about getting a pilot's license at one time. But the expense of getting the license, then joining a club to share a plane with several others, and I changed my mind. I guess I wasn't as interested as the person who goes through all that and gets his or her pilot's license. In short, I was not that interested. My final original point was that that a person who would not study Morse code in order to get a General license must have an interest akin to mine towards piloting a plane. That is to say "Thanks but no thanks." Fair enough on the specific application to General. BUT, would you state that Kim doesn't have a positive interest in "ham radio" just because she doesn't upgrade? THANK YOU!! Let's see what the answer is. Because, I'm willing to bet that the answer is going to do one of two things: 1) it will skirt around the question entirely and never be answered or, 2) it will be totally ignored. I think I answered the question, Kim. You can tell me if I skirted the issue or not. - Mike KB3EIA - |
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net NNTP-Posting-Time: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 13:11:44 -0500 (CDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: !\oQX1k-X)1%Y#l0N'#A (Encoded at Airnews!) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: I did a bunch of trimming here, Kim. I think your Netnews ISP is getting mad at the length of the posts! 8^) OH! Is that what that is all about? Then, I would suggest that both of you carry your angst out on the populace of the entire community that has not even chosen to take a ham radio exam! Hardly! I'm not preaching condemnation on anyone because of their lack of interest. It did not come across that way. A no-code tech has a limited interest in *becoming a General Class, or above, licensee* and that is it. For someone to believe that interest level in ham radio as a whole is guided by how "high" a license class someone is, is absolutely ludicrous. I was a no NCT. But my interests extended beyond that. If they didn't, I would still be a NCT. Just about any license class can get as involved in their "privilege range" as any other license class. What additional things are you doing in ham radio at a higher class license than when you were a NCT? (Other than CW, of course) And, why were you not doing them as a NCT? I would daresay that, if one could accurately measure somehow, there are no doubt a higher PERCENTAGE of General-and-above hams who aren't even active any more. Note that I have said percentage, so it has nothing to do with numbers. So, how would you geniuses explain that a Extra class ham has so much "more interest" in ham radio that they've DROPPED OUT of the hobby, while a Novice or Tech is still in? It is entirely possible to *lose* interest also. If the ham becomes inactive, that is the case. It's a dynamic sort of hobby. I would say an Active Extra has more interest in the hobby than an inactive one. Good grief. - Mike KB3EIA - Your distinguishment noted. It just seems that in some of the posts you were straying from that concept. Kim W5TIT |
From: Mike Coslo:
My final original point was that that a person who would not study Morse code in order to get a General license must have an interest akin to mine towards piloting a plane. That is to say "Thanks but no thanks." The skill has to be relevant. You should not use some unrelated skill as some sort of barrier to getting a higher license class Morse code does not necessarily show more interest. Its possible that someone not interested in Morse may have an interest in many more areas therefore having more interest in amateur radio than some that are mostly interested in Morse code. Putting this artificial barrier may have the effect of blocking out those with more ability or interest in favor of those with less ability or interest. The only thing being that some with less ability or interest learned Morse code, did HF, and not much else. A higher license class should represent more ability (in the skills tested), not less. Code has nothing to do with the written material. It's a different kind of skill. And it's a single skill independent of other skills. Just as various awards are recognized individually, like Worked All States, one can recognize code skill separately from the written tests. The written tests are classes of technical ability. By placing code in between, it implies that someone that learned code automatically and instantly also has higher technical ability. We know that's not true. For example, degreed EEs tend to have higher technical ability since they have already studied some of the material. They would still have to review the rf specific areas, and the areas on regulations. The code should not be in the path way in between the written tests. Basic integrity in Amateur Radio testing requires that. |
"Bill Sohl" wrote:
As an international treaty requirement Morse knowledge has died as of 7/5/03: Oh, boy. Now we can start the speculation and rumors about when the FCC itself will do something in response to that. This "discussion" should be good for a few months of argument in this newsgroup. Too late - I see that has already started. ;) Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Kim W5TIT wrote: What in the world is this? "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net NNTP-Posting-Time: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 10:37:08 -0500 (CDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: !Zq7b1k-YJ*ei?9+Z_b (Encoded at Airnews!) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Anyone know? The posts were not being trimmed. So eventuallly they got so big that your newsgroup provider started snipping off parts of them. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
Your distinguishment noted. It just seems that in some of the posts you were straying from that concept. There were so many different angles with the different people involved in this thread, that it was getting pretty hard to keep track of what was what. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Dick Carroll;" writes:
Wrong again, Bill. I define limited interest in ham radio as limited interest in ham radio. Where Ham Radio isn't Ham Radio if the CW testing requirement is dropped. I approve of keeping the requirement, but I dispute your right to define the ARS in terms like these. Regards, Len. |
|
On 05 Jul 2003 02:23:30 GMT, N2EY wrote:
The big problem with essay and fill-in-the-blank questions is that the answers are not 100% objective. There's always a measure of judgement involved. For example, take a simple question like "what is the length of a half-wave dipole cut for 7.1 MHz?" With multiple choice, the QPC says that one answer (say, 66 feet) is the correct one and all others are incorrect. Want to make that one more fun? Do it like the 200 multi-guess questions on the Multistate Bar Exam: give four choices - two are obviously incorrect and two are "almost correct". Ask which of the four is the -best- answer. But with essays and fill-in-the-blank, what tolerance do we put on the correct answer? Is 67 feet acceptable? 68 feet? 66 feet 3 inches? The person being tested could write a long dissertation on tapering elements, the effect of ground, wire/tubing sizes, etc., and come up with a whole range of arguably-correct answers. And run into an examiner who doesn't understand all the nuances of such an answer..... From what I have researched, FCC went to multiple-choice questions for all ham exams no later than 1961. IIRC the Novice and Tech/General that I took in 1952 were all multi-choice. The next written exam that I took was the Advanced in 1968 and by that time multi-choice was in place for a long time in all FCC license exams with the exception of two pages of diagrams in the Commercial Radiotelegraph Element 6 which had to be graded by an engineer, not a regular examiner. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Vshah101 wrote:
From: Mike Coslo: My final original point was that that a person who would not study Morse code in order to get a General license must have an interest akin to mine towards piloting a plane. That is to say "Thanks but no thanks." The skill has to be relevant. You should not use some unrelated skill as some sort of barrier to getting a higher license class Morse code does not necessarily show more interest. Its possible that someone not interested in Morse may have an interest in many more areas therefore having more interest in amateur radio than some that are mostly interested in Morse code. No, of course interest in Morse code does not in itself show more interest in the ARS in general. My thoughts were that if a person is really interested in something, they will pursue that, even if there are some parts that they are not concerned with. - Mike KB3EIA - |
wrote in message ... (Vshah101) writes: The skill has to be relevant. You should not use some unrelated skill as some sort of barrier to getting a higher license class Why does it have to be relevant? If the participants in the ARS really want to impose a swimming requirement, then so what? Luckily, the "participants" in the ARS do NOT get to impose any requirements at all. The FCC makes the rules and, as a government entity, it has NO justification to make requirements that can not be justified. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Bill Sohl" writes:
wrote: Why does it have to be relevant? If the participants in the ARS really want to impose a swimming requirement, then so what? Luckily, the "participants" in the ARS do NOT get to impose any requirements at all. The FCC makes the rules and, as a government entity, it has NO justification to make requirements that can not be justified. Agreed; the government lacks this power. I think you'll find that the demands of the ARS licensees could constitute "justification", if the FCC so desired. It is, ultimately, regulating a big club after all. It's very strange business, really. Regards, Len. |
"Dick Carroll;" writes:
wrote: "Dick Carroll;" writes: Wrong again, Bill. I define limited interest in ham radio as limited interest in ham radio. Where Ham Radio isn't Ham Radio if the CW testing requirement is dropped. I approve of keeping the requirement, but I dispute your right to define the ARS in terms like these. Oh. So you don't believe that limited interest is actually limited interest. I see. You aren't that dense, so of course you're making this straw man on purpose. You define "limited interest in CW" to be "limited interest in ARS" because you define ARS as inherently including CW. Since that's the topic under discussion, you are begging the question. I believe in keeping the CW requirement, and even adding a few more requirements, precisely to enhance the loyalty of licensees and to discourage those who wouldn't be active anyway, or would engage in bad practice. But I don't beg the original question; I've pointed out that a swimming requirement would do almost as well. IOW, I believe in weeding out those whose interest in ARS is sufficiently limited that he refuses to take and pass the swimming test--but I wouldn't say, "If you aren't interested in swimming a mile, you aren't interested in ARS." Likewise with CW. Regards, Len. |
wrote in message ... "Bill Sohl" writes: wrote: Why does it have to be relevant? If the participants in the ARS really want to impose a swimming requirement, then so what? Luckily, the "participants" in the ARS do NOT get to impose any requirements at all. The FCC makes the rules and, as a government entity, it has NO justification to make requirements that can not be justified. Agreed; the government lacks this power. I think you'll find that the demands of the ARS licensees could constitute "justification", if the FCC so desired. It is, ultimately, regulating a big club after all. It's very strange business, really. The limits of power for government agencies is found in 5 USC 706 that provides: "To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action." "The reviewing court shall - (1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be - (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; (D) without observance of procedure required by law; (E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or (F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court." "In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error." The Morse code exams are unnecessary [arbitrary]. 5 USC 706(2)(A). The only thing strange thing about this is how long the ITU and FCC allowed this nonsense to continue. Larry, kc8epo |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
On 05 Jul 2003 02:23:30 GMT, N2EY wrote: The big problem with essay and fill-in-the-blank questions is that the answers are not 100% objective. There's always a measure of judgement involved. For example, take a simple question like "what is the length of a half-wave dipole cut for 7.1 MHz?" With multiple choice, the QPC says that one answer (say, 66 feet) is the correct one and all others are incorrect. Want to make that one more fun? Do it like the 200 multi-guess questions on the Multistate Bar Exam: give four choices - two are obviously incorrect and two are "almost correct". Ask which of the four is the -best- answer. But with essays and fill-in-the-blank, what tolerance do we put on the correct answer? Is 67 feet acceptable? 68 feet? 66 feet 3 inches? The person being tested could write a long dissertation on tapering elements, the effect of ground, wire/tubing sizes, etc., and come up with a whole range of arguably-correct answers. And run into an examiner who doesn't understand all the nuances of such an answer..... From what I have researched, FCC went to multiple-choice questions for all ham exams no later than 1961. IIRC the Novice and Tech/General that I took in 1952 were all multi-choice. I was there then too, I'll vouch for that. The next written exam that I took was the Advanced in 1968 and by that time multi-choice was in place for a long time in all FCC license exams with the exception of two pages of diagrams in the Commercial Radiotelegraph Element 6 which had to be graded by an engineer, not a regular examiner. I read somewhere that the reasons the FCC dropped the essay-type exams of the '30's and earlier were (a) The answers were too subject to interpretation by the examiner and/or the candidate knew the correct answers but bungled the composition of his answers (b) Multiple choice answer sheets can be much more quickly graded, almost automatically with an overlay type checking mask. w3rv |
Dick Carroll; wrote:
wrote: "Dick Carroll;" writes: Wrong again, Bill. I define limited interest in ham radio as limited interest in ham radio. Where Ham Radio isn't Ham Radio if the CW testing requirement is dropped. I approve of keeping the requirement, but I dispute your right to define the ARS in terms like these. Oh. So you don't believe that limited interest is actually limited interest. I see. And Morse code wasn't mentioned, at least by me. REQUIREMENTS for the license was. I'm a bit confused by this whole thing, Dick. Even though we are talking about requirents - one of which is indeed the Morse code test - this whole argument is NOT about whether Morse code is good bad indifferent or whether it SHOULD be tested for or not. It's about it being a tested requirement, and that being the case, a person's interest can be gauged by their willingness to get a license or not, based on their dislike of that test requirement. If people don't want it to be about Morse code, substitute: "I won't becoame a ham because I don't want to take a written test." I won't become a ham, because I don't want to pay the testing fee." I won't become a ham because I don't think there should be any questions about RF safety." And I originally brough this up, so I know what I was speaking of. I'm saying that a person who is willing to meet the requirements for a ham license is more interested in being a ham than a person who is not willing to meet the requirements. Nothing mentioned about mode, or which particular requirement, nothing. Just meeting the requirements. But some people seem to know what we're gonna say even before we say it. There are only a few real arguments against my statement. That would be if a requirement were illegal, immoral, or causing harm to others. And last time I checked, there was nothing in the ARS licensing requirements that did that! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net NNTP-Posting-Time: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 10:22:27 -0500 (CDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: !^Th1k-Y,5+DF(0N'$e (Encoded at Airnews!) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 wrote in message ... I believe in keeping the CW requirement, and even adding a few more requirements, precisely to enhance the loyalty of licensees and to discourage those who wouldn't be active anyway, or would engage in bad practice. But I don't beg the original question; I've pointed out that a swimming requirement would do almost as well. Len, not to be argumentative, but there are numbers of hams who got their license even under more stringent testing requirements than the past few years, who are inactive and, of those still active, have terrible, terrible operating practices. CW doesn't prove loyalty, staying active, or provide for positive operating practices. It simply means one has passed a CW test, don't you think? Kim W5TIT IOW, I believe in weeding out those whose interest in ARS is sufficiently limited that he refuses to take and pass the swimming test--but I wouldn't say, "If you aren't interested in swimming a mile, you aren't interested in ARS." Likewise with CW. Regards, Len. Again, I don't believe in "weeding out" anyone who can and wants to pass the requirements to get a ham license. And passing CW doesn't weed out anything, heck, listen to any of the HF frequencies that we all have heard with the creeps and nitwits on. The only "area" in which the frequencies may prove out your belief is, literally, on the CW bands, where--simply because of the mode of operation--bad operating practices aren't easily facilitated. I know many hams who claim to be "pure of heart" for the sake of their fellow CW-only friends who, the minute they get on 2M or in an eyeball meeting, rival any bad practices I've heard and have the language of the rest of us when we are speaking verbally! GRIN CW alone doesn't equal good operating, etc. The mode just simply doesn't facilitate anything but a jargon based language that is difficult to spend time swearing, cursing, etc. Kim W5TIT |
Dee D. Flint wrote: Yes you need the high school diploma to get by in life but you don't "need" a lot of the subjects that you are required to learn. How often do you use history in daily life unless you are a teacher or politician? Who needs to have knowledge of Shakespeare and other classic literature to get by in daily life? If you are going to talk Shakespeare with my wife (High School English Literature teacher) you better be able to recite the prolog from the Canterbury tales in Olde English. |
|
Mike Coslo writes:
wrote: You define "limited interest in CW" to be "limited interest in ARS" because you define ARS as inherently including CW. Since that's the topic under discussion, you are begging the question. Where did Dick make that quote? http://tinyurl.com/g5wj Regards, Len. |
"Dick Carroll;" writes:
Len wrote: You define "limited interest in CW" to be "limited interest in ARS" because you define ARS as inherently including CW. Since that's the topic under discussion, you are begging the question. NO, that's not the topic under discussion. The topic under discussion was the REQUIREMENTS for licensing, whatever they might be. Let's run through this slowly. The question is whether the CW component of the ARS licensure requirement should be kept. (I say yes.) If the requirement were dropped, then the ARS would have no CW requirement. Participation in the hobby would not involve the mandatory learning of code. The ARS would be a hobby in which some people learned code, and some people didn't. Clear? Under that circumstance, people who got their "no-code extra" would be participants in the ARS. Some of them wouldn't know Morse Code at all. You would reply that they have "limited interest in the ARS". That would be untrue; they have plenty of interest in the ARS, but no interest in CW. To equate "no interest in CW" with "limited interest in the ARS" involves defining the ARS as inherently requiring CW--that the ARS without CW isn't really the ARS at all. But whether the ARS should require CW at all is the topic under discussion. You're begging the question. (It's possible to patch up your argument so that it doesn't beg the question. But saying, "You don't want to learn CW, therefore you aren't interested in the ARS" is pointless and begs the question.) I believe in keeping the CW requirement, and even adding a few more requirements, precisely to enhance the loyalty of licensees and to discourage those who wouldn't be active anyway, or would engage in bad practice... Really? And how would a swimming requirement add to the operational capability of a ham radio operator? I didn't say it would. Learn to read. (Note: learning CW doesn't affect the operational capability of someone who never uses it.) If you support Morse code testing I assume you already know how Morse code proficiency adds to the communications capability of a ham radio operator. Only if used. If not, the operator might as well have learned landline telegraph code. The benefit for the hobby would still accrue, though. Ah, you're already the enemy of the code free, and that just cinches it. "weed them out" will get you no friends and lots of enemies on here. Barriers to entry are good. Weeding out the diffident is beneficial. If that ticks off the diffident, they can have a latte and a good cry, on the house. Since swimming has about as much to do with radiocommunication as tiddlewinks you're just blowing smoke now. Interest level is interest level, you can't change it by playing semantics. Interest is demonstrated by making the effort. The nature of the effort is secondary--but if it meets some operational objective, so much the better. Regards, Len. |
"Kim W5TIT" writes:
wrote: I believe in keeping the CW requirement, and even adding a few more requirements, precisely to enhance the loyalty of licensees and to discourage those who wouldn't be active anyway, or would engage in bad practice... Len, not to be argumentative, but there are numbers of hams who got their license even under more stringent testing requirements than the past few years, who are inactive and, of those still active, have terrible, terrible operating practices. You're right; it's a battle that can never be won. Refusing to fight it only makes matters worse, unfortunately. CW doesn't prove loyalty, staying active, or provide for positive operating practices. We won't know until we have hard data--which we won't have until the requirement is dropped. Then we can ask: how many people got their no-code extras? How many are active? How long did they stay active? The issue is compounded because valid statistics on the current situation are probably not available, so a comparison can never be made. All we can do is theorize, which is (as one poster said) nothing but blowing smoke. Again, I don't believe in "weeding out" anyone who can and wants to pass the requirements to get a ham license. Me neither. I believe in "weeding out" those who won't. Exactly where to place the bar is a danged good question. And passing CW doesn't weed out anything, heck, listen to any of the HF frequencies that we all have heard with the creeps and nitwits on. Let's go vigilante and give their names to Riley--you and me. Whaddaya say? The only "area" in which the frequencies may prove out your belief is, literally, on the CW bands, where--simply because of the mode of operation--bad operating practices aren't easily facilitated. That's one of the reasons I expect to use CW as my primary mode. CW alone doesn't equal good operating, etc. Never said it did. Raising entry barriers to the right level, on the one hand, and beefing up enforcement, on the other, can sure help. Regards, Len. PS Of course I'm also interested in CW for historical reasons, but that alone probably wouldn't make me advocate it as a licensure requirement. |
|
Mike Coslo writes:
Where did Dick make that quote? http://tinyurl.com/g5wj I searched that message, and nowhere was to be found "Limited interest in CW" I get it. You don't know what "no-code" means. Sorry, can't help you. Regards, Len. |
|
Let's see if this new server gets all upset at a long post
wrote in message ... "Kim W5TIT" writes: wrote: I believe in keeping the CW requirement, and even adding a few more requirements, precisely to enhance the loyalty of licensees and to discourage those who wouldn't be active anyway, or would engage in bad practice... Len, not to be argumentative, but there are numbers of hams who got their license even under more stringent testing requirements than the past few years, who are inactive and, of those still active, have terrible, terrible operating practices. You're right; it's a battle that can never be won. Refusing to fight it only makes matters worse, unfortunately. CW doesn't prove loyalty, staying active, or provide for positive operating practices. We won't know until we have hard data--which we won't have until the requirement is dropped. Then we can ask: how many people got their no-code extras? How many are active? How long did they stay active? Well, we kind of already have some pretty good barometers. Those HF hams with the crappy operating practices that any one of us can listen to, right? I'm not sure the current potential for the demise of CW as a testing element will affect, one way or the other, the potential for good or bad operating practices. The issue is compounded because valid statistics on the current situation are probably not available, so a comparison can never be made. All we can do is theorize, which is (as one poster said) nothing but blowing smoke. Well, that is what is mostly done, here in this newsgruop anyway GRIN. Again, I don't believe in "weeding out" anyone who can and wants to pass the requirements to get a ham license. Me neither. I believe in "weeding out" those who won't. Exactly where to place the bar is a danged good question. You know what I have found? Nitwits that get on the air are often off the air pretty darned quick. I've found through listening and actively participating that a crappy operator is soon ignored by many and they get fed up and go away. The problem is the flow never ebbs with all the people getting into ham radio at any given point. There will *always* be crappy new operators and crappy old operators. And passing CW doesn't weed out anything, heck, listen to any of the HF frequencies that we all have heard with the creeps and nitwits on. Let's go vigilante and give their names to Riley--you and me. Whaddaya say? Heh heh, from what I hear a lot of the old geezers doing this have been there forever. And, I've given some names up before--to no avail. It depends on how close one is to the higher echelon. I'm pretty far down on the totem pole. The only "area" in which the frequencies may prove out your belief is, literally, on the CW bands, where--simply because of the mode of operation--bad operating practices aren't easily facilitated. That's one of the reasons I expect to use CW as my primary mode. I'm not that desperate BIG EVIL GRIN for mere conversation. If I am that desperate I'll run down to my local Starbucks and find a "cool" person to talk to...LOL I hate to insult your intelligence by clarifying, but I do hope you'll take this in the light(hearted) that it is meant to be. Heck, Dick Carroll and Larry Roll can go on in anger/hate for a year or more with this one sentence... CW alone doesn't equal good operating, etc. Never said it did. Raising entry barriers to the right level, on the one hand, and beefing up enforcement, on the other, can sure help. Oh, I know you didn't. But, I know that Dick Carroll and Larry Roll are reading my posts ;) Regards, Len. PS Of course I'm also interested in CW for historical reasons, but that alone probably wouldn't make me advocate it as a licensure requirement. Tradition and a respect for it are the only reasons I advocate that 5 wpm remain as a testing requirement. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
|
|
Mike Coslo writes:
Ahh, there the problem is! At some point in the dark past, I mentioned that I thought that a person who was interested in the ARS would take whatever tests thrown at them. I noted at the time that this was a separate issue from whether the Morse test should be kept or not. Missed that. If so, I concede we have a misunderstanding! And, indeed, that we agree. (My illustration using a swimming test is of course a more extreme version of exactly what you say above.) To me it just seemed logical and a little obvious. We have a person or two here who say they refuse to get a license or advanced license because of the Morse code test. I have a really hard time concluding that they have more of an interest in Amateur radio than those who do take the tests. I agree completely. Regards, Len. |
"Kim W5TIT" writes:
"Mike Coslo" wrote: I have a really hard time concluding that they have more of an interest in Amateur radio than those who do take the tests. I don't know, Mike. In theory you may be right. But, in practicality, it is my belief that someone can have an extreme interest in ham radio and never get a license. Mike's position is roughly equivalent to an Austrian economist's: you can say you have an "extreme interest" in owning a Jaguar, but the people who pony up the $60K are _proving_ their "extreme interest". As Mises would say, people's words do not demonstrate their values--their actions do. And so it goes. I don't think anyone is more passionate about emergency service than I used to be, but I was never involved on the operational side--only on the training/process/advocacy side. True, but that's a boundary case. Mike's position is unchanged if he replaces "interest in ARS" with "interest in participating in ARS" everywhere. Regards, Len. |
"Kim W5TIT" writes:
wrote: That's one of the reasons I expect to use CW as my primary mode. I'm not that desperate BIG EVIL GRIN for mere conversation. Heh. CW users don't usually converse anyway--they usually exchange RST reports. The payoff for me will be soldering a kit with my son, and then hearing him holler, "Mommy, Abba and I just talked to Korea!" CW alone doesn't equal good operating, etc. Never said it did. Raising entry barriers to the right level, on the one hand, and beefing up enforcement, on the other, can sure help. Oh, I know you didn't. But, I know that Dick Carroll and Larry Roll are reading my posts ;) I have a fondness for curmudgeons. They add pepper to life. As long as they don't insult me (too badly), I've got no quarrel with them. Tradition and a respect for it are the only reasons I advocate that 5 wpm remain as a testing requirement. The ARS without morse does seem to me a bit like PB&J with no J. :-) Regards, Len. |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... wrote: "Dick Carroll;" writes: Len wrote: You define "limited interest in CW" to be "limited interest in ARS" because you define ARS as inherently including CW. Since that's the topic under discussion, you are begging the question. NO, that's not the topic under discussion. The topic under discussion was the REQUIREMENTS for licensing, whatever they might be. Let's run through this slowly. The question is whether the CW component of the ARS licensure requirement should be kept. (I say yes.) Ahh, there the problem is! At some point in the dark past, I mentioned that I thought that a person who was interested in the ARS would take whatever tests thrown at them. I noted at the time that this was a separate issue from whether the Morse test should be kept or not. To me it just seemed logical and a little obvious. We have a person or two here who say they refuse to get a license or advanced license because of the Morse code test. I have a really hard time concluding that they have more of an interest in Amateur radio than those who do take the tests. note: no one has to become a ham, no one has to become a General or Extra. - Mike KB3EIA - I don't know, Mike. In theory you may be right. But, in practicality, it is my belief that someone can have an extreme interest in ham radio and never get a license. For instance: An FCC employee may take up some cause for amateur radio just because they are extremely interested in see the service/hobby have whatever "cause" it is they've decided to take up. (Good grief, follow that one, will ya? LOL) Now I have a headache! 8^) A parent make have more interest in ham radio than many amateurs (proven by being very involved in legislative matters concerning ham radio) because their kid is involved. And so it goes. I don't think anyone is more passionate about emergency service than I used to be, but I was never involved on the operational side--only on the training/process/advocacy side. You see what I mean? Well I'll admit for any possibility. It's a big strange world. I think your situation kind of works for what I was saying though. For what you were interested in, the technician's license was adequate. Remember, I'm not saying that lack of interest is a bad thing. What I am saying is that professed interest followed by not pursuing that interest because of some "unfairness" (like CW testing) or somesuch is pretty odd. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
Dwight Stewart wrote in message ...
At this point in the ITU conference, it does not look good for a change in the Morse Code proficiency requirement as a treaty obligation for high-frequency access. The ITU no longer requires Morse testing, and has left it to each Administration to decide for themselves if they wish to require the test. Thus it is now up to someone to petition FCC to remove the requirement from US regulations. Let the games begin (again). With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB |
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:44:50 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:
Yes you need the high school diploma to get by in life but you don't "need" a lot of the subjects that you are required to learn. How often do you use history in daily life unless you are a teacher or politician? Who needs to have knowledge of Shakespeare and other classic literature to get by in daily life? In my "daily life" with my wife I -better- know that stuff because we both make references to exotica in those areas, and one does not want to be considered an ignoramus or unlettered by one's spouse, right? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com