"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Kim" wrote in message
...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Kim wrote:

Dan, I can understand your exasperation with people who choose not
to
learn
CW or decide that they don't like it. However, that is as far as
the
understanding goes. It seems impossible to me that you can't
understand
that people know what they do, or don't, like.

Kim,

Have you *ever* had the experience of "having to" try something you
thought you wouldn't like, and finding out you really enjoyed it?


I'll truly have to get back to you on that! Just sitting here thinking
about it, I can come up with more examples of things that I knew I would not
like that have come true:

1. Moving to Texas. Yes, I have "become accustomed" to being down here.
But I'd much rather really be right back up in my hometown with the
Battenkill River, Goose Egg Mountain, the Vermont border in eye's sight,
etc.

2. Working in downtown Dallas. Again yes, I have "become accustomed" to it,
but I knew I would not like it and I really don't. It's just that the
darned money is so good, 'spose I am willing to sacrifice a little to have
the money...

3. Having kids. Seriously. All the time I was growing up and as a
teen-ager, I knew I would not like having kids. Well, I tried a couple out.
I love both of them dearly and my granddaughter is divine--but I'd never go
through having kids again if I could go back and knew then what I know now


Do you know anyone who has had such an experience?


I'd have to check. I don't know.


We all have to learn things that we may not like all that much. I had
to sit and learn classes in school that I found boring to distraction.

I think there's a difference between what we "must" learn in school for
a
real degree vs. what we must know to operate as a licensed amateur. I
don't
need an amateur license to "get by" in life. I do need my High School
Diploma, or better, to get by.

That reasoning works to support Mike's argument. If a high school
diploma is a practical necessity, why should it require ANY
non-essentials?


Oh, well. I don't think it should. I think things such as Sports and Band,
etc, (the so-called extra-curicular activities) should be in there--as I
think they help form skills that will be needed in the world. But, in the
regular K-12 school years, I think things such as elective courses really
need to be "rethunk." I took Greek Mythology, Philosophy, Psychology, etc.,
in my years of High School, but I really don't think they should have been
available and don't think they should be today: EXCEPT, perhaps, in magnet
schools (down here, the term magnet school, defines schooling set aside for
"gifted" children).


Those nonessentials could be considered arbitrary,
capricious, irrelevant, discriminatory, hazing, etc.


Exactly, and I think they are to some extent, at least on a regular campus.
Those of who were involved in classes such as Latin and, well, the
"renaissance" courses(?) were considered quite the nerds--and we considered
anyone outside our circle as squares. There was nothing to teach us that
people have different interests and that all are OK. Well, at least nothing
taught more strongly than teen-age hormones raged! LOL


OTOH, since a ham
license is not a necessity, it can require all sorts of stuff that
some would say is nonessential.


And, does. And, again, I think the non-essential stuff should be removed.
I'd rather see a majority of hams define what is non-essential, though; and
I'd like to see those decisions being made without ego or prejudice.


For instance, I happen to absolutely know I would not enjoy jumping
out
of
an airplane to parachute. I've never tried it, no. But I don't
intend
to
because "it's just not me."

But if you wanted to parachute out of planes, you would indeed have to
jump out of a plane. I know that sounds redundant or maybe redumbdant,
but it helps prove my point. You aren't that interested in that sort
of
hobby, so you don't do it. It is strange that so many people have a
problem with my basic premise: that people who aren't willing to learn
the requirements are not all that interested in the ARS. In this case,
the requirement is the Morse test.

Not really a good analogy, because in order to parachute you have to
jump out of, or off of, something.

I don't have a problem with the CW requirement for an amateur ticket on
its
face. However, if its primary purpose is that of "filtering" people
from
the hobby, as many attitudes seem to demonstrate, then I am all about
getting the requirement outta here.

I think what really bothers some folks about the code test is the fact
that it acts as a "Great Equalizer". Very few prospective hams already
know the code, which means that, when starting out to get a license,
the Ph.D. in EE is placed on the same playing field as the elementary
school kid. It can't be learned (by most people) by reading a book or
watching a video, or picked up in bits and pieces here and there.
Guessing doesn't help you pass it.


Many of us do have such a problem with being on an "even playing field,"
don't we? Pity.


Also, once you learn it, the code is extremely useful in amateur
radio. Particularly HF/MF amateur radio.

I do not believe that a knowledge of CW
makes one any better a ham than any other.

I think it does. Maybe not the test itself alone, but the USE of the
mode. It's a useful skill for hams to have. That doesn't mean it MUST
be tested, however.


Ah, but would there be alternatives you would consider as a good
replacement, since CW--after all--is such an issue among hams?


I also don't believe, as you
mention later in this post, that one's interest level is important to
this
hobby.

So, why is it so difficult for you to understand that people can and
do
make
the decision that the CW part of this hobby is something they are
not
interested in? Are you saying that there is nothing you would not
try
to
see if you liked it or not? You don't know yourself well enough?

If a person does not want to take the Morse test, that is their right
and privilege. They won't get the HF ticket however.

At least not right now, eh?

You got a date in The Pool yet? (see the thread by that name)


No, haven't looked at that one. I'll check it out.


If they are interested in the ARS, but do not learn Morse because they
don't like it, they are not as interested as someone who does make the
effort.

But, who dictates that "interest" is a necessity for this
hobby/avocation?

The FCC, among others. If someone is interested in the ARS, but does
not bother to get a license because they don't like taking (written)
tests or studying for same, then they are not as interested as someone
who does make the effort.


To the extent that meeting requirements could be considered as indicating
interest, I suppose you have a point. I was thinking more in terms of, if
the requirements were reduced, would it mean there were "less interested"
hams? Heck, for me, anyone who persists through the brickabrack that
happens in this hobby is surely demonstrating an increble interest!! I have
practically given up on ham radio. Between my husband and I, there is not
one radio (of about 25) that is connected right now. It's just too damned
much of a political hotbed for anyone who truly wants to be involved in ham
radio (at least around here).


I don't care about someone's interest level. There are, what
Jim/N2EY(?),
650,000+ amateurs in this country alone.

686,802 as of yesterday. ;-)

But how many of them are active?


Heh heh. Two here aren't.


Of them, there are numbers of
every kind of thinking and interest level, right? I don't care about
someone's "interest." I care that once they are a licensed amateur they
conduct themselves within the parameters of the FCC's R&R.

OK, fine - now how do we assure that? Look at the enforcement actions
by FCC - hams of all license classes being cited for doing dumb
things. Each and every one of them had to pass a written test - in
most cases, several written tests. Yet they break the rules, and in
most cases the violations are not technical things like a misadjusted
or broken rig. Instead, most of the violations I read about today are
"operating" violations - jamming, cussing, failure to ID, operation
outside of one's license privileges, etc. Really basic stuff that was
covered at the Novice level.

Yet almost all of that stuff happens using voice modes, rather than CW
or data modes. There must be reasons for the enormous disparity in
behavior.

That is all that is required.

So how do we get it?

73 de Jim, N2EY


Well, adhering to the FCC R&R is not a choice. At least it isn't if one
gets caught. And, if more hams were willing to "snitch" on each other,
there'd be a better chance of catching those who don't abide by regulation.

Kim W5TIT

As an international treaty requirement Morse knowledge
has died as of 7/5/03:

The IARU web site has release it final report on WRC 2003.

You can read the full report at: http://www.iaru.org/rel030703.html

The final version of S25.5 & S25.6 a

25.5 §3 1) Administrations shall determine whether or not a person
seeking a licence to operate an amateur station shall demonstrate
the ability to send and receive texts in Morse code signals.

25.6 2) Administrations shall verify the operational and technical
qualifications of any person wishing to operate an amateur station.
Guidance for standards of competence may be found in the
most recent version of Recommendation ITU-RM.1544.

They say the effective date is July 5, 2003.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"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/

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:

Dan, I can understand your exasperation with people who choose not to
learn
CW or decide that they don't like it. However, that is as far as the
understanding goes. It seems impossible to me that you can't
understand
that people know what they do, or don't, like.

We all have to learn things that we may not like all that much. I had
to sit and learn classes in school that I found boring to distraction.


I think there's a difference between what we "must" learn in school for a
real degree vs. what we must know to operate as a licensed amateur. I
don't
need an amateur license to "get by" in life. I do need my High School
Diploma, or better, to get by.


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? Yet to get that high school diploma (which you need), you have
to take subjects that are "unneeded". However, they are considered part of
a well rounded basic education so you have to take them and pass them to get
that diploma.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

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.

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

"K0HB" wrote:

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. (snip)


The message you replied to was posted many days ago as a commentary on the
speculation at that time surrounding the test requirement issue at the ITU
meeting. Clearly, since that message, the issue has been resolved - ending
the speculation.


Thus it is now up to someone to petition FCC to
remove the requirement from US regulations.

Let the games begin (again).


Yes, now the speculation has begun concerning possible future FCC actions
in response to the ITU decision. That should be good for many weeks of
additional speculation and argument.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"K0HB" wrote:


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. (snip)



The message you replied to was posted many days ago as a commentary on the
speculation at that time surrounding the test requirement issue at the ITU
meeting. Clearly, since that message, the issue has been resolved - ending
the speculation.



Thus it is now up to someone to petition FCC to
remove the requirement from US regulations.

Let the games begin (again).



Yes, now the speculation has begun concerning possible future FCC actions
in response to the ITU decision. That should be good for many weeks of
additional speculation and argument.


Gee Dwight, this harms you in some manner?

- Mike KB3EIA -