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

"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.

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

"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.