JJ wrote:

N2EY wrote:


A question for JJ: Are you against the MODE, or just the TEST? Words like
"antiquated" and "obsolete", when applied to a mode, don't indicate support to
most people.

I am not against the mode, and not sure it is necessary to testing
anymore. CW will continue for some time to come to be a ham radio
tradition and will be in use on the bands probably long after most
of us are gone, even if it is dropped from the requirements to
obtain a license. The use of "antiquated" or "obsolete" does not
automatically imply against. A Ford Model T is antiquated and
obsolete as compared to modern day automobiles, but I certainly am
not against those who restore and run Model T's, I really like
seeing one go down the street. I restore old "antiquated" and
"obsolete" radios, and play them every day.
I am against those who think that they are far superior to others
just because they use and support CW as opposed to those who chose
not to use that mode. There are those on this group who constantly
remind everyone how much superior they are and they are the "real"
hams just because they like to use CW. They are no more superior
or a "real" ham than the ham who chooses not to use that mode. It
is all their inflated egos and nothing else. Their opinion of the
importance of CW is just that, their opinion and nothing more. CW
isn't going to save the world.

JJ you really don't need to display yourself as a code illiterate, just because
you're
irritated that someone would actually advocate using it on the air. You don't have
to.
But you can't seem to help yourself. If you've never observed radio operators - REAL

radio operators, using code in a very efficient way, that's just your loss. No need
for you to
act so stupid over it.

Some people can, others "just don't want to". You can be one of those if you wish.

On 13 Jul 2003 05:53:12 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

The only no-coders I bother to "ridicule" are those who offer the typically
inane arguments that code testing is somehow detrimental to the future
of the ARS -- usually by discouraging the involvement of computer-
literate, technically-involved young people. The truth about these
people is that they just want to get on HF phone and yak away -- and for
the most part, haven't a clue as to what's happening inside their off-the-
shelf ham radio appliance.

I'm sure that's true for some. I'm also sure it's not true for all.
The average computer-literate, technically involved people tend to be
able to, for example, assemble a computer from its basic elements
(case, power supply, motherboard and perhaps some daughterboards),
connect the peripherals, install an OS and other software without a
dozen calls to a tech support hotline, and end up with a viable
working machine.

Folks who can do this are technically involved in comparison to the
folks who don't even know which port the monitor plugs into. They
aren't technically involved in comparison to the guy who designed the
motherboard in the first place. However, even in the industry, very
few people do component level repairs on motherboards and
daughterboards any more. What of it? Who do you know that's designed
and built a multi-band HF rig lately? Some have, of course...most of
them work for Kenwood, Icom, Yaesu, Alinco, etc.

Of those that are able to do component level repairs on computer
equipment, they probably have much of the knowledge needed to pass our
written exams, except they lack the specialized knowledge of RF.
Certainly, though, it would seem they have the capacity to learn it -
but when the first thing we do is hit them with something over a
hundred years old and tell them this is our lowest common denominator,
I have no doubt that it causes a lot of people to think, "@#$&%^*
that!" and find another hobby...perhaps they already have one.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Had a life, got a modem...

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 03:38:46 GMT, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Kim W5TIT wrote:
To state something does not make it so.

You never watched Star Trek TNG, eh?

I believe what Captain Picard said was, "Wishing for a thing does not
make it so."

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Very funny, Scotty...now beam down my pants!

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:14:23 GMT, Dick Carroll
wrote:


Let's face facts Carl- You can'nt function as a proficient CW communicator. I can.
That
simply makes me better qualified as a ham radio operator than you, test or no test.

It makes you better qualified to operate CW, period. Now, if the
activity at hand is operating in the SSB portion of November
Sweepstakes (or any other phone contest), or in the RTTY roundup, or
on an SSTV net, then your CW proficiency, taken by itself, makes you
no better qualified than my 10-year old daughter.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Daddy, what's this red button fo#$%^&*(NO CARRIER

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:26:00 GMT, Dick Carroll
wrote:

Just as I would have skipped learning the code if it hadn't been a
licensing
requirement, too.

Is that a chink in Dick's armor? Quick, Jose, my soldering iron!

So much for your advocacy of morse to new hams.
You made my point.

Bill you have been quite consistant about missing the entire point. When there is no
code test most hams won't learn Morse code.

I can't substantiate this statistically off the top of my head, but it
wouldn't surprise me to learn that a majority of hams already aren't
all that proficient with Morse to begin with. I was forced to learn it
to upgrade from Tech to General, but I learned it only well enough to
pass the test (by correctly copying the phrase "My QTH is Malibu,
California." rather than by answering the multiple choice questions -
since the comma and period count as two characters each, that gave me
one minute of solid copy), and basically haven't used it since.

I did try once...used the club station, went down in the lower portion
of 15 where I frequently hear some slower CW ops...send "CQ CQ CQ DE"
and my callsign twice, at about 5 WPM because I didn't want to send
faster than I could copy...then realized that in the amount of time it
took me to do that I could have already had a contact in the log on
phone...and that I did not and do not have the patience for CW.

I'd have a hard time believing there aren't a heck of a lot of 5 WPM
Generals and Extras out there who've gone through the same thing. Add
those to the no-code Techs and you might well be pretty close to half
the entire ham population in the U.S. for all I know.

I know that taxes you not a bit, so that means that you don't care whether
or not hams will be losing it as a viable mode.

Now it is you who might be missing the point. The code test will be
gone - as someone else in this NG likes to say, the government life
support system will be turned off. That, in and of itself, does not
guarantee that ham radio will lose CW as a viable mode, it only
guarantees that if the ARS is to keep CW as a viable mode, it behooves
those who want it to continue as such to find another way to get hams
to learn the code.

Now, to repeat the point I have been trying to make in this thread. On
the one hand we have guys like Arnie who will respect a fellow ham as
a fellow ham, regardless of whether that ham can do 50 WPM or
zero...will encourage people to learn the code and use the mode, bend
over backwards to help them do it, slow down his own sending so they
can copy it at their own speed, and just generally being reasonable
and friendly and giving people every encouragement.

On the other hand, we have guys snarling like angry dogs at people for
doing what you yourself would have done if you'd had the choice at the
time...people calling guys lazy, good for nothing, saying they aren't
"real" hams, and just generally being unreasonable, unfriendly, and in
some cases hypocritical as well.

Caught in the middle will be a whole generation of new hams who will
decide for themselves if they want to learn the code or not, sitting
there on the fence between the folks continuing the CW tradition in
ham radio and the folks who want nothing to do with Morse. The folks
on the no-code side will welcome them into the hobby regardless. The
folks on the other side...well...it looks good over where Arnie is,
but with all those snarling dogs over there, I dunno...

What I guess I'm trying to say is, we need less snarling dogs and more
people looking for a reasonable approach to the problem.

Which shows how shortsighted you are, right along with the rest of NCI.
And yes, FCC too. Of course they have far bigger fish to fry than to worry
about a trivial detail involving the ARS.

First of all, if it's so trivial, why is everybody getting their
panties in a bunch about it?

Secondly, I think the ARS itself has bigger fish to fry. To name just
one, BPL used to mean Brass Pounders' League. Now it means the noise
floor on your HF rig is about to go through the ceiling and put your
S-meter into orbit.

The least time they must spend on ARS issues the better for them,
whatever the end result.

Can't say as I really blame them. Everybody wants to be the fire
department in a town with no fires. Aside from the political
appointees, FCC is men and women who get up in the morning, go to
work, then go home at the end of the day, same as I do. I do what I
can to make my job easier, what makes them any different? So, FCC is
not going to solve the problem for us. Care to hazard a WAG as to
who's left to come up with a solution?

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:49:34 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

Just as I would have skipped learning the code if it hadn't been a
licensing
requirement, too.


So, the only effort you are willing to expend is one which is forced upon
you?

Then, having been duly forced - completely against his will - he
actually began to like it...so the story goes. Next we'll be hearing
that women secretly enjoy being raped.

Seriously, though, he had an option. Unless somebody forced him to get
a ham license.....

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

On 13 Jul 2003 05:53:16 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

My belief that "Morse makes the ham" is based on the fact that radio amateurs,
as members of a voluntary, hobbyist-based radio communications service, can
justify our existence, and hold on vast amounts of commercially viable
spectrum,
only if we have communications skills that give us an "edge" under difficult
communications conditions.

Morse is only one such advantage that hams have. A few others:

1. When disaster renders the normal communications systems of local
governmental agencies inoperable, it needs to be repaired or replaced.
There are procedures to be followed to spend money to buy new gear or
have the old gear repaired. Ever try to solicit bids for a new radio
system when your town hall is flooded halfway to the ceiling? I don't
recommend it.

Enter ham radio operators, who collectively have literally tons of
radio gear, along with methods of powering it, stockpiled at no
expense to the taxpayers. We're the built-in backups in a community,
and that's true whether we use SSB, CW, or carrier pigeons. As long as
we get the job done.

2. Most public safety professionals (by which I mean law enforcement,
fire supression, EMS, and SAR personnel) know precisely this about the
radios they use on the job: Either it works or it doesn't. Either the
city cops can talk directly to the county sheriffs or they can't.
Change to a different radio? Sure...just get a new radio...see item
number (1) above for the problem with that.

Enter ham radio operators, who, if one frequency doesn't work, will
keep trying another, and then another, and then another, until we find
one that does work. It's intrinsic to the way we operate, our
equipment is designed with that in mind (unlike most commercial gear
used by public safety professionals, which is designed with entirely
different considerations in mind). We think nothing of it, but to the
average cop or fireman with a radio that has one repeater frequency
and one talkaround (both on the same band) it's wizardry.

Want me to continue?

Morse/CW does this in ways which you most
certainly are aware of, but must reject out of deference to your anti-code test
agenda. With all due respect, the "quasi-religious-faith belief" seems to
exist
on the side of those who insist that Morse code proficiency is somehow
irrelevant
to the ARS now and in the future.

I think it's on both sides. I also think it's rather silly to keep
arguing good-thing/bad-thing at this point. Regardless of what you may
think or what I may think, or Arnie or Kim or anyone else, I think we
can all predict what's eventually going to happen. Therefore, the
subject for debate ought to be what we're going to do when it does.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

On 13 Jul 2003 05:53:17 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:


So be it. In any case, the coming generation of New Age, Dumbed-Down,
No-Coder hams

That statement just convinced a few thousand people to try CW on its
own merits...NOT!

aren't likely to seeking any kudos from me on their CW
skills.

They are, however, likely to seek refuge from your insulting rhetoric.

I would hope that any who learned the code and became proficient
with it's use on-the-air, would do so for their own personal gratification and
to add that skill to their overall capability as a radio amateur.

I hope so too, Larry, because with your apparent attitude towards
fellow hams, they sure as heck aren't going to be leqarning it so they
can put your call in the logbook.

Of course,
that is a concept that you will naturally reject, out of the necessity of your
agenda to justify your own lack of useful communications skills.

My, my, Larry, she does get under your skin, doesn't she? Are you sure
there isn't more to this than meets the eye? :-)

Don't
worry -- our expectations of you are small.

Why don't you quit beating around the bush and just ask her whether or
not size really matters?

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 02:42:30 -0400, "Arnie Macy"
wrote:


At this year's Field Day, our two little CW ops out
performed (in contacts per hour) our SSB friends by ten to one on the same
band during the exact same period of time. Now I realize that you were not
talking about CW vs SSB, but the analogy is still interesting, huh? Why do
you think that happened, Carl? (hint: I'm sure it had nothing to do with
poor band conditions)

There are other possible explanations for this other than mode
selection. That could also happen because the CW guys were "running"
QSOs while the phone guys were hunting and pouncing. It could also be
because the CW ops were simply more experienced contesters and, for
all we know, could have also outdone the SSB guys by ten to one on SSB
as well.

OTOH, you could be right.... :-)

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 02:51:42 -0400, "Arnie Macy"
wrote:

"JJ" wrote ...

Since the beginning of the use of phone in ham radio, I would be interested
to know of any disaster where ham radio was used for communications and CW
was the only means of communications that could get through. I don't mean CW
was used just because someone wanted to or because they only had CW
capabilities, but because it was the ONLY mode that could get through.
_________________________________________________ _________________________

We used it when Floyd hit in 1999. We were having a hard time getting
through on SSB, so switched over to CW and continued ops until the band
conditions improved. CW didn't "save the day", but it sure came in handy
when needed. It is still an integral part of our EMA plan. Remember, in
disaster planning, we try to use *all* of the tools available to us. Maybe
one day, the light will come on for you and you'll understand that concept.

Don't look now, but as I type this, Charlotte is approaching. We may
get an object lesson here shortly after it makes landfall (not that I
or anyone else is hoping for that, except perhaps Larry who is shining
his straight key in anticipation).

73 DE John, KC2HMZ