"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

I like kyaking, but I don't believe that everyone should be a proficent
kyaker to go into the water.

You'd think that one who likes "kyaking" could spell "kayak", Squiggy.
Looks like you've chosen a poor analogy. Your view would more properly
expressed by stating that with modern power boat technology, no
individual should be forced to jump through the swimming hoop.

Dave K8MN

Alun Palmer wrote:

some snippage


What about me? I passed 20wpm and choose not to use it atall? No doubt I
will be told I'm missing out, but I'm doing exactly what I want to.

No one sez you have to use it. I'm not forced to do those silly
satellite ops either. But I gotta test for them.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dick Carroll wrote:

JJ wrote:


Larry Roll K3LT wrote:


Were it not for the occasional usefulness of the 2-meter band to
"real" ham radio operators like you and me,

With you and Dick holding yourselves up as "real" hams, I can see
why some turn their back on ham radio and stay on cb.


JJ, one does as one is. Even Forrest Gump knew that.
Look for excuses and there are always some to be found.

I'm much too busy to look for excuses...... ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote ...

If find your comparison of yourself (and Larry) to Forest Gump to be most
appropriate :-) "Stupid is as stupid does." was the saying from the movie
.... and while I don't actually think either you or Larry actually ARE
stupid, you both certainly ACT that way.
__________________________________________________ _________________________

And when did you become the expert on who and who is not intelligent, Carl?

Arnie -
KT4ST


"What a fine thing it is to have an intellect, and room enough in the seat
of your breeches to hold it."

-Mark Twain

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...

"JJ" wrote ...

BS, the services realized that with modern technology CW is an outdated,
antiquated mode, no longer useful to them. You are living in your ham

radio

dream world too stubborn to see the truth.
________________________________________________ ______________________

Hey JJ -- did you forget that SSB is over 60 years old? By your logic,

it's

time to shut that antiquated puppy down as well. I mean, there are MUCH
more modern modes out there, right? Or are you too stubborn to see the
truth?

Arnie -
KT4ST


Arnie,

The technical fact of the matter is that SSB is just about as efficient as
it
gets for voice communications. The baseband (audio frequencies) are
translated to RF and back, with the result that the RF signal is no wider
than
required to convey the baseband bandwidth. (unless, of course you're
running things into clipping and causing all sorts of intermod products)

While digital voice has some advantages in some applications (particularly
if one wants to use mixed media, such as VOIP links), even the best
low-rate codecs require a bandwidth at least as wide as SSB and at those
coding rates don't provide the same fidelity (speaker recognition, tonal
quality, etc.) due to the coding involved.

Yes, SSB is at least 60 years old ... but Morse is what? About 3X as
old?

SSB - established mathematically in 1914, First patent in 1923, first
transatlantic transmission in 1923, transatlanti public use in 1927,
first amateur use around 1933. Didn't catch on for around 15 years.

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:
In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:


Subject: Now That It's "Over"...
From: "Arnie Macy"
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 02:27:12 -0400

"JJ" wrote ...

BS, the services realized that with modern technology CW is an outdated,
antiquated mode, no longer useful to them. You are living in your ham radio
dream world too stubborn to see the truth.
________________________________________________ ______________________

Hey JJ -- did you forget that SSB is over 60 years old?


Actually, the use of SSB on radio is over 75 years old (AT&T transatlantic
telephone, 55 kHz LSB, in service 1927). SSB was first used by hams over 70
years ago (Ray Moore, W6DEI, and several others, early 1930s).

Widespread use by hams began in the late 1940s - almost 60 years ago - BEFORE
manufactured SSB equipment for hams was readily available.


By your logic, it's
time to shut that antiquated puppy down as well.


Old does not equal bad, or useless, or obsolete.

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.

Direct hit, Jim! Despite all claiims to the contrary, the NCTA's word's
usually expose them as NCUA's.

Just imagine all that yummy bandwidth there for the taking! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Larry Roll K3LT wrote:

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

No, I certainly do not. If someone wants to only operate cw, only
ssb, only 2 meter FM, then fine, and they are just as much a ham
as someone who operates multiple modes.

So a ham who operates all modes except that he cannot operate
radiotlegraphy
because he doewn't know Morse code, is just as well qualified as a ham
who
operates all those and also can operate radiotelegraphy.

Surely you can understand the fallacy of your own argument,
all other considerations aside.

Dick:

An even greater fallacy is the notion that "hams" who operate only
2-meters FM (which probably defines at least 80 percent of "hams"
licensed since 1991) is "qualified" as an amateur radio operator!
At the risk of sounding Kim-like, ROTFLMAO!!!

Were it not for the occasional usefulness of the 2-meter band to
"real" ham radio operators like you and me, I'd suggest that it be
separated from the licensing structure and just be given away to
anyone who can afford a transceiver. Of course, we've already gone
most of the way to doing just that, and we still don't see any real
growth in the numbers of licensed amateurs.

Larry, when you trim all the BS off the no-code position, all that's left
is
that they refuse to even acknowledge that the first existing, most basic
mode
of radiocommunications is even a viable mode of radiocommunications!
Much less that it is the simplest, easiest to implement and one of the
very
most efficient modes!

If it weren't so downright silly it'd be funny. But that's what ham radio
had
degenerated into.

In what way have we ever not acknowledged that CW was
the first mode, or that it is simple, or that it can
be used by hams today (i.e. viable). Bottom line
is so what...that does NOT justify any need for a code
test. That's what is so downright silly. YOU want every
new ham to have to learn CW on the hope that some
percentage will like CW enough to become a user. You
are (IMHO) clearly not up to the task of recruiting new hams
by proactively advocating CW use.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

JJ wrote:


Dick Carroll wrote:


you just like to slam CW.


And you just like to slam anyone who dosen't feel about the use of CW as
you do.


Wrong. I don't feel the same way about CW as Dick does, and we get along
just fine!


- Mike KB3EIA -

Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

John:

I agree that Morse code proficiency has nothing to do with speaking or
typing -- but the ability to effectively employ the Morse/CW mode -- at
speeds greater than 5 WPM -- will keep you communicating when conditions
prevent you from communicating by voice or digital modes. You have done
nothing but provide personal, anecdotal proof that reducing code testing
requirements down to a mere 5 WPM maximum was NOT a good thing!



You know...the claim that CW "will keep you communicating when conditions
prevent you from communicating by voice or digital modes" has been made time
and time again. Time and time again there have been requests for proof of
this claim. None has been provided.

To state something does not make it so.

You never watched Star Trek TNG, eh?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

Bill:

Nice try, but not quite the same thing. A prospective ham not wanting
to
learn and/or use the Morse code is like a prospective golfer not
wanting
to learn how to putt, because all he wants to do is drive golf balls
for
distance. Well, even I can drive a bucket balls at the range to kill
an
afternoon, but I'd never call myself a "golfer."

Morse/CW is an essential communications skill for anyone who is going
to consider him/herself to be an effective amateur radio operator.

So you will claim tillhell freezes over I assume. Only
problem is, your claim failed at the only place that
counts...the FCC.

Bill:

Of course it did.

It did...then why do you next state...
The FCC is a government bureaucracy that serves
mainly commercial interests. Amateur Radio just isn't important enough
to them to be bothered to expend the resources necessary to maintain
high licensing standards as the had in the past. No mystery there.

Sure seems that it didn't hold sway at all with the FCC.

This
is the one skill which gives them the ability to keep on communicating
under adverse conditions that put an end to communication using less
robust or more equipment and electrical capacity-dependent modes. It
gives us the ultimate in emergency backup communications capability,
which is ever-so important and politically-correct for hams these days.

So how come the other services abondoned morse as such a
valuable back-up?

Again, follow the money and you'll learn the truth. The cost of hiring,
training, and providing pay and benefits to CW-proficient radio operators
is the key factor in play here. But you already knew that.

Of course, and the cost of having thousands of hams learn
morse isn't born out by any need whatsoever...as the FCC
has already determined in 98-143. Rather, the PCTA folks
failed to make sufficient justification to the FCC that
hams MUST know morse.

Moreover,
these "other services" you're talking about use high-powered satellite-
based technology which is designed for their specific purposes. But
you already knew that, as well. When you make apples-to-oranges
comparisons between the all-volunteer Amateur Radio Service and
publicly- or commercially-funded communications services, your argument
falls flat on it's face. And if you didn't already know that, you're just
as
deluded as any other NCTA.

Well it seems to me the only folks that are living
in fantasy land are the PCTAs. Not ONE of the
PCTA arguments was "accepted" by the FCC as
sufficient reason to retain code testing. Rather, the
ONLY reason the FCC even kept 5 wpm was the
former ITU treaty...now that's gone too.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK