JJ wrote:

Dick Carroll wrote:

JJ wrote:


Dick Carroll wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:



You
are (IMHO) clearly not up to the task of recruiting new hams
by proactively advocating CW use.




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

Then what is your problem with the fact that some have a no-code
license and possibly the code requirement will be dropped?
Goodness, if code testing were not a requirement and you skipped
learning the code, then you would not be a "real" ham.


Evidently you skipped code or you'd have some idea what ham radio would/will
be without it. NO? no surprise, coming from you. That leaves you clueless, but we
already knew that.

Hate to burst you bubble Dickie, but I sat in front of an FCC
examiner in the Dallas office and took my code test.

If that's true it would seem reasonable that you would be aware that a ham who can
operate a
radiotelegraph station is better qualified than one who cannot. So why aren't youi?

Mike Coslo wrote:

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


Dick,

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.

Carl - wk3c


Carl:

If the fact that Dick and I support the concept of retaining code proficiency
testing in order to be able to possess a unique and highly effective radio
communications skill is being "stupid," then I must plead guilty. Keep in
mind that Mr. Gump was a war hero, a successful businessman, and a
keen investor who became a multi-millionaire. I should be so "stupid!"

Not to mention, it is unfortunate that some people choose to denigrate
those who have a lower IQ. (you mat substitute disgusting for
unfortunate if you like)

Hey, there's no one around any smarter than Carl. If you don't believe it just ask
him!

Dick Carroll wrote:

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:


In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:


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 funny thing is, John, that the ones for which it isn't true are apparently
nowhere to be found among the typical newcomers to the ARS these days.


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.

I could do all that, and I don't consider myself to be particularly "technical"
as far as computers are concerned. That's just simple assembly -- a mainly
mechanical skill.


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.

Component-level repairs aren't done these days mainly for economic
reasons. The labor cost involved in trouble-shooting a board at the
component level would exceed the value of the component probably
long before the fault was diagnosed.


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.

Well, that reaction to having to learn Morse code would only indicate
that they're not at all serious about becoming fully capable as radio
amateurs. Nothing new there.

Those with genuine technical skills, who come into ham radio with
or without Morse code, are perfectly OK by me. My problem begins
when they go out of their way to whine about the code testing
requirement, and make all the usual inane NCTA arguments about
the code itself causing technical ignorance. If they simply go about
the business of pursuing ham radio to the extent that they desire, and
leave out the childish whining, I am more than willing to stand in awe
of the advanced technical skill they demonstrate -- when and where
it is, in fact, demonstrated.

You have to keep one thing in mind here, John -- I didn't start the
code testing debate. The anti-code test whiners did, with their
specious arguments and inane comparisons of Morse code proficiency
to everything antiquated and obsolete -- without having any first-
had knowledge or experience to give them a basis for their self-serving,
usually parroted commentary. If any of them had been willing to invest
a fraction of the time and effort in learning the code as they did in
railing against it, they may be singing a different tune, indeed.

73 de Larry, K3LT


JJ take note- this post is redirected to YOU

So why is is redirected to me, I read it the first time Larry
posted it. So what?

I agree with Larry on one point, about those who whine about the
code testing requirement. When I taught Novice classes there would
for certain be at least one student who would complain about
having to learn the code and would always ask, "why do we have to
learn this code stuff, I don't ever plan to use it," My reply was,
"because it is one of the requirements to obtain a license, if you
want the license then learn the code, if you don't want to put
forth the effort ot learn the code then you don't want a ham
license, you would probably be happier on cb."

But then again, some of the biggest complainers, eventually became
the best CW operators.

JJ wrote:

Dick Carroll wrote:

JJ wrote:


Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote:


I was monitoring a MARS net a few years back, that was being conducted
in some rather lousy band conditions. One station tried to check into
this net using CW because the ops couldn't get through to the NCS
using SSB. The NCS told them that CW was not a valid operating mode
for checking into a MARS net. Draw your own conclusions.

I am curious as to why CW would not be a valid operating mode on a
MARS net.


Basically because the Chief Mars appointed some years ago was a No-code tech. That
tell
you anything?

And you can support that statement by providing the call of the
operator and his license history, or is this just another of your
slams at the no-code techs to make yourself feel better?

Once again, you prove how clueless you can be. Try paying attention to what goes on in
ham radio before you manage to make a complete fool of youself, Hmmm?

No, I didn't keep the codefree Mars cheif's data, why should I? I was disgusted by the
entire episode as were most longtime hams who happened to be paying attention. . Clearly
you were not.

The fella closed out all MARS CW operation permanently, according to reports from MARS
members. So you missed all that? Surprising? Nope.

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

Now that it seems as though code testing will
finally be abolished in the ARS, let's amuse
ourselves with a bit of speculation as to what
this will mean in terms of future growth in
the numbers of licensed amateur radio operators
in the United States. What do you think will
happen? How much growth do you think will
occur, and how fast?

I predict that there will be no significant
growth in new licensees. (snip)


Who said the goal of ending code testing is the growth of Amateur Radio?
I've seen no mention of that from either the FCC or those at the ITU
conference. Instead, both seem to be saying code is no longer a necessary
radio skill since so few radio operators outside ham radio use it today.
This position relates to the basis and purpose of Amateur Radio (97.1a,
97.1c, and 97.1d).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:


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

Cecil, is that you? No, it's John again, sorry for the confusion!

No, John, nobody "forced" me to get a ham license -- except my own
self!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

Speaking of obsolete, there's your buddy -- good old SSB -- a mode which
has been (borrowing your words) "supplanted, in virtually every service
except ham radio ... by more modern, efficient, reliable, and convenient
means of communications." and *I* (wink) think it should be retired as soon
as possible and we should stop using SSB for EMComm immediately -- I mean
after all, it is just about as ancient as it gets in communication terms,
right? Why use that ancient old SSB when I can hop on the Internet or bring
up VTC or digital and get through faster and farther.

Arnie -
KT4ST

Arnie:

Worry not, help is on the way! When the FCC finally acts on WRC-03 and
drops the code testing requirement, the ARS will suddenly be filled with
eager, computer-literate, technically-inclined young newcomers to ham
radio who will invent, develop, and deploy the amateur radio version of the
broadband infrastructure now available to anyone who owns a cell phone,
wireless PDA, or Wi-Fi equipped laptop. We will be communicating by
voice, data, and image, all with no need to purchase "minutes" of air time
or enter into expensive contracts with service providers. Once relieved of
the requirement to learn that obsolete old Morse code, we will see, as
promised for years, a technical revolution in amateur radio the likes of
which nobody could have imagined in the bad old days of being tested
for competence in "beeping."

I can hardly wait!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , JJ writes:

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

And convinced some that ham radio is not for them if they have to
associate with people like Larry with his superior attitude. It is
people like Larry and Dick with their attitudes toward others who
do not share their zeal for CW that do more harm for ham radio
than not having those CW skills ever could.

JJ:

I will not presume to speak for Dick, but I think your comment regarding
my "zeal" for CW is a bit overstated. I *like* CW, and I use it a lot, but
I don't have what I would describe as any particular "zeal" for the mode.
The truth is, for at least the last three years, most of my operating has
been in digital modes, mainly PSK-31 and RTTY. However, since I
possess reasonable (20 - 25 WPM) proficiency in Morse code, I am
always able to fall back on CW when conditions don't permit me to
continue effective communication on PSK-31 or other digital modes --
and believe me, I have encountered that situation many times. You
see, my ears and brain can continue to make sense out of CW
signals that are severely degraded, long after my digital software gives
up and only prints gibberish on the screen. Moreover, if I were a better
CW operator than I am, I'm sure that I would experience an even more
dramatic demonstration of this effect. Therefore, I am a firm believer
in the Morse/CW mode, and believe that the best way to cause radio
amateurs to become proficient in this mode is (or was) code testing
as part of licensing requirements.

I did not become a proficient CW operator out of any particular love
of Morse code. It was the requirement to learn it in order to obtain
full HF privileges that caused me to learn it, gain operating experience
in it, and eventually to become convinced of it's practicality and
indispensability among the operating skills that a fully capable radio
amateur can possess.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

Elimination of the code requirement may actually cause a loss in the ham
ranks, if not in numbers at least in activity. The elimination will
probably coincide with the early part of the bottom of the current sunspot
cycle. People will upgrade and quite a few will be so disappointed at the
poor activity that they will become quite inactive on HF and this
disappointment could spill over and affect their activity on VHF/UHF.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

A very cogent observation, Dee. The irony is, at the low side of a
solar cycle, when the geomagnetic activity subsides along with the
solar flux, the use of CW permits communication even though there
isn't good enough propagation to pursue reliable SSB operation.
Therefore, the one thing that could keep them active on-the-air --
knowledge of the Morse code, won't be within their capability because
they had no incentive to learn it.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

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 funny thing is, John, that the ones for which it isn't true are apparently
nowhere to be found among the typical newcomers to the ARS these days.

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.

I could do all that, and I don't consider myself to be particularly "technical"
as far as computers are concerned. That's just simple assembly -- a mainly
mechanical skill.

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.

Component-level repairs aren't done these days mainly for economic
reasons. The labor cost involved in trouble-shooting a board at the
component level would exceed the value of the component probably
long before the fault was diagnosed.

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.

Well, that reaction to having to learn Morse code would only indicate
that they're not at all serious about becoming fully capable as radio
amateurs. Nothing new there.

Those with genuine technical skills, who come into ham radio with
or without Morse code, are perfectly OK by me. My problem begins
when they go out of their way to whine about the code testing
requirement, and make all the usual inane NCTA arguments about
the code itself causing technical ignorance. If they simply go about
the business of pursuing ham radio to the extent that they desire, and
leave out the childish whining, I am more than willing to stand in awe
of the advanced technical skill they demonstrate -- when and where
it is, in fact, demonstrated.

You have to keep one thing in mind here, John -- I didn't start the
code testing debate. The anti-code test whiners did, with their
specious arguments and inane comparisons of Morse code proficiency
to everything antiquated and obsolete -- without having any first-
had knowledge or experience to give them a basis for their self-serving,
usually parroted commentary. If any of them had been willing to invest
a fraction of the time and effort in learning the code as they did in
railing against it, they may be singing a different tune, indeed.

73 de Larry, K3LT