In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

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).

John:

You think I'm "hoping" that a devastating hurricane will strike and perhaps
take lives and destroy property? Just so I can use some freshly-polished
straight key to send emergency traffic? I don't think so.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

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!

John:

No, it just gave them another in an already lengthy list of excuses to
be lazy and not give it a try. They could care less about what I think of
them -- or, should I say, if they were motivated to learn a useful
communications skill, nothing I say could stop them from trying.

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

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

Oh, you mean the truth.

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.

Or for any other reason.

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? :-)

A whole lot less, actually.

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?

Because I couldn't care less about what Kim thinks about "size," or
anything else, for that matter. All she is interested in is defending her
lack of motivation to learn a useful communications skill like the
Morse code.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Alun Palmer wrote:


If that isn't hazing, then nothing is

No, it isn't hazing, hazing is attempting to force someone to do
something unnecessary to acheive a goal. Learning and passing the
code test is necessary to obtain a ham license. I simply stated
that fact. The choice was entirely up to the student.

In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:

Who said the goal of ending code testing is the growth of Amateur Radio?

Some, but not all, nocodetest folks have claimed that the (perceived) lack of
growth of the ARS is one reason to end code testing. IIRC, Cecil and Mr.
Anderson have repeatedly claimed that the Technician license (without its code
test) is the only thing that kept amateur radio in the US from experiencing a
severe decline in numbers from 1990 to 2000. As if none of them would have
gotten a license if they all had to learn code for the ticket.

I've seen no mention of that from either the FCC or those at the ITU
conference.

It is a constant theme. The RSGB has repeatedly cited lack of growth as a major
concern of theirs, and blamed it on the code test.

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.

That's another argument entirely.

Of course hams DO use Morse code quite a lot. It's a mystery why what is done
in other radio services should count more than what hams do, when it comes to
figuring out the requirements for an amateur license.

This position relates to the basis and purpose of Amateur Radio (97.1a,
97.1c, and 97.1d).

Opinions vary.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
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


So. You consider yourself a nobody?

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

Kim is in no danger of getting "lip service" from me! In any case, she's
a married woman, and your inuendoes aren't showing any respect for
that, John. At least I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt in
that regard, and keep my comments focused on her postings regarding
amateur radio.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Since when, Larry. And, be careful because I'll post a whole stream of
posts wherein you stray far, far away from ham radio...

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in
:

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



You only have to attend a field day to see that there are only a small
group of serious CW ops, and they don't include all of the 20 wpm Extras,
even. As someone rightly pointed out, I passed 20 wpm and I am not atall
competent at CW. And no, that doesn't bother me. Actually, it's been this
way for many years. I've been licenced for 'only' 23 years, so I can't
remember it not being a minority interest.

The fact is that those who were forced to learn it and found that they
liked it won't be replaced. In fact, that's pretty much how it is already,
since 5 wpm doesn't really count. I still come across people who want to
learn CW irrespective of when the test will go away, and those are your
future CW ops. They are fewer in number because _coercion_ is being
removed, but they exist. The fundamental problem I have with Dick and
Larry is that they favour using coercion to get people to learn CW. Did
they never hear of the saying 'you'll catch more files with honey than
with vinegar' ?

"JJ" wrote in message
...


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.


Perhaps because the military doesn't train its radio ops in Morse any more?

(This is true ... my youngest son is a Radioman in Navy EOD ... never
learned
a single "dit" or "dah" ... the military only trains a very few "intercept
operators"
at a joint services school at Ft. Huachuca ... at least that's where it was
last I
knew ...)

Carl - wk3c

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


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

"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


Arnie,

I was voicing my opinion of the way that Dick, Larry, and a few others
ACT.
You will note that I said I didn't actually think they ARE stupid ...
but
that they
ACT that way (IMHO).

Too bad you decided to do a diss on a person who had a mental handicap.
(and who wasn't stupid)

I was brought up not to make fun of the handicapped. YMMV.

Mike ... it wasn't me who brought the "Forest Gump" comparison into
the debate ... IIRC, if you look back, you'll find that it was Dick or
Larry.

Carl - wk3c

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:

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.

\

Yep, someone convinced them that it was no more than a "hazing ritual" and
dips like JJ who claims to be as longtime ham but knows so little about what's
happened in the interim to be even conversant about issues, offered all their
support.
Tha hobby is in sad shape and is being held up like Atlas holding the world by
hams who have taken a code test. When all you have left is the Loyd Davies, well I
doubt that statement even needs finishing.