"Hans K0HB" wrote in
news:8951605be0ad1dbd7f68d241525766fc.128005@mygat e.mailgate.org:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote .

the insistence on using "wetware" instead of software to do the
decoding is an anomaly of ham radio.

This "do it the hard way, rather than the smart way" approach to things
that is held by so many hams leads to stagation, backwardness, etc.


Carl,

You seem to have moved positions from "the Morse test ought to be
dropped" to "operators who use Morse code are stagnant and backward".

I agree with the first position, but the second position is inflamatory,
divisive, and not supported by a shred of evidence.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB





If he had said that merely Larry and dick were stagnant and backward,
would that have been better?

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Dwight Stewart

writes:

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.

Actually the fact that other services don't use it very much is a strong
argument to require hams to learn it. This is the place to preserve the
skill in case of need and to prevent this capability from becoming a lost
art. Plus of course the fact that quite a few hams do use it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Well, why does it have to be a requirement that hams learn it? An analogy
to your thought above could be:

Doctors should have to be required to know how to use Shaman medicine in
case of need and to prevent this capability from becoming a lost art. (The
analogy works if one believes that alternative medicine works--and I do).
But, you see what I mean, right?

There are groups, societies if you will, that take up and preserve the CW
mode. FISTS comes to mind. There are great guys/gals, long-licensed
amateurs, who love to share the skill with others and who will teach it at
only the slightest provocation. There are EmCom "chiefs" who recognize the
capability of increased communication benefits when using CW. The list goes
on.

Get rid of CW testing. If the mode is all that it is said to be, it will
stand on its own. If it doesn't stand on its own, then adapt and adjust.

Kim W5TIT

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

The credo of emergency preparedness is the same as the Boy Scout's
Motto "Be prepared." HAVE backup power source(s), backup equipment,
and backup operators available ... have a well-thought out PLAN for a
wide range of scenarios. DON'T rely on cobbling together a Morse rig
from scraps and running it from a generator powered by a hamster running
on a wheel.


Ok show me the calculation that predicts the duration of a power outage.
Then we'll all know how many generators to have and how much gasoline to
stockpile.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Oh, goodness, just a few car batteries...

Kim W5TIT

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
news:8951605be0ad1dbd7f68d241525766fc.128005@mygat e.mailgate.org...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote .

the insistence on using "wetware" instead of software to do the
decoding is an anomaly of ham radio.

This "do it the hard way, rather than the smart way" approach to things
that is held by so many hams leads to stagation, backwardness, etc.


Carl,

You seem to have moved positions from "the Morse test ought to be
dropped" to "operators who use Morse code are stagnant and backward".

Hans,

I said "... held by so many hams ..." Clearly, there are folks who are
not Morse enthusiasts who also hold to the "do it the hard way, rather
than the smart way" idea ... and not all Morse enthusiasts hold to that
idea.

I certainly did NOT intend to imply that all, or even most, folks who
like Morse are stagnant and backward ... many Morse enthusiasts
do lots of other things and are progress-minded (quite a few are
NCI members who have sent me e-mail saying "I like Morse a LOT,
in fact it's my primary operating mode, but the test just doesn't make
sense any more.")

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

The credo of emergency preparedness is the same as the Boy Scout's
Motto "Be prepared." HAVE backup power source(s), backup equipment,
and backup operators available ... have a well-thought out PLAN for a
wide range of scenarios. DON'T rely on cobbling together a Morse rig
from scraps and running it from a generator powered by a hamster
running
on a wheel.


Ok show me the calculation that predicts the duration of a power outage.
Then we'll all know how many generators to have and how much gasoline to
stockpile.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Oh, goodness, just a few car batteries...

Kim W5TIT

Ok, show me the calculation that predicts the duration of the power outage
so I can calculate how many car batteries to keep charged up and on hand.
The principal is the same no matter what power source you choose to specify.
No one can predict when, where or how long emergency power will be needed.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dick Carroll wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:


"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


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.

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


I don't think there is any point missed at all. I think that those who
oppose the test know very well that elimination of the test will
eventually eliminate use.

Strange that there are many things people do which are
long past relative to modern needs (archery, old cars,
etc.) without any testing needed to continue interest
in and to bring newcomers to the interest. IF morse
dies without testing then that's a sad commentary on
"how great it is" as promoted by PCTAs in this newsgroup.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

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?

The ONLY aspect that the ham can claim is that s/he is better
qualified at CW. The other, non-CW hams may be far superior
hams than the coded ham in all the other aspects of ham radio
operation and technical.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

The credo of emergency preparedness is the same as the Boy Scout's
Motto "Be prepared." HAVE backup power source(s), backup equipment,
and backup operators available ... have a well-thought out PLAN for
a
wide range of scenarios. DON'T rely on cobbling together a Morse
rig
from scraps and running it from a generator powered by a hamster
running
on a wheel.


Ok show me the calculation that predicts the duration of a power
outage.
Then we'll all know how many generators to have and how much gasoline
to
stockpile.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Oh, goodness, just a few car batteries...

Kim W5TIT

Ok, show me the calculation that predicts the duration of the power outage
so I can calculate how many car batteries to keep charged up and on hand.
The principal is the same no matter what power source you choose to
specify.
No one can predict when, where or how long emergency power will be needed.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Oh, duh....gads, Dee, it's late! I'm sorry...

I just plain believe in the philosophy of trying to be as prepared as I
can--and I don't even get that far very often. Being prepared takes some
measure of organization and I lack on that part.

Kim W5TIT


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

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

The ONLY aspect that the ham can claim is that s/he is better
qualified at CW. The other, non-CW hams may be far superior
hams than the coded ham in all the other aspects of ham radio
operation and technical.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


And it seems to me that non-CW hams would be far superior to CW-hams, with
things such as phone nets, QSOs, etc.

Oh wait, I think you already said that. . .

But, you know what? It doesn't even feel good feeling superior.

Kim W5TIT


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

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Dick Carroll wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:



"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


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.

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 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. 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. The least time

they must

spend on ARS issues the better for them, whatever the end result.


I don't think there is any point missed at all. I think that those who
oppose the test know very well that elimination of the test will
eventually eliminate use.


Strange that there are many things people do which are
long past relative to modern needs (archery, old cars,
etc.) without any testing needed to continue interest
in and to bring newcomers to the interest. IF morse
dies without testing then that's a sad commentary on
"how great it is" as promoted by PCTAs in this newsgroup.

Because there is the difference between a cheerful anachronism, and what
will eventually be considered a waste of bandwidth.

I can keep an old car in my garage without affecting anyone.but
bandwidth is another matter. But let us look at this scenario. Say 15
years from now, there will be s aizable number of hams who have never
used a paddle or key. There will be new hams taking up CW, but without
an incentive, like a Morse code test, that number will likely fall
somehat percentage wise (it has to if the No-coders are correct in that
good hams are kept off the air by the code test)

So these hams look at the bandplans: "Wow! just look at 80 meters. Fully
half the bandplan is dedicated to stuff other than SSB! It's unfair that
they should have all that bandwidth." And a bandwidth grab begins......
Doesn't matter that there are still CW users out there. "And heck, they
are always bragging about how little bandwidth they use, so only give
them a minimum abount if anything."

- Mike KB3EIA -