"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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,

Assuming your hypothetical...
IF the non-phone segment is being underused, then
the CW users will likly lose bandwidth. BUT, if the non-phone
segment is just as crowded with users, then there's
no valid argument for phone expansion. The burden
will be on the users of non-phone modes.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

I think I'm pretty safe in saying that it was the code testing requirement
that caused hams to learn the code -- not any innate love or appreciation
for the mode.

NO! Say it isn't so, mighty morseman!

"Morse code gets through when everything else does." - B.B.

LHA

Here's another gem: It doesn't seem that long ago when Alan Greenspan
was putting the brakes on the economy.

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


"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
Tha hobby is in sad shape and is being held up like Atlas holding the
world by
hams who have taken a code test.

Er, Dick ... you over-inflated, Morse-prowess-based ego REALLY shows
in the above comment.

First, I don't believe that "Tha hobby is in sad shape ..."

Second, if it *were* it would be largely because of the narrow-minded,
backward, egotistical sort of thinking that you express above.

Carl - wk3c

Carl:

So, what do you think will be holding up the ARS in the future?

The same thing that has actually held it up all along ... the majority
of good hams without attitude problems that detract from the service,
the work they do in technical, public service, and other ham pursuits,
and (I believe) an influx of "new blood" ... some younger, I hope, so
that our demographics improve for the future, and some more techically
inclined who can elmer, develop new things, etc.

Having taken a code test has nothing to do with these things.

Carl - wk3c

Carl, isn't it odd that the code exam proponents are the first to
predict gloom and doom, some even willing to work for the demise of
the service? Yet it is those that haved worked to have code exam
eliminated are the most optimistic about the service. There is
something else at work here than the mere code exam.

Spock would say, "Captain, I find it quite illogical..."

(Len Over 21) wrote:

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

I think I'm pretty safe in saying that it was the code testing requirement
that caused hams to learn the code -- not any innate love or appreciation
for the mode.

NO! Say it isn't so, mighty morseman!

"Morse code gets through when everything else does." - B.B.

Hasn't that been disproved?


--
Jack Hamilton



If men are to wait for liberty until they become wise and good in slavery,
they may indeed wait for ever.
- Lord MacCaulay

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

Assuming your hypothetical...
IF the non-phone segment is being underused, then
the CW users will likly lose bandwidth. BUT, if the non-phone
segment is just as crowded with users, then there's
no valid argument for phone expansion. The burden
will be on the users of non-phone modes.


Despite the fact that the non-phone segment is not under utilized, the phone
people are already crying for the non-phone segment. This cry will continue
to grow. Why should the burden of proof fall on the users of the non-phone
modes?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

(N2EY) wrote in message om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
there is nothing "magical" about Morse
and the insistence on using "wetware" instead of software to do the
decoding is an anomaly of ham radio.

And you say you're not against the use of the mode, just the test, Carl?
;-)

That's correct... I am NOT against the use of the mode.

Maybe. But the way you write about the mode makes me wonder. For
example, when you call those who use the mode "beepers" and other
disparaging names, a different image is projected by you.

Kelley refers to himself as a "beepist." Is Kelley against Morse/CW use?

Brian

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:15:05 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
.. .

Kim - excellent post, I'm impressed.


I'd rather you not be impressed, but thanks!

You're entirely welcome. To explain my comment...so much of your
participation in this NG seems to be wasted on sniping at Larry and
Dick, that I was pleasantly surprised to read that particular post, in
which you made a number of good points about emergency communications,
even if you couldn't resist the occasional shot at the aforementioned
two targets of opportunity. ;-)


Yeah, I remember when I first discovered there was "newsgroups" and then
found this one. I thought to myself, "Self, this is great. Meet more hams
and have great ham discussions." NOT. Pretty much the first exposure I had
to anyone on the newsgroup was Larry Roll, with his obsession about my
callsign...blah, blah, blah.

Then I learned that many of this newsgroup's participants can't have any
kind of discussion without pulliing some kind of ego trip up out of their
pants.

The long and short is that this newsgroup became a way for me to take the
day's frustrations out and pretend that my targets were this boss, or that
boss, or this co-worker or that co-worker...heh heh


I've also been involved in emergency operations and procedures before
ever
being a ham, so it was a natural avocation.

We share a common interest here...I always had an interest in public
service and emergency services - so naturally, once I expanded my
radio hobby activities to include amateur radio, I gravitated to the
emergency/public service sector of the ARS at once.


I think the public service aspect is one of the greatest things about ham
radio...although I'm not much involved any more. Around here, one spends
more time dealing with political garbage than getting any real constructive
stuff done. I wasn't in it just for the sake of getting out there and being
in the middle of storms--I also wanted to see this area become really great
and one to be looked up to.


It concerns me that my post may have seemed to isolate CW as a
non-essential
in emergency/disaster communication. I did not mean to make it seem so,
if
I did.

Well, more like you left it out because it wasn't germaine to the
point you were trying to make. Having read previous posts where you
demonstrated an understanding that one never discounts any valid means
of communication in EmComm, I understood where you were coming from,
so I took the liberty of putting back in what you left out.


Thank you. Not used to someone being able to read between the lines
here...LOL


I'll have to try and comment more later in the week when it's not time to
get to sleep!

I look forward to it. I'm going to have to cut my own session short,
in fact. In about an hour, our club's public service ops are doing the
radio comms for a parade, and since I'm one of the two
co-coordinators, I need to shut this computer off and get down to an
entirely different sort of post. TTYL.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ


Know what? It's Tuesday and I'm still tired...

Kim W5TIT


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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

(snip)


Kim, I don't know what is going on with your newsgroup messages. Many of
your messages are listed as no longer on my server very shortly after you
post them (sometimes just one or two hours later). The messages are listed
in my message list of this newsgroup, but I get an error ("message no
longer
on server") when I try to read them. For everyone else, I can read
messages
they posted many days ago.

Anyway, just wanted to let you know what is happening in case you post a
reply to one of my messages and don't get a response. It's not that I'm
trying to ignore you - I just can't read or reply to your quickly
disappearing messages (I caught and replied to this one before it
disappeared)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Wow, thanks for letting me know, Dwight!!! Larry must be in
withdrawal...I'll switch over to the other one!

Kim W5TIT


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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

(snip)


Kim, I don't know what is going on with your newsgroup messages. Many of
your messages are listed as no longer on my server very shortly after you
post them (sometimes just one or two hours later). The messages are listed
in my message list of this newsgroup, but I get an error ("message no
longer
on server") when I try to read them. For everyone else, I can read
messages
they posted many days ago.

Anyway, just wanted to let you know what is happening in case you post a
reply to one of my messages and don't get a response. It's not that I'm
trying to ignore you - I just can't read or reply to your quickly
disappearing messages (I caught and replied to this one before it
disappeared)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


There, how's that?

Kim W5TIT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:


"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

Kim:

All I can say is, I'm not suprised by your typically ungracious remark.
Apparently my effort was in vain, but that's my fault -- I should have
known better!

73 de Larry, K3LT


Would you like me to post some examples of where you have not kept your
posts related to ham radio? Actually, you can look it up yourself.

Kim W5TIT