(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

I've never heard the term "OPSEC" in the 1950s while on active duty or
any time as a civilian from the 1960s on through the end of the 1980s
while visiting different military branch installations.

Hmmmmm...I was on Active Duty commencing in 1974 and it was a
part of our "alphabet soup" even then.

COMSEC or COMmunications SECurity is the current buzzword (of the
last decade or so) and refers to any means of encryption in military
communications.

...and the security of the gear iteslf.

Oddly, "ICOM" or "Integrated COMSEC" is applied to later models of the
SINCGARS R/T that includes hardware for voice/data encryption and
decryption. That does not refer to the Japanese designer-manufacturer
of communications equipment Icom.

Well ain't that special...?!?!

Perhaps some have seen too many Chuck Norris movies?

Have you...???

Steve, K4YZ

Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Kim W5TIT wrote:


Actually, the good test for good manners and courtesy and respect on the
air, is the acid test. Every person I have witnessed being in the class

the

majority calls an "idiot" operator, has soon disappeared from the FM

side of

ham radio. They get tired of "being encouraged" to talk right, operate
right, etc., or they get tired of being ignored. Guess where some have
disappeared to?

Here?

- Mike KB3EIA -



HF.


That was a joke, Kim. 8^)

- mike KB3EIA -

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote:



Larry posted that, I didn't - however, I have not disputed that CW is
a useful communications skill. Any communications skill is useful in a
communications hobby, and any technical skill is useful in a technical
hobby. For me to claim otherwise would be illogical. What I am
disputing is the notion put forth by K3LT that one needs to have
acquired CW proficiency in order to form an opinion as to whether one
wishes to pursue that aspect of the hobby or not...an assertion which
I find equally illogical.

But you need CW skills in order to feel superior, at least Larry thinks so.

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
...

Now Ive heard everything. CW is now a method of encryption. Oh good
grief.

That is a first. I never thought Id live so long as to see so much
idiocy
about the Morse Code. Unbelievable

Dan/W4NTI

Dan, its not a first, its a second.

One ham on rrap has suggested that he would not only use Morse/CW but
that he would send the characters so atrociously that it could not be
read by a computer code reader so that the NCTs couldn't know what he
was saying.

You have DICK to thank for that.

Ive been know to do that in some situations. I.E. When the returning
station is sending perfect cw and cant copy a thing I sent to him. Must be
on a reader and a keyboard. I just screw up the character spacing, or go to
a bug. Works every time.

Dan/W4NTI

Now there's something to be proud of.

Instead of sending worse code, why not try sending better code so that
the reader can copy it?

I guess we can count on you to go the wrong way whenever there's a
tuff decision to be made.

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
...

Been awhile since this was posted, but you'll recall that I had to cut
my session short on that day in order to participate in a public
service event...so time now to catch up:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:02:12 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

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.

I was here when you first began to post here. I was off doing
non-internet related activities for about two years. Upon getting back
on the internet and checking the then-current postings to this NG, the
very first thread my newsreader downloaded contained a post where
Larry was making some of his usual comments about your call. I think
what surprised me was not that he was making the comments, but rather
that you were still in here putting up with it. I'd have either
killfiled him long ago, or just quit reading this NG.


Oh goodness! Actually, I was "off" for a while. I ran completely out of
time to get back here to the office to do any "newsgrouping." But, I'm
building a database and program right now, so I'm on the computer and in the
office nearly every night...and will be for a while! Larry would have to be
having an impact for me to desire leaving because of him; anyone else for
that matter. I have a honed skill, that took a long time and a terrible
first marriage to perfect: I can completely turn off to someone I deem
unworthy of my time and/or emotion. Larry is one of those people. Dick
Carroll is another. There's a few others...


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.

Heh...Let's just say that, for reasons that I won't bother to explain
here, I try not to pull things out of my pants in public.


I suppose I'll thank you in advance for that; however, it would be great
conversation for quite some time!


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

[SNIP]


Nevertheless, you have an interesting concept there. I can't help but
wonder about the person you imagine Larry being - given the friction
between you two in here, it's rather surprising that a real-world
version of him within range of you in real life hasn't been shot,
stabbed, strangled, and buried in armadillo dung by now, with you
holdfing the gun, knife, piano wire, and shovel. But then, you just
posted in another thread that you don't believe in killing, so...


Oh, goodness! There's no one even remotely close to Larry's demeanor--at
work or otherwise--in my life. Good grief, that would be like going to
Hell, wouldn't it? Naw, what I meant is that I just approach this newsgroup
with no expectations and much like a good round of any computer or video
shoot 'em up game!


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.

My involvement in the emergency/public service aspect of the ARS is
basically twofold.

On the one hand, the club I belong to has had a longstanding
relationship with the emergency management department in the city
where our club meetings happen to be held - although we serve a much
wider area than just that one suburban city - and I'm currently
co-coordinator of that club's emergency/public service communications
team. The emergency management EOC doubles as a club station during
contests, which we treat as drills in that it gives us a chance to get
our people, particularly the newer ops, into the EOC for some valuable
hours using the same equipment they would be using if they were
helping to staff the EOC during an activation.


I am hoping that more and more realization will come to be, that amateur
radio--all radio services really--have a great potential for our served
agencies!


Our last activation for emergency purposes was a severe ice storm in
February 2002 (with attendant power outages, shelters set up for folks
whose homes were without power, etc.). We not only handled our own
responsibilities within the city, but were also able to help out the
county ARES in getting some comms up their chain of command as well (a
task made easier by the fact that we had an assistant director of
emergency management from the county in the EOC with us, serving as
the liason between the city and the county). We also did some damage
assessment on the power grid in addition to our normal duties.


I haven't been involved in any amateur radio for about a year now. In fact,
my usual entourage of radio equipment is in the shed, not in the truck. I
had to have some work done on my truck, which meant I had to take out my
Comm Shelf (custom built by my darlin' hubby) and then sick, then surgery,
then recovery, one thing after another. I haven't had the gumption to get
it all back in there.


On the other hand, I'm also a member of the county ARES/RACES in the
county where I currently reside (which borders the one in which the
city our club serves is located), and thus also enjoy the status of
being a volunteer disaster assistant in that county's disaster
preparedness office, a part of the county emergency services
department. I'm not in a leadership role in that organization, but of
course have been called out on activations with them as well.


I had the pleasure to be a part of the ARRL ARECC Courses, both as student
and mentor. I was also, for a very short time, Hunt County ARES EC here in
Texas. Plus lots of other dabbling in groups here and there. Leadership is
not as cool as just plain getting out there and doing it! I'll still go out
after a storm--regardless of radio equipment--and chase it around for a
while.

[SNIP]


You folks down there, on the other hand, can get more tornadoes in a
month than we'll see in ten years. We get downbursts, we get wall
clouds, but we don't usually see tornadoes (waterspouts, yes, but not
many funnel clouds over land). I guess I'd prefer to deal with what we
get here. I can take care of cold, wind, and snow by dressing
appropriately...but when a tornado comes along, it doesn't matter much
what you have on.


The past couple of years have been challenging, if you've seen the news.
However, prior years saw a lot of "good" (it's always difficult to call bad
weather good) activity, in terms of severe storms, up in OK and Kansas, off
"thataway."


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

It's a very useful communications skill. Maybe we should have a test
for it in the ARS?


More of it's done that many realize...LOL


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

I work Thursday thru Monday. Tuesdays are my Saturdays. That means on
Monday when everybody else is grumbling about how much they hate
Mondays, I'm generally in TGIF mode. It also means I'm generally more
tired on Monday than any other day of the week. So, been there, done
that, bought the t-shirt, spilled coffee on the t-shirt. :-)

73 DE John, KC2HMZ


Kim W5TIT, on a Tuesday again--coincidentally
PS--Notice how serious discussions go pretty ignored?


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

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Kim W5TIT wrote:


Actually, the good test for good manners and courtesy and respect on
the
air, is the acid test. Every person I have witnessed being in the
class

the

majority calls an "idiot" operator, has soon disappeared from the FM

side of

ham radio. They get tired of "being encouraged" to talk right, operate
right, etc., or they get tired of being ignored. Guess where some have
disappeared to?

Here?

- Mike KB3EIA -



HF.


That was a joke, Kim. 8^)

- mike KB3EIA -


I know, Mike! I originally had that as "HF...and here" with a grinny. But,
I didn't want to lose the impact...ya know? Because, really, they disappear
to HF.

Kim W5TIT


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

In article , 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.
Now, all we need to do is define the term "significant growth." We currently
have around 600-some kilohams in the US. I'd call a five percent growth
factor, or 30,000 newly-licensed radio amateurs, to be significant. Let's
give this a year to happen. I say it won't. How say you? Keep in mind
that at this stage of the discussion, I'm just trying to establish reasonable
parameters -- so let's all weigh in and try to arrive at a consensus as to
what any future growth could be. Then we can commit to our numbers
and see who gets it right -- or at least close.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Larry,

We presently had had an average of .05% growth per year since the new
licensing regs took effect in 2000. at those rates we might see 6%
growth in the decade. This is about 80% LESS growth than we have seen
in the last two decades. Other than possibly a one or two year mini
spurt in growth I do not see it sustaining. Lowering the code
requirement to 5 WPM did virtually nothing not increase year to year
growth, why would one believe that eliminating it would?

There is a least one person posting some astounding numbers based on
the FCC database on the QRZ.com forums which purport to show that 97%
of no code techs are dropping out after the term of the license
expires. Of course there is only about 6 months of FCC data being used
as a baseline due to the grace periods.

Perhaps the no code requirement for HF (if adopted by the FCC) will
keep more of the technician class in the ARS than the numbers predict.

73
George
K3UD

(ex W3GEO)

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dan/W4NTI"
wrote in message
...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"William H. O'Hara, III" wrote in message
.61...
Kim,

I don't think that you mentioned the
only practical use for CW, today. In
an emergency operation one can use CW
almost as a cipher. If Newsreporters, whom
possess "investigative skills", were to
attempt their intercepts by a scanner,
then they would simply have no
comprehension.


With all due respect, William (or is it Bill), seems that deliberately
coding/encrypting on the amateur bands is contrary to the R&R, if ya
know
what I mean. And, it also seems to me that any reporter with really
good
investigative skills would be well aware of your scenario, above.



Now Ive heard everything. CW is now a method of encryption. Oh good
grief.

That is a first. I never thought Id live so long as to see so much
idiocy
about the Morse Code. Unbelievable

Dan/W4NTI


Dan, you really should stop being so reactionary. Perhaps you'll re-read
the comment "In an emergency operation one can use CW almost as a
cipher."
Then, perhaps you'll look at my response in a different light. I was
remarking on the fact that William (Bill) was promoting the idea that CW
is/can be used as a cipher. That would not be legal in any way,

Bzzt!

Wrong...use of CW with recognized character set is never illegal.
If you believe otherwise, please post the appropriate Part 97
rule. It matters not what the intent might be (i.e. to shield certain
information from media reporters)...as long as conventional
character set is used, it ain't illegal.

and
promoting the idea of CW as being a way to "cipher" information is quite
misleading, don't you think?

Personally I could care less. No different than if two hams
are having a QSO in another language than English because
they know few reporters or others that might be listening
can't understand it.

Sheesh, take some time off...

Looking forward to doing exactly that :-) :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

On 23 Jul 2003 09:32:11 -0700, (N2EY) wrote:

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
On 14 Jul 2003 11:56:26 -0700, (N2EY) wrote:

I'm not all that fond of CW, insofar as it's not one of the things I
personally enjoy doing. CW ops, like any other fellow ham, are welcome
around here any time.

Thanks.

You're welcome - as I already stated. :-)

As for not eating each other, someone else's
comment about CQ WPX seems to be as good or better a retort than I can
think of at the moment.

I think he was referring to CQ WW dx contest and the level of
competitiveness displayed.....

I'm sure he was. I thought it was a good humorous comment, and since I
couldn't top it...

Godwin's Law still holds.

I don't know (or care) who Godwin is (or was). As for Godwin's Law,
unless it was passed by a duly authorized legislative body and signed
by the appropriate chief of the executive branch, it is neither law
nor binding.

Godwin's Law still holds.

Tell Godwin to hold on to this awhile.

- however, I have not disputed that CW is
a useful communications skill. Any communications skill is useful in a
communications hobby, and any technical skill is useful in a technical
hobby. For me to claim otherwise would be illogical.

There are those on the nocodetest side of the fence who take the
illogical stand that Morse/CW is not useful, outdated, etc.

As far as the rest of the radio world is concerned, it is outdated.
The ARS is the last remaining radio service that still uses it as a
primary method of communication.

The operative question is how much something has to be useful in order
to qualify to be tested.

Exactly. There was once a time when CW was so prevalent in the radio
world that knowledge of Morse was vital to one's success in radio.
That is no longer the case today except for one minor detail, that
being the fact that the code test is still part of the licensing
requirements. Whether you or I or anyone else in the ARS likes it or
not, that's likely to change at some point within the next few years,
so those of us (myself included) who continue to debate the point are
beating a dead Morse...er, I mean, horse.

What I am
disputing is the notion put forth by K3LT that one needs to have
acquired CW proficiency in order to form an opinion as to whether one
wishes to pursue that aspect of the hobby or not...an assertion which
I find equally illogical.

Perhaps the confusion arises because there's a difference between
judging something's usefulness and judging whether someone wants to
use it. A Harley Davidson motorcycle is certainly useful and desirable
(IMHO) but at this time in my life I am not going to pursue having
one.

Similarly, the skill to copy Morse at 75 WPM is certainly useful and
desirable but at this time in my life I am not going to pursue
developing it.

Although on occasion I have managed to receive signals with a radio
that had no antenna connected to it - and have actually even found it
very useful indeed to try to do so - I'll concede that one gets a much
better handle on current conditions on an HF band by listening to a
receiver that has at least a reasonable facsimile of an antenna
connected to it.


Point I was making is that some folks have claimed "nobody uses CW
anymore" etc. without any real knowledge of is current use.

Well, neither of us can really account for people who have their
opinions spoon-fed to them by somebody else instead of developing
their own, can we? Speaking for myself, though, I've been a radio
hobbyist for over three decades now. I think I have enough experience
to have knowledge of its current use.

The U.S. military has abandoned it. Commercial maritime HF radio has
abandoned it...yes, some ship-to-ship ragchewing between radio ops
still goes on, but try contacting a commercial shore station on CW to
send or receive message traffic. Aviation has abandoned it. Outside of
the ARS, the easiest place to find Morse in use is on your scanner,
where repeaters used by public safety and business still identify in
Morse. Given that, I find it ironic that in the ARS, the last bastion
of Morse communications, most of the repeaters have voice ID'ers.

2) There's a 'phone contest going on, and most of the 'phone ops are
working the contest - on another band.

...where conditions are apparently better since they support phone on
that band? Then why haven't the CW guys moved there as well, to take
advantage of the better band conditions?

Because the type of operation desired is different. Example: Suppose
there's a 'phone DX contest going on, it's the bottom of the susnspot
cycle, and the bands above 15 MHz are open. Most of the hams in the
contest are going to be on 15 and 10 meters trying to gather as many
countries and QSOs on those bands while they are usable. The
distribution of hams using 'phone will be heavily concentrated in
those bands.

Meanwhile, hams who are working CW (and obviously not interested in
the contest) will be distributed differently among the bands. Since
much of the DX is working 'phone, the CW ops will probably be looking
for ragchews, and may be on bands like 40 and 80, which are more
suited for non-DX when the upper bands are open.

OK, agreed. Many of the non-contesting phone ops will probably be
doing the same, in fact. They'll go to the lower frequencies because
conditions there are better suited to their intgended activity - and
to avoid the congestion on the higher frequencies that results from
all the contesters operating on those bands. Makes sense to me.

Consider also that not all contests involve the WARC bands, further
shifting things.

I'm no expert on contesting, but I hear very little contest activity
on the WARC bands - at least on 12m and 17m anyway. Haven't spent much
time listening to 30m except to listen for signals for the purpose of
gauging band conditions.

CW ops do not have the bottom part of ANY HF band to themselves. We
have to deal with digital ops and an ever-increasing number of foreign
'phones.

Quite correct, of course, and although it slipped my mind when I was
posting the comments, I am aware of that - at least with respect to
the digital signals anyway. I must admit that I hadn't considered the
fact that there are many foreign phone ops down there who aren't
subject to the same farming of spectrum by mode that U.S. ops are.
However, I'd expect the digital signals to cause more problems for CW
ops, since filters can get rid of phone signals much more easily.

3) The 'phone bands become obnoxious enough that folks go to CW just
to have a decent QSO.

Well, if we're going to clutch at straws here,

How is that "clutching at straws"?

In posting that comment, I took the word "obnoxious" to refer to
frequencies being inhabited by...well, by the kinds of folks that give
the rest of the ARS a black eye. Listen on certain frequencies long
enough and you'll be treated to a command performance.

In retrospect, though, it occurs to me that you may have simply been
referring to the volume of phone traffic one may observe on a band
during a phone contest. There's not a lot of room left for ragchewing
on phone, so I can see where guys might drop down to the bottom of the
band and use CW, especially if the alternative is to try to gut it out
on another band where conditions aren't as good for the contact(s)
they want to make.

then we might as well also include:

4) One has tuned to the 30 meter band, where phone is not permitted.

Yup.

In retrospect, other digital modes are, which, as you've already
pointed out, is a factor that should be considered.

If someone "knows" something but cannot articulate to someone who
doesn't, does the first person really "know" it?

I believe so. I know how to get to a certain hamfest from my house. I
doubt that I could give someone directions that would allow them to
arrive at that hamfest without getting further directions from someone
else. I may not be able to articulate how to get there, but I "know"
how to get there, and will prove it this Sept. 27 when I again hop
into my van and drive there, just as I have every year since getting
my ham license (it's only a three-hour ride).

Good example! Which 'fest, btw? Biggest I've ever been to is
Rochester.

The one I had in mind is held in a little town in Chemung County, NY
called Horseheads, but it's usually referred to as Elmira because
Elmira is relatively close by and is better known than Horseheads.
Elmira has other claims to fame. Horseheads is the site of the Chemung
County Fairgrounds, which is where the hamfest in question is held,
but beyond that it's best known for being the place they usually end
up catching convicts who escape from the state prison that's not far
from there. The last two - both convicted murderers who escaped a few
weeks ago using the old "tie the bedsheets together to make a rope"
routine (literally) - were found sleeping in a van in the parking lot
of the supermarket just down the road from the fairgrounds. But, I
digress...we now return you to our regularly scheduled discussion,
already in progress.

However, your example could be used to back up the claim that someone
without CW skill can't really know its capability. You know the route
but can't explain it to someone who wants to know. Larry knows the
capability but can't expalin it to someone who doesn't want to know.
Similar...


Kinda like the old
saying "if you have a thing 'someplace', but you can't find it when
you need it, then you don't really have it, do you?"

No, you don't.

'zactly.

However, what we're discussing here isn't a material
thing, but rather, an idea. How does one manage to misplace an idea?
"Sunuvagun, it was right here in my cerebellum a minute ago!" :-)

Variously called "halfheimer's" (remembering half of something) and
"cerebral cortex 404 error".

Around here it's simply called CRS...can't remember stuff.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ...
I would have to agree with that statement in its basic form.

I would also add and feel pretty safe in saying that some of those people
that were required to learn the code, some may have learned it as a
requirement for the license set forth and might care for it, and some might
have turned out loving it like yourself.

See below.


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
.. --. .... - . .-. ...

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.

I don't particularly agree with any of this. While learning Morse
certainly was a requirement for getting a license back when I got into
the game it was also quite obvious that what mattered far more than
any issues surrounding the code tests were the innate characteristics
of ham Morse as they relate to the raw effectiveness of the mode vs.
any other modes. Bang for the buck on gear per watt per lousy antenna
per parts count per potential number of DXCC countries countries
confirmed. In other words FCC test requirements completely aside I
learned Morse because it's the best tool on the shelf for what I
wanted out of ham radio going into the hobby a half century ago.

In the following half century stuffed with massive technological
upheavals and advances the stuff is *still* the best tool on my shelf,
NOTHING has changed. Again, the tests completely aside. I don't "love"
Morse, that's a ridiculous concept. I don't go ga-ga over any of the
rest of my tools either. Screwdrivers is screwdrivers and Morse is
just another one.


73 de Larry, K3LT


w3rv