"Bill Sohl" wrote ...

Arnie, in global communications, SSB has pretty much seen its day too.
Comms are now digital and via satellite for many ships. Telecommunications,
both terrestial, microwave and satellite are almost exclusively digital.
Even so, no one is asking to shut down SSB in ham radio any more than CW is
being asked to shut down. Use it all you want...the test isn't needed to
use the mode.
__________________________________________________ ______________________

That's not the take that JJ has. He continually refers to it as antiquated
and obsolete -- not worth using in EMCom. I completely disagree with his
assessment, and can prove it. The test was not at issue in this thread.

Arnie -
KT4ST

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:



Uh, no, not quite. You see, Mr. Carroll is YOUR moral

Are you suggesting I am an immoral person?

and intellectual
superior,

That that is a real laugh.

therefore it is appropriate for you to address him in a form
which shows proper respect.f

When he dose something to deserve respect, he will get my respect.
Belittling other hams just because they do not feel the same
fanatical zeal toward CW as you and Dick do, does not deserve any
respect. When you and Dick stop seeing other hams as inferior to
you, then you might get some respect. Because of your "I am
superior because I operate CW, that makes me a real ham" attitude
toward other hams means you have not earned any consideration for
respect through your participation in this forum.

It is still MISTER JJ to you and Dick.

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:


Funny thing is, most of the No-Code Techs in my club haven't upgraded
yet, in spite of the meager 5 WPM code test requirement. What a bunch
of maroons!

There is why you deserve no respect, calling fellow hams morons.
Perhaps there are those who choose not to upgrade, what is wrong
with that? You are really pathetic Roll, the only way you can make
yourself feel some importance is to belittle someone else. Get use
to it Roll, those no code Techs are just as much a ham as you are.
If fact you don't come up to the level as a person the those
no-code Techs.

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.

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

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


Let's say a 5% growth above the current growth rate (the latter figure has
shown up previously on this news group but do not remember the figure). The
rate of growth of hams already exceeds the rate of growth of the general
population (again the data has shown up before on this newsgroup).

However, like you, I believe that there will be no noticeable increase in
the number of new hams and only a temporary surge in the number of upgrades.

What's sad is that when conditions deteriorate during a QSO and you say to
the other party "let's switch to CW" there will be too many who can't and
you'll just have to terminate the QSO.

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

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

I like kyaking, but I don't believe that everyone should be a proficent
kyaker to go into the water.

You'd think that one who likes "kyaking" could spell "kayak", Squiggy.
Looks like you've chosen a poor analogy. Your view would more properly
expressed by stating that with modern power boat technology, no
individual should be forced to jump through the swimming hoop.

Dave K8MN

disregarding the intended disparagement via the "nickname"

OK, so I mistyped ...

No, your analogy distorts what I was trying to say. Of course,
anyone who goes boating should know how to swim ... but
hams that are allowed to operate high power should know at
least the basics of RF and high voltage safety as well. These
are simple issues of personal safety and the safety of others.

However, not knowing Morse does not pose a risk to anyone,
and therefore my analogy of a particular "mode" of water sport
being required arbitrarily for ALL who wish to enter the water
is a more accurate analogy to the situation being discussed.

Carl - wk3c

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

Ah, so Shannon also speeded up light and other electromagnetic radiation,
then.
Right.

Dick,

Are really so dense that you actually think that's what I said??? (If so,
that's really sad.)

What I was saying was not that the RF signals travel faster with more
modern digital modes than with Morse, but rather that those modes
can transmit the MESSAGE CONTENT faster (and in many cases
more reliably than a human operator doing Morse).

You're the one who seems brain dead ...

I'm perfectly willing to let it go at that and allow the readership to
draw
their own conclusions.

Do so at your own peril :-)

Carl - wk3c

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

I'm not saying that CW is totally obsolete ... and I won't presume to
speak
for JJ ... I just know that there are much better digital modes available
and that CW's main purpose these days is as a recreational activity for
those who like it. I like kyaking, but I don't believe that everyone
should
be a proficent kyaker to go into the water.

__________________________________________________ _________________________

Sheesh, Carl -- does everything have to be about the test with you? I
would
maintain that there are much better forms of communication than 60 plus
year
old SSB (but for our use in the ARS it is a quite efficient mode). I am
strictly talking about the mode -- *not* testing. Do you think it's as
efficient as SSB? Yes or No

Arnie -
KT4ST

Arnie,

You asked me if I thought that Morse was "obsolete." For other than
recreational use, I think that's largely so.

Does that mean I want to ban/limit/restrict its use? No, of course not.

And yes, the conversation/debate here has ALWAYS been about
the TEST, and that's what all the fuss has been about. Some CW
enthusiasts believe that the sky will fall if Morse testing is dropped.
(More like they will have to share "their" bands with more folks
and they will have to do their own "recruiting" of new Morse fans
to ensure that they continue to have someone to communicate with
in that mode as the actuarial tables take their toll on existing, code-
using hams ... and I am NOT trying to "rush along" any OTs, just
talking "facts of life" when I mention actuarial tables.)

Another factor is that SOME folks (Dick, Larry, and others, actually
BELIEVE that their Morse proficiency makes them "REAL HAMS"
and that those who are not interested in, or proficient in, Morse are
in some way "lesser beings."

Morse is "obsolete" in the following way:

It has been supplanted, in virtually every service except ham
radio (where it has been maintained as a "tradition," "hazing ritual,"
etc.), by more modern, efficient, reliable, and convenient means
of communications. (horse vs. car or airplane, for example)

So, in that sense, it is obsolete (in practical terms on an overall
basis), though it does live on (and I expect will for a very long
time) as an avocation on a recreational basis.

Carl - wk3c

"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).

Of course, they are free to feel the same way about me, and I'm sure they do
because I don't buy their quasi-religious fervor vis a vis "Morse makes the
REAL HAM." etc.

Carl - wk3c

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.

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
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!"

73 de Larry, K3LT

Larry,

You apparently didn't see the movie, didn't get it, or have forgotten.

1) Forest Gump was (mentally) "slow"
(in an effort to be politically correct :-)

2) His successes were essentially a(n improbable) series of
"dumb luck" episodes.

3) He did, however, have a good and kind heart and always
treated people with respect.

Too bad you ACT LIKE you only meet the first two criteria ...

I withdraw my comparison.

Carl - wk3c

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.

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.

I dunno, Larry, Carl Stevenson and his Magpies of Morbidity have so traumatized
themselves
and we-don't-know-how-many others among the uninformed into believing that Morse is
nothing
short of torture, to the point that there may indeed be quite an influx of new
codeless hams.

I believe, however, that Hans is right - most of the people who want to be on HF are
already
there, given the ridiculously easy testing of the past couple decades of the VE
system. But that
kind of conclusion is of the "eye of the beholder" sort where the attitude of the
testee is paramount.
If he thinks it's "hard", then hard is what it is.

You see, what those folks can't know is that Morse is a language, for those who
learn it to skill.
When you sit and listen to it coming in as words, rather than attempting to
laborously convert "dots and dashes", in their vernacular, into letters, then letters
into words, it is an entirely different phenomena. You and I know that. They don't




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

Arnie Macy wrote:

"JJ" wrote ...

Since the beginning of the use of phone in ham radio, I would be interested
to know of any disaster where ham radio was used for communications and CW
was the only means of communications that could get through. I don't mean CW
was used just because someone wanted to or because they only had CW
capabilities, but because it was the ONLY mode that could get through.
__________________________________________________ ________________________

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.

Not dear ol' closed-minded JJ. Wouldn't take much to make a Carl out of him.

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.

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

apparently Dick, Larry, and their ilk have never been
to, or don't remember the lessons of, the Wouff Hong initiation.

Ah so, that's the source of Carl's problem. Somebody Wouff Hong'ed him
for flunking the 13wpm code test!

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

apparently Dick, Larry, and their ilk have never been
to, or don't remember the lessons of, the Wouff Hong initiation.

Ah so, that's the source of Carl's problem. Somebody Wouff Hong'ed him
for flunking the 13wpm code test!


I rest my case ... it would appear the Dick, at least, fits my comment
above.
May the ghost of "TOM" haunt him until he wises up and acts like a nice
ham :-)

Carl - wk3c

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

John:

I agree that Morse code proficiency has nothing to do with speaking or
typing -- but the ability to effectively employ the Morse/CW mode -- at
speeds greater than 5 WPM -- will keep you communicating when conditions
prevent you from communicating by voice or digital modes. You have done
nothing but provide personal, anecdotal proof that reducing code testing
requirements down to a mere 5 WPM maximum was NOT a good thing!



You know...the claim that CW "will keep you communicating when
conditions
prevent you from communicating by voice or digital modes" has been made
time
and time again. Time and time again there have been requests for proof
of
this claim. None has been provided.

To state something does not make it so.

You never watched Star Trek TNG, eh?

- Mike KB3EIA -


heh heh. We should all take lessons from that saga!

Kim W5TIT


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

"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, the only effort you are willing to expend is one which is forced upon
you?

Kim W5TIT


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

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

So, what're you gonna say to those who will
obviously be a better ham than you because they learned CW out of
wanting
to, not needing to?

Kim W5TIT

Well, Kim, if any show up, I'll be the first to congratulate them!
However,
I hope you'll forgive me for not holding my breath in the meantime!
You
see, I've become somewhat accustomed to the occasional whiff of oxygen!

73 de Larry, K3LT


Something tells me you don't have to worry about people looking for
congrats
from you, Larry.

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

So be it. In any case, the coming generation of New Age, Dumbed-Down,
No-Coder hams aren't likely to seeking any kudos from me on their CW
skills. 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. 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. Don't
worry -- our expectations of you are small.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Larry, I am so far ahead of you in terms of overall capability and
contribution that you're a speck of dust in my rear view mirror.

Kim W5TIT


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

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


You know...the claim that CW "will keep you communicating when conditions
prevent you from communicating by voice or digital modes" has been made
time
and time again. Time and time again there have been requests for proof
of
this claim. None has been provided.

To state something does not make it so.

Kim W5TIT

Kim, Dear, what kind of "proof" of this would you accept? You are not a
CW operator, so you are not even qualified to judge any "proof" offered.
Those of us who are proficient CW operators with adequate on-the-air
experience have certainly had this fact proven to them to their
satisfaction,
but a no-coder will always claim that it isn't proven simply because they
have no way of discerning and analyzing the evidence, and they have an
agenda which would cause them to deny the outcome. So please don't
go demanding "proof" unless you're willing to place yourself in a position
to be an objective, competent arbiter of any evidence offered.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Lip service, Larry. You couldn't even offer the contribution that N2EY
made. An excellent example, I might add. And, apparently you have no
proof--only your rhetorical blathering idiocy, as usual.

When you get as good as N2EY at knowing CW and examples of its tremendous
cabability, get back to us, won't you?

Kim W5TIT


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

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:



I rest my case

Your case was rested 25 years ago.

JJ wrote:

your statement of REAL radio operators is where I have
a problem with the likes of you and Larry. You have this huge ego
that unless every ham feels about code the way you do they are not
real hams. That if they choose not to use code then they are the
unwashed, the unclean. That is the problem I have with those like
you and your attitude toward other hams of your "I am superior
because I use CW" attitude.

What you have then is a problem understanding what is written. I've made it clear many
times, whether it suits you or not, facts are facts- and the fact is that any ham who
chooses to avoid learning to use radiotelgraphy is not a fully qualified ham.
So you don't like it put in such un-policacally correct terms. Tough stuff, Pal.
Ego has absolutely not a thing to do with it, and if you had half a clue you'd recognize
that fact. Qualification and ability do. End of story. Over and out, good buddy.

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.

"Kim W5TIT" wrote ...

Absolutely! Although signal fires may be pretty hazardous...heh heh
__________________________________________________ ____________________

Well, Kim. We'll just make sure that we are all wearing our proximity gear
:-))

Arnie -

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:49:34 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

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.


Not a valid comparison. It is more like making a child geometry or English
Literature or history. These things are considered part of a basic
education even though the child might not like it at the time. Later in
life, they may find that this introduction led them to an area that
interests them as an adult that they end up pursuing as a career.

It is more like the cases where I've talked to friends about music. Several
had piano lessons as children. Many of them did not like them as a kid.
However, as adults, they always make one of the following comments: a) I'm
glad my parents didn't let me quit piano OR b) I wish my parents hadn't let
me quit piano. None of the ones who quit were glad that they had quit. All
of the ones who had continued were glad that they had done so.

Any physical skill must be practiced to a basic level of ability before a
person can properly evaluate their own interest in it let alone its worth to
other people.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

JJ wrote:


Dick Carroll wrote:

JJ you really don't need to display yourself as a code illiterate,
just because
you're
irritated that someone would actually advocate using it on the air.
You don't have
to.
But you can't seem to help yourself. If you've never observed radio
operators - REAL

radio operators, using code in a very efficient way, that's just your
loss. No need
for you to
act so stupid over it.

Some people can, others "just don't want to". You can be one of those
if you wish.


First, I am not code illiterate, I can operate code if I choose to.
Second, your statement of REAL radio operators is where I have a problem
with the likes of you and Larry.

What is your callsign, JJ?

- Mike KB3EIA -

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 KB3EIA -

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:49:34 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

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


So, the only effort you are willing to expend is one which is forced upon
you?

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


Well, you're right. We aren't "forced" to pass an exam for a ham license.
However, that's been hotly debated in this newsgroup many times also ;)

And, Dick knows what I meant by my comment. I cannot believe he says he
would not have learned CW if it had not been a testing requirement!

Kim W5TIT


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

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


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.

So what? The objective then, if morse is to continue as a
mode of somewhat prevalent use is for YOU, Larry
and others to RECRUIT new hams to the joys and benefits
of morse that you so consistently profess. It's that simple!

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.

Do I care, no more than I do if the game of golf was gone
forever or hundreds of other things that others think is
great BUT do not ask for a governmental support system
to do the recruiting. If morse has the value you keep
preaching then there will be new users...maybe not as many
as YOU would want,but morse ain't gonna go way as
I see it. As long as there's one DX country running CW
only there will be new hams learning and using morse.

Which shows how shortsighted you
are, right along with the rest of NCI.

In your opinionany way...

And yes, FCC too.

That's your problem then...take it up with Bill Cross, et al
then. I'm sure they'll appreciate your commentary on how
shortsighted they are.

Of course they have far bigger fish to fry
than to worry about a trivial detail involving the ARS.

Translation...I (Dick) won't waste my time with the FCC
but rather I'll just keep complaining here in RRAP.

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

Ditto my last.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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