Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:
2. Most public safety professionals (by which I mean law enforcement,
fire supression, EMS, and SAR personnel) know precisely this about the
radios they use on the job: Either it works or it doesn't. Either the
city cops can talk directly to the county sheriffs or they can't.
Change to a different radio? Sure...just get a new radio...see item
number (1) above for the problem with that.


Hmmm.... but if there ever was any career paths that the possibility of
needing to communicate in a non-voice manner those professions just may
be..... If a firefighter gets trapped in a building or cop has some type of
situation where he may not be able to speak or something, he may be able to
tap code out on the speaker.

So you recommend that all firefighters and policemen be required
to learn code for that one in 10 million incidences where this
might happen?

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

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."

Awwwww...sore losers? :-)

Once upon a time in hamland there was only SPARK...with a very very
few rich folks owning alternators. Nearly all were on MF and LF. Hams
said they were Mighty and all were Morsemen.

"Tubes" were for sissies with money. Bzzzp...bzzzp...bzzzp.

Along came nasty ol gubmint and said "Everyone on wavelengths
SHORTER than 200 meters!" Oh! The grousing and the grumbling
and curses and imprecations against gubmint! Bzzzp...bzzzp...bzzzp.

Then nasty ol gubmint said "SPARK is forbidden! No more SPARK!"
More curses, more grumbling, more imprecations! End of the world.
All those hams had to learn all about TUBES! Woe!

ADAPT or DIE. Get the picture?

LHA

In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

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.

Minor point, Bill...If morse dies without testing then that's a
sad commentary on HOW GREAT THE PCTAS ARE!"

:-)

LHA

In article m, "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

Actually the fact that other services don't use it very much is a strong
argument to require hams to learn it.

Idiocy.

This is the place to preserve the
skill in case of need and to prevent this capability from becoming a lost
art.

OK, so you want to keep the US ARS a living museum of morse.

Few do.

Are you an anthropologist?

Plus of course the fact that quite a few hams do use it.

OK, that means you want a welfare program to keep things the way
YOU want it.

Shrug.

LHA

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:08:16 -0400, "Ryan, KC8PMX"
wrote:


2. Most public safety professionals (by which I mean law enforcement,
fire supression, EMS, and SAR personnel) know precisely this about the
radios they use on the job: Either it works or it doesn't. Either the
city cops can talk directly to the county sheriffs or they can't.
Change to a different radio? Sure...just get a new radio...see item
number (1) above for the problem with that.

Hmmm.... but if there ever was any career paths that the possibility of
needing to communicate in a non-voice manner those professions just may
be..... If a firefighter gets trapped in a building or cop has some type of
situation where he may not be able to speak or something, he may be able to
tap code out on the speaker.

Perhaps, but it wouldn't be all that likely that anyone hearing it
would recognize it as an attempt to communicate, let alone copy the
message...chances are the fire dispatcher isn't required to learn
Morse in order to qualify for the job.

Fortunately, there are other ways to accomplish the same task, that
being to alert other firefihters to the plight of the trapped
personnel. The fire department in Buffalo, NY equips members of its
interior teams with portable radios that have a "man down" button on
them. When said button is pressed (which isn't hard to do, it happens
very often by accident) it activates an alarm on the MDTs in the rigs.
The drill then is that all other comms stop at once and a headcount is
performed. It doesn't even have to be the MDT on the rig he or she is
assigned to - any MDT in range will initiate the alarm. Other
departments probably use that technology as well, I merely am aware of
this one since I live relatively near Buffalo.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

On 14 Jul 2003 07:33:29 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

So be it. In any case, the coming generation of New Age, Dumbed-Down,
No-Coder hams

That statement just convinced a few thousand people to try CW on its
own merits...NOT!

John:

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

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

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

Oh, you mean the truth.

That remains to be seen. The next generation of hams hasn't joined our
ranks yet. However, if you're truly concerned about getting said hams
to try CW so as to preserve its status as a viable means of
communication in the ARS, you might consider wording your message in a
less offensive manner. That way you might actually reach someone with
your message. As it is, you virtually guarantee a negative reaction to
your words. You'll never convince anybody that way.

I would hope that any who learned the code and became proficient
with it's use on-the-air, would do so for their own personal gratification
and
to add that skill to their overall capability as a radio amateur.

I hope so too, Larry, because with your apparent attitude towards
fellow hams, they sure as heck aren't going to be leqarning it so they
can put your call in the logbook.

Or for any other reason.

Faced with the possibility of an uphill battle to preserve the
viability of CW in the ARS, you're surrendering and conceding defeat
even before the first shot has been fired?

Don't
worry -- our expectations of you are small.

Why don't you quit beating around the bush and just ask her whether or
not size really matters?

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

Which she shouldn't need to defend in the first place. It's a free
country, and she's in it.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

On 14 Jul 2003 07:33:28 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:


You are not a
CW operator, so you are not even qualified to judge any "proof" offered.

You are not a cow, Larry, therefore you are not even qualified to
judge whether McDonald's or Wendy's makes better cheeseburgers.

There's an even better reason than that, John -- I don't eat cheeseburgers!

OK, roast beef sandwiches, then.

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,

Hitler had the collective guilt of Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, and
homosexuals proven to his satisfaction, too.

I see. I am now being compared to Hitler because I believe in code
testing. Typical NCTA argument -- and the kind of rhetoric that got me
started in this debate about 13 years ago.

My intention was to point out that Hitler was wrong, even though he
was thoroughly convinced he was correct. No other comparison was
intended. In retrospect, however, given the negative connotation folks
generally attach to the mention of Hitler (entirely deserved given his
contributions to human history), perhaps the choice of analogy was a
poor one. Lemme try again: At one point in history, humanity's most
learned scholars had it proven to their satisfaction that the Earth
was the center of the universe. That is, until Copernicus came along.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:29:12 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

Won't do him any good. Kim's married/taken and quite happy with her
mate, thank you very much.


GRIN. Yep 14 years now. Uh, well, those reasons to begin with, anyway.
The really number one reason is that I'm not that desperate for a man if it
means Larry Roll... ;)

Now it's my turn to say ROTFLMAO.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

On 14 Jul 2003 07:33:25 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

Elimination of the code requirement may actually cause a loss in the ham
ranks, if not in numbers at least in activity. The elimination will
probably coincide with the early part of the bottom of the current sunspot
cycle. People will upgrade and quite a few will be so disappointed at the
poor activity that they will become quite inactive on HF and this
disappointment could spill over and affect their activity on VHF/UHF.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

A very cogent observation, Dee. The irony is, at the low side of a
solar cycle, when the geomagnetic activity subsides along with the
solar flux, the use of CW permits communication even though there
isn't good enough propagation to pursue reliable SSB operation.
Therefore, the one thing that could keep them active on-the-air --
knowledge of the Morse code, won't be within their capability because
they had no incentive to learn it.

I think it's worth mentioning here that the solar flares that cause
the geomagnetic storms that degrade HF propagation also trigger a
significant increase in auroral activity in the higher latitudes. This
provides an opportunity for ops on six meters. I've observed the
phenomenon before. Your're in New York. You point your beam north and
you start hearing somebody in Florida. You figure you're hearing him
off the back of the beam and turn it south to bring up the signal,
only to have it disappear.

Much of this activity happens on CW. Voice signals get distorted a lot
due to the effects of all the ionization in the aurora itself.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 20:47:40 -0400, "Bill Sohl"
wrote:


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.

Many of whom will, ironically enough, be codeless hams running PSK31
or one of the other "sound card" modes.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

"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/

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote ...

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.
__________________________________________________ _________________________

You make the presumption that we don't ever use phone, conduct QSO's, or
belong to nets. Of course we do -- and many of us are just as good at those
aspects of Ham radio as well.

Arnie -
KT4ST

"Gee, now where did I leave my microphone?"

In article , Dick Carroll writes:

Th[e] hobby is in sad shape and is being held up like Atlas holding the world
by
hams who have taken a code test. When all you have left is the Loyd Davies,
well I
doubt that statement even needs finishing.

Dick:

In any case, it will be quite interesting to watch the developments of the
next few years in the life of the ARS. All of the technical advancement
that was promised throughout the code testing debate will either suddenly
come into being, or will be notable by it's absence. There may, indeed,
be a handful of new hams with professional technical qualifications who
would finally obtain a license -- but what of all the others who simply have
the desire to matriculate from the 11-meter band and be legally able to
use higher power and spin a VFO knob? Are their contributions going
to save our spectrum from re-allocation to commercial interests? Will
they expand emergency communications capability to an extent which
will cause federal, state, and local bureaucracies to eliminate any and
all regulatory restrictions on the operation of an amateur radio station?
Or will they just cause a lot of QRM for a while, become discouraged,
and revert to inactivity? Oh well, as that ancient Chinese curse goes,
"May you live in interesting times." Those times are just about to begin.

73 de Larry, K3LT

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?

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

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

Gee Larry, isn't that incentive enough? Or do you need a government
incentive to make something happen?

Brian:

No, I sincerely do not believe that this is "incentive enough." It certainly
didn't cut any ice with me, during the period of my life from age 14 to
age 28 when I longed to be a licensed radio amateur, but couldn't be
bothered to learn the Morse code. The thing that made me start beeping
was the "incentive" to get on the air at all -- in any mode, and then start
yakking into a microphone as soon as I was able. The irony is, I soon
discovered that CW was fun and a challenge, and sitting and waiting my
turn to yak was a waste of valuable time.

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.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

I say the total number of US hams will grow to 700,000 in about a
year, 710,000 in two years, and then the growth will slow down to at
best 5,000 per year.

Or:

700,000 after 1 year
710,000 after 2 years
715,000 after 3 years
720,000 after 4 years

Etc.

(based on a starting point of about 688,000)

Or to put it another way:

Growth of ~12,000 the first year
Growth of ~10,000 the second year
Growth of ~5,000 the third and following years.

Current growth is about 3,000 per year.


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.

I hope my predicted numbers are too low.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim:

Your predictions seem to be right in line with my own expectations.
However, as you say, there are a lot of variables that cannot be
accounted for with any predictable certainty. I agree that there will
be a great deal of upgrading activity, particularly in the first three
years. I wonder how the FCC will deal with all the upgrades, since
their overall goal seems to be to reduce the administrative burden
imposed by the ARS?

73 de Larry, K3LT

"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.

Just pointing
out the fact that there are better modulation/coding techniques than OOK
Morse ...

Ah, see, there you go. "Better modulation/coding techniques than OOK
Morse", with no qualifiers as to how they are "better".

It's like saying that French is a "better" language than English, or
that football is a "better" sport than baseball. Many English speakers
and baseball fans are going to see such things as put-downs. Even if
you don't mean them to be.

that does NOT mean that I mind/care/object to others CHOOSING
to use OOK Morse ...

Yet you wrote:

"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

"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."

and

"can be done, with proper modulation and coding"

"How ridiculous!!!!!!!"

All in reference to some other hams' choice of Morse for EME work. On
frequencies for which there hasn't been a Morse test for over a dozen
years.

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.

only that I am disseminating some facts that the more
"hard-core" Morse enthusiasts don't like disseminated because they fly in
the face of the "Morse Myths" (like "Morse will get through were nothing
else will.")

There you go again. I'm about as hard-core a Morse enthusiast as you
will ever come across, yet have you ever seen me write "Morse will get
through were nothing else will" ? I don't think so.

What you may have seen me write is something like is "Sometimes Morse
will get through when nothing else available will" or "Sometimes Morse
will get through when analog voice modes won't" and other true
statements.

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.

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

See above ...

Yes. When you describe someone's choise of mode as "the hard way" and
"ridiculous!!!!!", it becomes difficult to accept that you don't
"mind/care/object to others CHOOSING to use OOK Morse ..."

For example, EME can be done, with proper modulation and coding
with much less power/antenna gain than with OOK Morse ...

Have you actually DONE it, Carl? Not just a paper design - an actual
station, and actual QSOs?

No, I personally haven't ... yet ... I've been working on other things. But
the fact that *I* haven't personally done it yet doesn't mean it's not
factual.

Yet you ridicule those who do it other ways. You say it can be done
"better", but you haven't done it, which doesn't do much for your
credibility among other hams, nor convince them of the rightness of
your methods.

The way to make your point is NOT to put down the "traditionalists",
but to lead the way by actually doing what you say is possible.
Imagine two stations with 100 watts output and single Yagis
conducting reliable EME. Imagine EME WAS between such stations.
Imagine articles in QST, QEX and other ham publications describing how
it's done and what great fun it is.

It's the difference between a positive attitude and a negative one.

(I am not so hung up on myself that "my way" and "what I've done" are the
ONLY ways that things can/should be done.)

Sure you are, Carl. For example, you insist that the only correct way
for the future of amateur radio is without any form of code testing,
regardless of what the majority wants. That's insisting on "your way".

As far as "what you've done", it's important to realize that most
people aren't going to want to spend their time and money doing
something the way you suggest
when you haven't done it yourself, *and* you call the way they do it
"ridiculous!!!!!".

Why does it bother you if some unnamed folks don't see things your way? If
you can do "better", go ahead.

What "bothers me" is that some folks deny the fact that there ARE better
ways than OOK Morse (apparently in an attempt to bolster their "real ham"
and "everyone MUST know Morse" viewpoints)

That's because your statement is too general. You don't define what
you mean by "better" in any way. And you don't seem to accept that
Morse is better in some ways, while other modes are better in other
ways.

If you can do "better", go ahead. Define how your way is "better",
then go do it. Otherwise it sounds like "don't do what I do, do what I
say"...

That's how things change in amateur radio - somebody actually goes out
and does
it, and shows the way.

Build and publicize a system that will let hams work EME inexpensively
with
small antennas, low power and easily-duplicated equipment/software.
Pretty soon
those unnamed "traditionalists" will be completely outnumbered.

Do it, write it up and submit it to QST, QEX, CQ, Worldradio,
etc. They will love it. Look at the amount of ink PSK-31 has gotten.

But somebody (G3PLX) had to actually make it work, first. Did he go
around saying Morse and Baudot and ASCII RTTY were "ridiculous"? I
don't think so.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
m...
"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.

Just pointing
out the fact that there are better modulation/coding techniques than OOK
Morse ...

Ah, see, there you go. "Better modulation/coding techniques than OOK
Morse", with no qualifiers as to how they are "better".

OK ... "Better" in terms of weak signal performance, data throughput,
and reliability (robustness in the face of channel impariments and lack
of operator error in decoding).

Does that satisfy you?

that does NOT mean that I mind/care/object to others CHOOSING
to use OOK Morse ...

Yet you wrote:

"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."

There is nothing "magical" about Morse ... with the exception of the
(mis)use of the term "magical" in the nostalgia sense. (That doesn't
mean it's "bad" ... just that it has no magical, mystical properties ...
nor does any other mode, for that matter, it's just a matter of physics.)

and

"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."

I maintain that the statement is true. Note I said "so many hams" ... not
ALL hams.

only that I am disseminating some facts that the more
"hard-core" Morse enthusiasts don't like disseminated because they fly
in
the face of the "Morse Myths" (like "Morse will get through were nothing
else will.")

There you go again. I'm about as hard-core a Morse enthusiast as you
will ever come across, yet have you ever seen me write "Morse will get
through were nothing else will" ? I don't think so.

I know you're a hard-core Morse enthusiast, but you're not as narrow-minded
about it as SOME (I did limit the comment to SOME) ... and I don't see you
as having a "religious zeal" or "I'm superior" attitude ... to your credit.

Yes. When you describe someone's choise of mode as "the hard way" and
"ridiculous!!!!!", it becomes difficult to accept that you don't
"mind/care/object to others CHOOSING to use OOK Morse ..."

Take me at my word ... I was talking about fanatical attitudes, not the
norm.

[more on EME when I have something to report ... this summer is
intended for some serious antenna work ... winter should bring some
progress on other projects that work demands have kept me from
longer than I had hoped]

(I am not so hung up on myself that "my way" and "what I've done" are
the
ONLY ways that things can/should be done.)

Sure you are, Carl. For example, you insist that the only correct way
for the future of amateur radio is without any form of code testing,
regardless of what the majority wants. That's insisting on "your way".

1) I believe I am right. YMMV
2) I am not at all convinced that "the majority wants" something other
than what I am advocating.

What "bothers me" is that some folks deny the fact that there ARE better
ways than OOK Morse (apparently in an attempt to bolster their "real
ham"
and "everyone MUST know Morse" viewpoints)

That's because your statement is too general. You don't define what
you mean by "better" in any way. And you don't seem to accept that
Morse is better in some ways, while other modes are better in other
ways.

I've attempted to define "better" better above :-)

Carl - wk3c

In article m, "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

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


Dee D.:

Very interesting point. And, of course, 100% true. I would add that the one
thing that gets prospective hams to learn the Morse code is the requirement
to be tested for Morse proficiency in order to achieve upgraded HF privileges.
How many New Age No-Code Extras do you think you can "sell" on the
concept of learning the Morse code, just on the basis of it's operational
characteristics or the fact that it's "fun" to do? Keep in mind, they can
yakk on HF phone on any band and frequency they want, and with
maximum allowable power. They will have legitimate, full-privilege General-
or Extra-class licenses, without no requirement for code testing at any
speed. So, how many do you think you can convince to try code and
get them up to 20 WPM and become regular CW operators?

I know that for 14 years, nobody could "sell" it to me at any price. I'm
just glad that one fine day I was able to be convinced that being a ham
was worth enough to me to make the efford to learn and gain useful
proficiency in this particular communications skill.

I predict that in a future ARS with no code testing, getting new hams to
become CW operators will be a daunting, if not impossible, task.

73 de Larry, K3LT

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

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

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

Walkers, wheelchairs, and gurneys? :-)

LHA

In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

You make the presumption that we don't ever use phone, conduct QSO's, or
belong to nets. Of course we do -- and many of us are just as good at those
aspects of Ham radio as well.

You are a Morseman, strong, resolute, able to leap tall pileups in a
single CQ. There is nothing you cannot do as an amateur.

There, did I pat you on your aspect as you wanted? :-)

LHA

"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/


I had my witches coven put a curse on her.

Dan/W4NTI

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

Th[e] hobby is in sad shape and is being held up like Atlas holding the
world
by
hams who have taken a code test. When all you have left is the Loyd
Davies,
well I
doubt that statement even needs finishing.

Dick:

In any case, it will be quite interesting to watch the developments of the
next few years in the life of the ARS. All of the technical advancement
that was promised throughout the code testing debate will either suddenly
come into being, or will be notable by it's absence. There may, indeed,
be a handful of new hams with professional technical qualifications who
would finally obtain a license -- but what of all the others who simply
have
the desire to matriculate from the 11-meter band and be legally able to
use higher power and spin a VFO knob? Are their contributions going
to save our spectrum from re-allocation to commercial interests? Will
they expand emergency communications capability to an extent which
will cause federal, state, and local bureaucracies to eliminate any and
all regulatory restrictions on the operation of an amateur radio station?
Or will they just cause a lot of QRM for a while, become discouraged,
and revert to inactivity? Oh well, as that ancient Chinese curse goes,
"May you live in interesting times." Those times are just about to begin.

73 de Larry, K3LT


All of which will go away immediatly. Just as soon as the BPL is turned on
in your neighborhood. Bye by ham radio.

That is what we should be bitching and moaning about. Not code vs no code.
Get a grip people. If BPL is fired up you have no HF SPECTRUM.

Now back to the biggest and most useless debate ever.

Dan/W4NTI

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 01:09:43 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


Studying the propagation before, during, and after the contest indicated
that the best results would occur on CW.

If the deck was thus stacked against the SSB stations from the
beginning, then the results should come as no surprise. Nevertheless,
the phone stations did, in fact, still manage to make contacts.

The experience of our club bore
that out. Our SSB stations tried both tactics, i.e. camping on a
frequency
to run stations and hunting and pouncing. Productivity was quite low on
SSB. It picked up the second afternoon but was not good. Our CW
stations
also used both tactics and produced a high number of QSOs both ways
throughout the event.

I operated both SSB and CW modes for our club. Despite the fact that I
am
NOT an experienced CW contester and that my CW ability is rather weak,
even
I made far more contacts on CW even though I spent much more time on SSB.

Do you attribute this to band conditions or to something else?

No doubt about it, the band conditions were the determining factor.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

"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?

We may have an initial inrush of some newbies in the onset, but it will
flatten back out to where it is about right now is my prediction. Its
from
a "marketing" standpoint. The hobby just is not promoted like it should
or
could be. Once us existing licensee's hit up our friends and family, that
is usually it. (kinda sounds a bit like Amway!)

Actually the biggest problem is lack of activity by the current hams. If we
take the figure of 600,000+ hams and calculate the number of QSOs per day if
each one had one QSO per YEAR (assume it takes two hams for a qso), thats
300,000 exchanges per year or nearly 1000 per day. That would keep the
bands pretty busy. But instead we hear the same people over and over on the
VHF and HF frequencies. We have 150 members or so in our club and I only
hear about a dozen on the repeater regularly. It's the same dozen that do
VHF simplex and SSB. We need to get those already licensed more involved.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
m...
"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.

Just pointing
out the fact that there are better modulation/coding techniques than
OOK
Morse ...

Ah, see, there you go. "Better modulation/coding techniques than OOK
Morse", with no qualifiers as to how they are "better".

OK ... "Better" in terms of weak signal performance, data throughput,
and reliability (robustness in the face of channel impariments and lack
of operator error in decoding).

Does that satisfy you?

Actually no it doesn't as each mode has conditions under which it excels.
You need to more precisely define the conditions and specify which mode you
are talking about.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"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

"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..."

"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

"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