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

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

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

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

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

Brian

N2EY wrote:
"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

Well done post Jim!

Carl, like it or not, your intense dislike of Morse code stands out
like a sore thumb, obvious to me and others.

Which is why, your protestations to the contrary, I believe you wish at
the *very* least, the complete marginalization of Morse code use.


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Carl, like it or not, your intense dislike of Morse code stands out
like a sore thumb, obvious to me and others.

Which is why, your protestations to the contrary, I believe you wish at
the *very* least, the complete marginalization of Morse code use.


- Mike KB3EIA -


Mike ... yes, I don't personally like Morse ... however, once again,
I have NO PROBLEM with those that DO, as long as they desist
from attempting to force it on everyone else and denigrating those
who don't like Morse and resist having it forced on them.

Honest ...

Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:


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 BS and everyone reading here knows it.

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

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

"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. ;-)

You know what, John? Kim's posts would be a whole lot better if she
could resist the temptation to "take shots" at "targets of opportunity."
And, with all due respect, so could yours.

73 de Larry, K3LT

N2EY wrote:
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


"N2EY" wrote in message
.com...

Alun Palmer wrote in message

...

Bringing the phone subbands in line with other countries in Region 2

would

be sufficient

Seeing as how the USA has more hams than any other country in Region
2, why not have those other countries get their phone subbands in line
with the USA?

Because they are soverign nations with the right to regulate the use of
the radio spectrum within their jurisdictions as they see fit and according
to their needs, as long as they are not in violation of the ITU Radio
Regulations.


That's not a reason, just a fact.

Because most of the rest of the world does it the same way they do
and the US is virtually alone in its sub-band by mode regulations.


We were talking about Region 2.


Jim ... I realize that your question above was *probably* (at least
partly) tongue in cheek, but it does sort of smack of American
arrogance ... and to some of the other countries in region 2, perhaps
something approaching "Yankee imperialism."


What about anti-American arrogance?

I think you completely misread what I was saying. Wasn't tongue in cheek at
all, just an opposing idea. Nowhere do I suggest that any sort of coercion be
applied to other countries - why do you read that into my words?

As I recall, the person suggesting that we align ourselves to the rest
of the world's standards was from another country. When Jim retorted,
he was accused of American arrogance. Ohhhhkkkkay, then what was the
first suggestion? Logic? Something that wasn't arrogance, suggested by
someone else, but arrogance if an American suggests it?

Simply Wrong, Carl!

The fact of the matter is that the reason we have limited 'phone bands here in
the USA is twofold: One, to give the DX a place to operate 'phone without
having to deal with Yankee pileups every time they try to operate when the band
is open, and two, to give US hams an incentive to use modes other than 'phone.
Both are good ideas.

Very good ideas, and if the rest of the world would want to adopt
something like this, it could be cool (not even a suggestion, just a
"hey folks, look what we do")

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo

writes:

I would propose that "200 Meters and Down" be required reading and have
a few questions on the tests!

While "200" is very good, it stops in 1936. I would recommend the
following:

- "Calling CQ" by Clinton B. Desoto, W1CBD, available for free download as
a PDF file. May be around as a printed book. Stories of 1920s and 1930s
amateur radio.

- "The Wayback Machine" by Bill Continelli, W2XOY, available for free
download
or for viewing on a website. Multichapter history of amateur radio from
the earliest days to the present.

As entertaining depicitions of the history of ham radio, these may be GREAT
works.

Have you read any of them?

As "models for the future," I think we need to look more forward than
backward.

Sure. But we need to know the background to knwo how we got where we are, and
how to avoid mistakes made in the past.

While I admit that history can be valuable in terms of learning
from past mistakes, so as to avoid similar mistakes in the future, I think
leaning on past events/conditions/etc. too heavily and trying to "keep
things
as they were in 'the good old days' " is a BIG mistake ... a mistake that
too many of us are inclined to make.

I disagree. It's not a mistake to keep certain values. Like old-fashioned
manners, courtesy and respect on the air. But there's no good test for that!

--

And while we're on the subject of the future - what's YOUR vision for the
future? Besides getting rid of the code test?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) I disagree. It's not a mistake to keep
certain values. Like old-fashioned manners,
courtesy and respect on the air. But there's
no good test for that!


I absolutely agree, Jim. Things are not necessarily bad simply because
they're old-fashioned. There are many old-fashioned ideals that could
clearly help this country be much better place to live if continued today.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) I disagree. It's not a mistake to keep
certain values. Like old-fashioned manners,
courtesy and respect on the air. But there's
no good test for that!


I absolutely agree, Jim. Things are not necessarily bad simply because
they're old-fashioned. There are many old-fashioned ideals that could
clearly help this country be much better place to live if continued today.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Actually, the good test for good manners and courtesy and respect on the
air, is the acid test. Every person I have witnessed being in the class the
majority calls an "idiot" operator, has soon disappeared from the FM side of
ham radio. They get tired of "being encouraged" to talk right, operate
right, etc., or they get tired of being ignored. Guess where some have
disappeared to?

You got it: HF. They can have a lot more anonymity there, and they have
less chance of running into the same people over and over again.

Kim W5TIT


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