JJ wrote:

N2EY wrote:



Do you have something against someone who has no desire to operate CW?
There are many different modes of operation in ham radio, do you
operate them all?


No - do you?

No, I certainly do not. If someone wants to only operate cw, only
ssb, only 2 meter FM, then fine, and they are just as much a ham
as someone who operates multiple modes.

So a ham who operates all modes except that he cannot operate radiotlegraphy
because he doewn't know Morse code, is just as well qualified as a ham who
operates all those and also can operate radiotelegraphy.

Surely you can understand the fallacy of your own argument,
all other considerations aside.

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


JJ wrote:

N2EY wrote:

Do you have something against someone who has no desire to operate
CW?
There are many different modes of operation in ham radio, do you
operate them all?

No - do you?

No, I certainly do not. If someone wants to only operate cw, only
ssb, only 2 meter FM, then fine, and they are just as much a ham
as someone who operates multiple modes.

So a ham who operates all modes except that he cannot operate
radiotlegraphy
because he doewn't know Morse code, is just as well qualified as a ham who
operates all those and also can operate radiotelegraphy.

Surely you can understand the fallacy of your own argument,
all other considerations aside.

Of course there is a fallacy since "operate" gives no indication
as to actual level of expertise, the ham who operates all modes except
CW could well be far more qualified then the ham who operates
all modes including CW. For the record, the opposite could also be
true and they might actually be equally qualified.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 01:20:17 GMT, Dick Carroll
wrote:

No, I certainly do not. If someone wants to only operate cw, only
ssb, only 2 meter FM, then fine, and they are just as much a ham
as someone who operates multiple modes.

So a ham who operates all modes except that he cannot operate radiotlegraphy
because he doewn't know Morse code, is just as well qualified as a ham who
operates all those and also can operate radiotelegraphy.

Surely you can understand the fallacy of your own argument,
all other considerations aside.


The question becomes, qualified to do what?

The fact that I do not have a license to drive a motorcycle does not
make me any less qualified to drive a car. Similarly, the fact that I
choose not to operate in CW purely out of personal preference makes me
no less qualified to operate phone, packet, PSK31, etc.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 01:20:17 GMT, Dick Carroll
wrote:

No, I certainly do not. If someone wants to only operate cw, only
ssb, only 2 meter FM, then fine, and they are just as much a ham
as someone who operates multiple modes.

So a ham who operates all modes except that he cannot operate radiotlegraphy
because he doewn't know Morse code, is just as well qualified as a ham who
operates all those and also can operate radiotelegraphy.

Surely you can understand the fallacy of your own argument,
all other considerations aside.


The question becomes, qualified to do what?

Do you really need to ask? *To Communicate by Amateur Radio*, of course.
CW ops have a mode available that no coders don't, and seems most never will.

In article , Dick Carroll writes:

No, I certainly do not. If someone wants to only operate cw, only
ssb, only 2 meter FM, then fine, and they are just as much a ham
as someone who operates multiple modes.

So a ham who operates all modes except that he cannot operate radiotlegraphy
because he doewn't know Morse code, is just as well qualified as a ham who
operates all those and also can operate radiotelegraphy.

Surely you can understand the fallacy of your own argument,
all other considerations aside.

Dick:

An even greater fallacy is the notion that "hams" who operate only
2-meters FM (which probably defines at least 80 percent of "hams"
licensed since 1991) is "qualified" as an amateur radio operator!
At the risk of sounding Kim-like, ROTFLMAO!!!

Were it not for the occasional usefulness of the 2-meter band to
"real" ham radio operators like you and me, I'd suggest that it be
separated from the licensing structure and just be given away to
anyone who can afford a transceiver. Of course, we've already gone
most of the way to doing just that, and we still don't see any real
growth in the numbers of licensed amateurs.

73 de Larry, K3LT

On 12 Jul 2003 02:05:48 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

At the risk of sounding Kim-like, ROTFLMAO!!!

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Larry. I think you're in
love with her!

Were it not for the occasional usefulness of the 2-meter band to
"real" ham radio operators like you and me, I'd suggest that it be
separated from the licensing structure and just be given away to
anyone who can afford a transceiver. Of course, we've already gone
most of the way to doing just that, and we still don't see any real
growth in the numbers of licensed amateurs.

Heckuva lot of growth in the number of no-code Techs, though. So if
the total number of hams hasn't increased, the number of hams with the
other classes of license must have decreased accordingly in order to
keep up. Or are guys reverse-upgrading to Technician nowadays?

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

Heckuva lot of growth in the number of no-code Techs, though.

Not really. See below.

So if
the total number of hams hasn't increased, the number of hams with the
other classes of license must have decreased accordingly in order to
keep up. Or are guys reverse-upgrading to Technician nowadays?

Three things:

- the number of US hams has increased by about 11,000 since May of 2000

- since April 15, 2000, the FCC has been renewing Tech Pluses as Techs, and not
issuing any new Tech Pluses. The number of Tech Pluses has dropped by over
61,000 since that happened.

- since April 15, 2000, the FCC has been granting Tech licenses (as opposed to
Tech Pluses) to Novices who pass Element 2 or produce the relevant CSCEs, and
not issuing any new Novices. The number of Novices has dropped by over 15,000
since that happened.

How many of those hams listed as Technicians in the database are not code
tested, vs. those who are? Almost impossible to say.

But look at these numbers:

Total Tech and Tech Plus as of May 14, 2000: 334,254

Total Tech and Tech Plus as of June 30, 2003: 324,004

Total Novice, Tech and Tech Plus as of May 14, 2000: 383,528

Total Novice, Tech and Tech Plus as of June 30, 2003: 363,800

For a bimonthly listing of the various totals, see the thread "ARS License
Numbers" and look for posts by me around the first and fifteenth of each month.
That thread goes back about two years, and compares present totals to those on
May 14, 2000 - one month after the restructuring changes. That date was chosen
as a benchmark for a number of reasons, such as the fact that the VECs,and FCC
were running a tremendous backlog in April 2000, so the numbers were far from
current back then.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

On 12 Jul 2003 02:05:48 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

At the risk of sounding Kim-like, ROTFLMAO!!!

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Larry. I think you're in
love with her!

Omigosh, I feel my dinner coming up...BIWBAPMGO!!!
Damn, good thing I had that waste basket handy!

Were it not for the occasional usefulness of the 2-meter band to
"real" ham radio operators like you and me, I'd suggest that it be
separated from the licensing structure and just be given away to
anyone who can afford a transceiver. Of course, we've already gone
most of the way to doing just that, and we still don't see any real
growth in the numbers of licensed amateurs.

Heckuva lot of growth in the number of no-code Techs, though. So if
the total number of hams hasn't increased, the number of hams with the
other classes of license must have decreased accordingly in order to
keep up. Or are guys reverse-upgrading to Technician nowadays?

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!

73 de Larry, K3LT

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.

On 13 Jul 2003 05:53:18 GMT, ospam (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!

Not sure what a "maroon" is, although from the tone I imagine its
something derogatory. BTW, which club is that, so I can send a copy of
your post to the newsletter editor and enlighten the membership as to
what your opinion is of them?

Other than that, I guess we'll just have to wait and see how many of
them upgrade once there is a 0 WPM code test requirement.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ