"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.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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.

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:26:00 GMT, Dick Carroll
wrote:

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

Is that a chink in Dick's armor? Quick, Jose, my soldering iron!

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 can't substantiate this statistically off the top of my head, but it
wouldn't surprise me to learn that a majority of hams already aren't
all that proficient with Morse to begin with. I was forced to learn it
to upgrade from Tech to General, but I learned it only well enough to
pass the test (by correctly copying the phrase "My QTH is Malibu,
California." rather than by answering the multiple choice questions -
since the comma and period count as two characters each, that gave me
one minute of solid copy), and basically haven't used it since.

I did try once...used the club station, went down in the lower portion
of 15 where I frequently hear some slower CW ops...send "CQ CQ CQ DE"
and my callsign twice, at about 5 WPM because I didn't want to send
faster than I could copy...then realized that in the amount of time it
took me to do that I could have already had a contact in the log on
phone...and that I did not and do not have the patience for CW.

I'd have a hard time believing there aren't a heck of a lot of 5 WPM
Generals and Extras out there who've gone through the same thing. Add
those to the no-code Techs and you might well be pretty close to half
the entire ham population in the U.S. for all I know.

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.

Now it is you who might be missing the point. The code test will be
gone - as someone else in this NG likes to say, the government life
support system will be turned off. That, in and of itself, does not
guarantee that ham radio will lose CW as a viable mode, it only
guarantees that if the ARS is to keep CW as a viable mode, it behooves
those who want it to continue as such to find another way to get hams
to learn the code.

Now, to repeat the point I have been trying to make in this thread. On
the one hand we have guys like Arnie who will respect a fellow ham as
a fellow ham, regardless of whether that ham can do 50 WPM or
zero...will encourage people to learn the code and use the mode, bend
over backwards to help them do it, slow down his own sending so they
can copy it at their own speed, and just generally being reasonable
and friendly and giving people every encouragement.

On the other hand, we have guys snarling like angry dogs at people for
doing what you yourself would have done if you'd had the choice at the
time...people calling guys lazy, good for nothing, saying they aren't
"real" hams, and just generally being unreasonable, unfriendly, and in
some cases hypocritical as well.

Caught in the middle will be a whole generation of new hams who will
decide for themselves if they want to learn the code or not, sitting
there on the fence between the folks continuing the CW tradition in
ham radio and the folks who want nothing to do with Morse. The folks
on the no-code side will welcome them into the hobby regardless. The
folks on the other side...well...it looks good over where Arnie is,
but with all those snarling dogs over there, I dunno...

What I guess I'm trying to say is, we need less snarling dogs and more
people looking for a reasonable approach to the problem.

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.

First of all, if it's so trivial, why is everybody getting their
panties in a bunch about it?

Secondly, I think the ARS itself has bigger fish to fry. To name just
one, BPL used to mean Brass Pounders' League. Now it means the noise
floor on your HF rig is about to go through the ceiling and put your
S-meter into orbit.

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

Can't say as I really blame them. Everybody wants to be the fire
department in a town with no fires. Aside from the political
appointees, FCC is men and women who get up in the morning, go to
work, then go home at the end of the day, same as I do. I do what I
can to make my job easier, what makes them any different? So, FCC is
not going to solve the problem for us. Care to hazard a WAG as to
who's left to come up with a solution?

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

"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

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.

- Mike KB3EIA -

YAGI Berra Sed That

Depending on the FCC whims, cud be a while before you get that no-code HF
license.

Yogi also sed "When you come to a Tee in the coax -- Take it"

More Yogi at URL:
http://www.yogi-berra.com/

"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.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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 KB3EIA -

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

"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