Ham Radio In The Post-Code Testing Era
 

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

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:

Why do you think taking a code test prevents these things from happening?

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

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.

Yet by learning Morse as a requirement to yak, you were still not
convinced that it was fun. How long did you spend in each amateur
grade?

Brian:

LOL -- my TIG for each license class was approximately 2 months as a Novice,
2 months as a Tech, 4 months as a General, 1 year as an Advanced, and the
rest of my life as an Extra (20 years so far as of Feb. '03). All these are
just
guesses, probably accurate to a few weeks or so, but I'd have to dig out my
old licenses to know for sure. Unfortunately, the only one I'm missing is my
old Novice ticket. I have it somewhere, but it's buried so deep in junque that
I haven't seen it since my Tech upgrade in 1981.

I probably did most of my phone operating as an Advanced, because it
was during that time that I had a mobile HF station in my '78 Plymouth
Horizon. However, I also did a LOT of mobile CW as well. I also operated
phone from Germany (two two-year tours) as an Extra, with a German
reciprocal license. But then again, CW operation outweighed phone by
at least 10 to 1. Phone is just too boring. When I'm copying CW, I'm
actively doing something besides listening to the same old crapola over
and over again -- even though what I'm copying IS the same old crapola!

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

Nor the ultimate utility of "always getting thru."

What will it take to get people to use Morse?

I don't know. What would it take to get YOU to use it? For me, it took
a code testing requirement, which caused me to learn and use the code
in order to meet the requirement. You don't believe in the requirement, so
obviously, your mileage varies quite a bit. So tell us -- what would it take
to make you a regular CW operator with 20 WPM proficiency -- something
that I have no doubt you are capable of?

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

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:

Why do you think taking a code test prevents these things from happening?

73 de Larry, K3LT


Personal experience with colleagues and other anecdotal evidence.

The way that you, Dick, and *some* others look down your noses
at folks who aren't interested in code and object to unnecessary
"hurdles" sure doesn't help to bring new folks into ham radio either.

Carl - wk3c

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:

I probably did most of my phone operating as an Advanced, because it
was during that time that I had a mobile HF station in my '78 Plymouth
Horizon. However, I also did a LOT of mobile CW as well. I also operated
phone from Germany (two two-year tours) as an Extra, with a German
reciprocal license. But then again, CW operation outweighed phone by
at least 10 to 1. Phone is just too boring. When I'm copying CW, I'm
actively doing something besides listening to the same old crapola over
and over again -- even though what I'm copying IS the same old crapola!

Larry, if it's "the same old (boring) crapola," why don't you sell your
gear, let your license lapse (or surrender it for cancellation) and find
an avocation that's not boring?

[someone else asked the following question ... it reallly doesn't matter
who]
What will it take to get people to use Morse?

I don't know. What would it take to get YOU to use it? For me, it took
a code testing requirement, which caused me to learn and use the code
in order to meet the requirement.

Larry ... you admit that you wouldn't have learned Morse if you had not been
(effectively) forced to ... you happened to decide that you liked it
afterwards.
Many folks that have followed the same path NEVER liked Morse and put
the key in the drawer (or sold it, or gave it away) after passing the Morse
test to get the privs they REALLY wanted, never to use Morse again.

You don't believe in the requirement, so
obviously, your mileage varies quite a bit. So tell us -- what would it
take
to make you a regular CW operator with 20 WPM proficiency -- something
that I have no doubt you are capable of?

As you well know, I also don't believe in the requirement.

I know that many PCTAs here doubt my claim, but early on while constrained
to CW on the novice bands, I actually got to the point where I could carry
on
a QSO (more or less in my head for std. QSO stuff, writing down details for
the log) at something close to 20 wpm. Once I upgraded to Tech and got
involved in VHF/UHF repeaters, packet, etc. I lost interest and never went
back to Morse.

Could *I* become proficient at 20 wpm ... certainly, with enough use and
practice. Do I *care* to? The answer is obviously "No."

There is essentially nothing that could make me interested in becoming "a
regular CW operator with 20 wpm proficiency."

Does this make me a "lesser/2nd class ham?" I certainly don't believe
so, Larry, any more than I believe that the fact that I have every reason
to believe that I am more technically competent than you makes me
"superior in all respects" to you. You, however, believe that your Morse
ability makes you "superior to all no-code hams." (You've said that over
and over here, along with all sorts of disparaging remarks about no-code
hams.)

Why don't you try treating hams who have gotten their licenses (or upgraded)
under the new rules with the same respect that you'd like to be treated
with?
(I promise you, it won't kill you. :-)

Carl - wk3c

In article ,
(Brian) 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.

The Radio Lost Art Preservation Society? Should we include "Anachronysm?"

One might even call it "AnyOldCronyIsm." :-)

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

And so it is preserved without government incentive.

Beeper Welfare.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

LHA

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:38:20 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:

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.

The original reason for requiring CW/Morse proficiency of amateur
operators was to ensure that they would be able to read signals
directed at their station by government stations who came up on the
amateur's frequency to tell them to leave the air because they were
interfering with the governemnt (usually Navy) communications - WW-I
era stuff.

Everything else was superfluous - the need for "trained operators"
for CW/Morse circuits went away after WW-II. Civil aviation CW went
away right after that war, too. Marine CW persisted another 60
years or so, but amateur radio operators were never trained nor
recruited to be the "reserve force" for the merchant marine'd Radio
Officers.

The only others who need Morse qualification at present are military
intelligence intercept operators and their civilian counterparts in
the FCC and certain other spook agencies - and those service techs
who want to be able to read and understand what their clients' Morse
IDers are saying when they go haywire.

We hams may be the "keeper of the flame" because we want to do it,
but there is no need to require it.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

So tell us -- what would it take
to make you a regular CW operator with 20 WPM proficiency -- something
that I have no doubt you are capable of?

73 de Larry, K3LT

A better training system and loads of time (as in: retirement).

73, Brian

Brian:

Some of the busiest people I know are allegedly "retired." I have no
doubt that you will still be able to provide yourself with a surfeit of
excuses, even then.

I became a code-proficient amateur radio operator and upgraded
in far less than the "normal" amount of time during a period of my
life when I was the busiest I'd ever been. The "no time" excuse is
just that -- an excuse. There are thousands of hams who were able
to work it in, just like I did, with no problem.

You get a second shot at the question -- try to come up with something
both original and believable this time.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Carl:

Why do you think taking a code test prevents these things from happening?

73 de Larry, K3LT


Personal experience with colleagues and other anecdotal evidence.

Well, Carl, I know from "personal experience with colleagues and other
anecdotal evidence" that the code test imparts useful communications
skills and tends to encourage the pursuit of greater technical knowledge.
So -- which one of us is wrong, here?

The way that you, Dick, and *some* others look down your noses
at folks who aren't interested in code and object to unnecessary
"hurdles" sure doesn't help to bring new folks into ham radio either.

The only ones I'm "looking down my nose" at are the typical whiners
and complainers -- the ones making the specious comparisons between
code testing/proficiency and technical nescience. Any newcomers to
amateur radio who are open-minded about code proficiency, and are
willing to give it at least as much effort as would have been exerted
under the former licensing requirements would have nothing but my
approval and encouragement. And those who want to do everything
*but* the code are still OK with me, as long as they stay as far away
from that topic as possible -- because they're not qualified to discuss
it or have an opinion. Should they tread on that topic, they will find
themselves confronted with someone with vast first-hand experience,
and the ability to articulately defend his viewpoints with passion and
conviction. It is in such a debate that the no-coders usually break down
into emotionalism, name-calling, and playing the "victim card." If
I were them, I'd just stay as far away from the subject as possible, and
I will not pursue them.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


Larry ... you admit that you wouldn't have learned Morse if you had not been
(effectively) forced to ... you happened to decide that you liked it
afterwards.
Many folks that have followed the same path NEVER liked Morse and put
the key in the drawer (or sold it, or gave it away) after passing the Morse
test to get the privs they REALLY wanted, never to use Morse again.

Carl:

That's right. They did. And a lot of them kept the key on the top of the
operating table and continued to use it. Now, in the absence of a code
testing requirement as part of the licensing procedure, how many new hams
will even bother to own a telegraph key?

You don't believe in the requirement, so
obviously, your mileage varies quite a bit. So tell us -- what would it
take
to make you a regular CW operator with 20 WPM proficiency -- something
that I have no doubt you are capable of?

As you well know, I also don't believe in the requirement.

I know that many PCTAs here doubt my claim, but early on while constrained
to CW on the novice bands, I actually got to the point where I could carry
on
a QSO (more or less in my head for std. QSO stuff, writing down details for
the log) at something close to 20 wpm. Once I upgraded to Tech and got
involved in VHF/UHF repeaters, packet, etc. I lost interest and never went
back to Morse.

Well, it was getting on VHF/UHF repeaters that actually spurred my interest
in CW, since the hams I talked to were always talking about their adventures
on HF, particularly in the CW mode, and I enjoyed being able to join in on
the conversation, telling them about the "new one" I had just worked.

Could *I* become proficient at 20 wpm ... certainly, with enough use and
practice. Do I *care* to? The answer is obviously "No."

Well, at least you were exposed to the code and learned it well enough to
make that choice from a vantage point of actual personal experience. In the
future, a lot of hams who may have decided to become active CW users will
no longer get that opportunity, due to the elimination of the code testing
requirement.

There is essentially nothing that could make me interested in becoming "a
regular CW operator with 20 wpm proficiency."

Does this make me a "lesser/2nd class ham?"

Since you tried it and gave it a fair evaluation, I'd have to say that it does
not. Again, future hams will not have had your experience. That is the
difference. Not having "been there, done that" disqualifies them from
making any judgment on the "code" issue whatsoever.

I certainly don't believe
so, Larry, any more than I believe that the fact that I have every reason
to believe that I am more technically competent than you makes me
"superior in all respects" to you.

I have never denied the "superior" technical competence of you or any
other ham who has it. There is nothing I enjoy more than being around
hams who really know what they are doing, technically, and can impart
some of that knowledge to myself and others. However, in my own
experience, some of the most technically competent hams I've known
have also been proficient CW operators. I cannot say the same for the
"no-coders" I've known, with few notable exceptions.

You, however, believe that your Morse
ability makes you "superior to all no-code hams." (You've said that over
and over here, along with all sorts of disparaging remarks about no-code
hams.)

It does give me "superior" operational capability, and I won't mince any
words about that. Moreover, my code proficiency had a direct impact on
my gaining increased technical knowledge, although I'd never classify that
as anything other than "amateur" level.

Why don't you try treating hams who have gotten their licenses (or upgraded)
under the new rules with the same respect that you'd like to be treated
with?
(I promise you, it won't kill you. :-)

I can, and I do -- as long as they don't make a point of whining that the
(former) code testing requirement was causing technical ignorance within
the ARS -- as has been their traditional claim. It just isn't so.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


Larry ... you admit that you wouldn't have learned Morse if you had not
been
(effectively) forced to ... you happened to decide that you liked it
afterwards.
Many folks that have followed the same path NEVER liked Morse and put
the key in the drawer (or sold it, or gave it away) after passing the
Morse
test to get the privs they REALLY wanted, never to use Morse again.

Carl:

That's right. They did. And a lot of them kept the key on the top of the
operating table and continued to use it. Now, in the absence of a code
testing requirement as part of the licensing procedure, how many new hams
will even bother to own a telegraph key?

Frankly, I don't care one iota ... I see that as a totally unimportant issue
in
the grand scheme of things ... it is up to Morse enthusiasts to recruit new
Morse ops ... and talking down to those who are not interested will not help
that cause.
Could *I* become proficient at 20 wpm ... certainly, with enough use and
practice. Do I *care* to? The answer is obviously "No."

Well, at least you were exposed to the code and learned it well enough to
make that choice from a vantage point of actual personal experience. In
the
future, a lot of hams who may have decided to become active CW users will
no longer get that opportunity, due to the elimination of the code testing
requirement.

Again, it's up to the current crop of Morse enthusiasts to do any
recruiting.

There is essentially nothing that could make me interested in becoming "a
regular CW operator with 20 wpm proficiency."

Does this make me a "lesser/2nd class ham?"

Since you tried it and gave it a fair evaluation, I'd have to say that it
does
not. Again, future hams will not have had your experience. That is the
difference. Not having "been there, done that" disqualifies them from
making any judgment on the "code" issue whatsoever.

I don't buy that argument ... folks can be intelligent enough that, with
a modest exposure to Morse through personal contact with other hams,
seeing others using the mode, etc., they can make a choice as to whether
they are interested in purusing the mode or not.

Carl - wk3c

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Carl:

That's right. They did. And a lot of them kept the key on the top of
the
operating table and continued to use it. Now, in the absence of a code
testing requirement as part of the licensing procedure, how many new
hams
will even bother to own a telegraph key?

Frankly, I don't care one iota

Carl:

Well, you've spent years making THAT perfectly clear! Fortunately there
are
those of us who do care about whether or not a useful communications skill
continues to be practiced in the ARS.

Then do your own "recruiting" from those who are interested/willing,
don't rely on the govt. to be your "recruiting agency" by making everyone
pass a Morse test so that you can skim off those who decide to keep the
key instead of tossing it.

Could *I* become proficient at 20 wpm ... certainly, with enough use
and
practice. Do I *care* to? The answer is obviously "No."

Well, at least you were exposed to the code and learned it well enough
to
make that choice from a vantage point of actual personal experience.
In
the
future, a lot of hams who may have decided to become active CW users
will
no longer get that opportunity, due to the elimination of the code
testing
requirement.

Having had to submit to "hazing by Morse" in the past, and even having used
it (and then discarded it), does NOT define how good a ham I may be ...
and it certainly doesn't make me a "better ham" than someone who's never
taken a Morse test or used Morse.


Again, it's up to the current crop of Morse enthusiasts to do any
recruiting.

I don't believe that the use of Morse code is something that is
"recruitable,"
if there is such a word. My own personal experience would lead me to
believe that the only thing that will get someone to try it is some kind
of
overwhelming incentive.

Translation: "I've either never put forth the effort to 'recruit' new Morse
ops,
or I'm so frustrated with my inability to gain converts that I feel I must
rely
on govt. mandates to do the work for me."

We used to have that incentive in the Pre-Restructuring Era. Now that it
is
gone, to rely simply on enticing people to Morse/CW with the promise of
better operating capability will probably not resonate very well with the
majority of newcomers

As above, with the added factor that you're admitting that your "product"
is unattractive, and therefore "hard to sell."

who, basically, are going to be refugees from
the Citizen's Band, who just want a louder, more frequency-agile box to
plug
their microphone into.

I knew if I read far enough, I'd get to your obligatory derrogation of
newcomers.

... folks can be intelligent enough that, with
a modest exposure to Morse through personal contact with other hams,
seeing others using the mode, etc., they can make a choice as to whether
they are interested in purusing the mode or not.

That's not the same thing, Carl. I was referring to their "opinions," or
subjective impressions, of the Morse code. The decision-making process
they apply to decide whether or not to attempt to learn it is a much more
objective process.

Face it Larry, your product is unattractive to most and hard to sell.
That's not
a reason for a govt. life support system that does your recruiting work for
you.

If you can sell your "product" to enough people, fine ... if not, and you
"go out
of business," that's fine with me, too ... just remember, I am NOT trying to
"board
up your storefront and confiscate your assets," but it's ALSO not my job
(or the
FCC's) to help you "prop up a poor business model, based on an unattractive
product, with govt. subsidies."

Carl - wk3c

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Carl:

That's right. They did. And a lot of them kept the key on the top of
the
operating table and continued to use it. Now, in the absence of a code
testing requirement as part of the licensing procedure, how many new
hams
will even bother to own a telegraph key?

Frankly, I don't care one iota

Carl:
Well, you've spent years making THAT perfectly clear! Fortunately there
are
those of us who do care about whether or not a useful communications skill
continues to be practiced in the ARS.

Do YOU care enough to be a positive spokesperson/recruiter
for CW to new hams?

... I see that as a totally unimportant issue in he grand scheme of things
....
it is up to Morse enthusiasts to recruit new
Morse ops ... and talking down to those who are not interested will not
help
that cause.

Especially since those who are not interested have finally gotten their
way!

Sounds like a personal problem.

Could *I* become proficient at 20 wpm ... certainly, with enough use
and
practice. Do I *care* to? The answer is obviously "No."

Well, at least you were exposed to the code and learned it well enough
to
make that choice from a vantage point of actual personal experience.
In
the
future, a lot of hams who may have decided to become active CW users
will
no longer get that opportunity, due to the elimination of the code
testing
requirement.

Again, it's up to the current crop of Morse enthusiasts to do any
recruiting.

I don't believe that the use of Morse code is something that is
"recruitable,"
if there is such a word. My own personal experience would lead me to
believe that the only thing that will get someone to try it is some kind
of
overwhelming incentive. We used to have that incentive in the
Pre-Restructuring
Era. Now that it is gone, to rely simply on enticing people to Morse/CW
with
the promise of better operating capability will probably not resonate very
well
with the majority of newcomers who, basically, are going to be refugees
from
the Citizen's Band, who just want a louder, more frequency-agile box to
plug
their microphone into.

Defeatist attitude as I see it.

There is essentially nothing that could make me interested in becoming
"a
regular CW operator with 20 wpm proficiency."

Does this make me a "lesser/2nd class ham?"

Since you tried it and gave it a fair evaluation, I'd have to say that
it
does
not. Again, future hams will not have had your experience. That is
the
difference. Not having "been there, done that" disqualifies them from
making any judgment on the "code" issue whatsoever.

I don't buy that argument

Which doesn't make it any less true.

Nor does it change the fact that your statement
is only an opinion.

... folks can be intelligent enough that, with
a modest exposure to Morse through personal contact with other hams,
seeing others using the mode, etc., they can make a choice as to whether
they are interested in purusing the mode or not.

That's not the same thing, Carl. I was referring to their "opinions," or
subjective impressions, of the Morse code. The decision-making process
they apply to decide whether or not to attempt to learn it is a much more
objective process.

So work te process, be a recruiter for morse.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:38:20 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:

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.

The original reason for requiring CW/Morse proficiency of amateur
operators was to ensure that they would be able to read signals
directed at their station by government stations who came up on the
amateur's frequency to tell them to leave the air because they were
interfering with the governemnt (usually Navy) communications - WW-I
era stuff.

OK, fine.

Everything else was superfluous - the need for "trained operators"
for CW/Morse circuits went away after WW-II.

Then why did the Navy (at least) keep training them, and to high levels of
proficiency?

Civil aviation CW went
away right after that war, too. Marine CW persisted another 60
years or so, but amateur radio operators were never trained nor
recruited to be the "reserve force" for the merchant marine'd Radio
Officers.

But then why was the FCC so hot for more code testing in the 1960s? From the
1930s to the 1960s a ham could get full privs with a 13 wpm code test. Yes, the
Extra and its 20 wpm code test was reintroduced in 1951, but then FCC gave all
privs to Generals so nobody had to get an Extra for full privileges. And in
fact very few did - in 1967, at the dawn of incentive licensing, there were
maybe 4000 Extras out of about 250,000 US hams.

At one point (1965), FCC proposed four code tests - 5, 13, 16, and 20 wpm. When
the dust settled it took 20 per to get a full privileges. Why was FCC so hopped
up on code testing back then?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

Carl:
Well, you've spent years making THAT perfectly clear! Fortunately
there
are
those of us who do care about whether or not a useful communications
skill
continues to be practiced in the ARS.

Do YOU care enough to be a positive spokesperson/recruiter
for CW to new hams?

Bill:

I've been doing that all along.

Coulda fooled me by many of your comments in this
newsgroup.

... I see that as a totally unimportant issue in he grand scheme of
things
...
it is up to Morse enthusiasts to recruit new
Morse ops ... and talking down to those who are not interested will
not
help
that cause.

Especially since those who are not interested have finally gotten their
way!

Sounds like a personal problem.

Well, it will be for the New Age hams who will not have benefited from
having been exposed to the more comprehensive and challenging licensing
process of the Pre-Restructuring/WRC-03 Era, including Morse code
testing.

Yawn.

We used to have that incentive in the
Pre-Restructuring
Era. Now that it is gone, to rely simply on enticing people to
Morse/CW
with
the promise of better operating capability will probably not resonate
very
well
with the majority of newcomers who, basically, are going to be refugees
from
the Citizen's Band, who just want a louder, more frequency-agile box to
plug
their microphone into.

Defeatist attitude as I see it.

Anything like the "defeatist attitude" of those who, for years, have
avoided
being involved in Amateur Radio because of code testing?

Suck it up and deal with it.

Again, future hams will not have had your experience. That is
the
difference. Not having "been there, done that" disqualifies them
from
making any judgment on the "code" issue whatsoever.

I don't buy that argument

Which doesn't make it any less true.

Nor does it change the fact that your statement
is only an opinion.

My statement about future hams having no experience with Morse/CW
is plain FACT, not opinion, Bill. It is also a fact that because of their
lack of experience, they are self-disqualified from having an "opinion"
about the subject.

That's utter bull. For no other reason than
this is the USA and anyone is free to have an opinion
on morse and voice it as they see fit. Your opinion,
is exactly that...your opinion.

... folks can be intelligent enough that, with
a modest exposure to Morse through personal contact with other hams,
seeing others using the mode, etc., they can make a choice as to
whether
they are interested in purusing the mode or not.

That's not the same thing, Carl. I was referring to their "opinions,"
or
subjective impressions, of the Morse code. The decision-making process
they apply to decide whether or not to attempt to learn it is a much
more
objective process.

So work te process, be a recruiter for morse.

As has always been the case, the ability of any advocate of Morse code
testing to "recruit" new hams to the mode is limited to relating their
own experience. The new hams will be receptive to his in varying degrees,
yet they will, in fact, not have the same incentive to actually give it a
try
that existed under the previous licensing process.

Guess you'll just have to accept that.

In the end, whether or
not they learn it is strictly up to them, as it has always been.

Agreed.

The problem
is, in the future, they will still have full HF privileges, so they no
longer
have nothing to lose by simply forgoing the whole Morse/CW mode.

That's a problem for you. Others might consider it just a challange
to overcome in the recruiting process.

They will, however, most likely petition the ARRL and the FCC for more
HF phone allocations -- and where do you think they'll come from?

Petition the ARRL? The ARRL doesn't set the
rules last time I checked :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:


Do YOU care enough to be a positive spokesperson/recruiter
for CW to new hams?

Bill:

I've been doing that all along.

Coulda fooled me by many of your comments in this
newsgroup.


heh heh heh, not just you, Bill!

[NOTE: not sure if this is Bill or someone else that said this:
Nor does it change the fact that your statement
is only an opinion.

My statement about future hams having no experience with Morse/CW
is plain FACT, not opinion, Bill. It is also a fact that because of
their
lack of experience, they are self-disqualified from having an "opinion"
about the subject.

That's utter bull. For no other reason than
this is the USA and anyone is free to have an opinion
on morse and voice it as they see fit. Your opinion,
is exactly that...your opinion.


Not to mention that Larry cannot state facts as here, because no one can
predict the future. There's no difference right now with the CW issue than
there ever has been--except that the testing requirement MAY be eliminated
(and I am not so sure anymore).

Under current testing requirements, someone has to be encouraged (or just
have the personal desire) to study CW to pass that part of the requirement.
That desire was either "just there," which was probably in a minimum of
persons; or they had to be encouraged by someone. (Larry's probably never
encouraged anyone, unless they are gluttons for punishment or like being
beat down.) Anyway, so there is no difference now or then in the CW issue
from the perspective of "getting people interested in it."

Larry said:
As has always been the case, the ability of any advocate of Morse code
testing to "recruit" new hams to the mode is limited to relating their
own experience. The new hams will be receptive to his in varying
degrees,
yet they will, in fact, not have the same incentive to actually give it
a
try
that existed under the previous licensing process.

Guess you'll just have to accept that.


Well, plus that has not changed and any changes to testing requirements will
not change it. Which, by the way, proves that having CW testing there for
that purpose is not successful in any way.


Agreed.

The problem
is, in the future, they will still have full HF privileges, so they no
longer
have nothing to lose by simply forgoing the whole Morse/CW mode.

That's a problem for you. Others might consider it just a challange
to overcome in the recruiting process.


I think the real issue is that Larry knows he is challenged to encourage
anyone to learn and use CW--he's not up for the challenge. I daresay there
aren't as many people interested in HF operation as many may think. I just
don't think they are. It's much more fun on 2M/70cm, where one can also
decide to have a meal with the folks they are talking to. HF is/may be fun
for an occasional contest or Field Day, or something like that. But most of
us, I bet, get a whole lot more fun outaa local FM chats.


They will, however, most likely petition the ARRL and the FCC for more
HF phone allocations -- and where do you think they'll come from?

Petition the ARRL? The ARRL doesn't set the
rules last time I checked :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


*Cough* Yeah, that's probably not a Freudian slip, either. Anyway, as I
said, I don't think most people new to the hobby are really all that
interested in HF. Of the people I've known new to the hobby since "new" was
1998, very few have disappeared to HF. They all have way too much fun on
2M.

So, don't worry, Larry. Your HF is still and will be quite as it is now.
If you find that exciting and interesting, others may not and they don't
have to.

Kim W5TIT


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

"N2EY" wrote


Then why did the Navy (at least) keep training them, and to high levels of
proficiency?


Because until about 1960, most of the "small boys" (destroyers,
submarines, frigates, and fleet tugs) still used Morse for passing
traffic ashore. With the advent of Orestes (covered Baudot) in these
hulls, about 1963, the widespread training of Navy Morse code operators
ceased. After that point, each ship had a complement of 2 or 3 Morse
capable operators "just in case" until the late 70's when even that
modest capability was no longer maintained. We're talking about a
quarter century ago!


But then why was the FCC so hot for more code testing in the 1960s?


Because ARRL had the ear of FCC minions like Johnny Johnston, et. al.
In that same era others at FCC were pushing a "dual ladder" licensing
structure
with 4 or five levels of progressively more technical no-code or
minimal-code "VHF/UHF Communicator" licensees. ARRL didn't think these
guys would be "real hams" and used their "inside guys" at FCC to squash
such progressive thinking.

73, de Hans, K0HB


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

But then why was the FCC so hot for more code testing in the 1960s? From
the
1930s to the 1960s a ham could get full privs with a 13 wpm code test. Yes,
the
Extra and its 20 wpm code test was reintroduced in 1951, but then FCC gave
all
privs to Generals so nobody had to get an Extra for full privileges. And in
fact very few did - in 1967, at the dawn of incentive licensing, there were
maybe 4000 Extras out of about 250,000 US hams.

At one point (1965), FCC proposed four code tests - 5, 13, 16, and 20 wpm.
When
the dust settled it took 20 per to get a full privileges. Why was FCC so
hopped
up on code testing back then?

Intense lobbying by the ARRL?

Nope. ARRL's proposal was to go back to the pre-1953 system where it took an
Advanced or Extra for full privileges. Also reopen the Advanced to new
licenses.

Well whoopee for you. You constantly repeat What Was Done. If it
doesn't favor your position, the FCC is the evil weenie. If it does
favor your position then it is the Glory of the World...

1965 is THIRTY-EIGHT YEARS AGO,

So what? You talk about much older things that are much less relevant.

Radio for communications is "irrelevant?" You're weird, Rev. Jim.

THIRTY-EIGHT YEARS AGO you were about 10 years old. At the
same time I'd already worked three years in military HF and micro-
wave communications with my Honorable Discharge received five
years in the past. You work a lot of communications at age 10?

Of course you did!


No Internet then and
Washington, DC, was a far place to get to and communicate by paper.

Not at all. An envelope and a stamp.

...and the courage to write.

You spend a lot of your allowance on paper, envelopes and stamps, did
you?

Hams in the USA rarely wrote to the FCC for anything...

Wrong. The incentive licensing proposals brought in over 6000 comments back
then, even though there were only about 250,000 US hams.

Oh? Did you frequent the FCC Reading Room in DC a lot? Did you read
all "6000" comments? Frankly, I don't think you did squat about any
comments way back when.


Did you have a point to make?

Yes. Why haven't you made any points yet, despite the hours and
hours of newsgrouping?

LHA

"N2EY" wrote


It's interesting that you call the seven-class two-ladder system "progressive
thinking", but today favor a two-class license system, as I recall.


What was progressive was the notion (which ARRL rejected) that a ham
could be advanced along technical/scientific lines without being able to
copy Morse code. It's interesting that you didn't take the time to
review my proposal to FCC in response to WT Docket 98-143. If you'd
taken just a moment, you'd have noted that it included the same notion
of a "dual ladder" which included an option for advanced electronics
qualifications without Morse testing. Sunuvagun, isn't that
interesting!

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"K0HB with non-approved radios" wrote in message news:221cd76d407ae3d8168be302c6e36efd.128005@myga te.mailgate.org...
"N2EY" wrote


It's interesting that you call the seven-class two-ladder system "progressive
thinking", but today favor a two-class license system, as I recall.


What was progressive was the notion (which ARRL rejected) that a ham
could be advanced along technical/scientific lines without being able to
copy Morse code.

Where did you see that concept in the 1975 dual ladder proposal? In
that proposal, all of the VHF/UHF licenses required code tests except
for the very basic "Communicator" class, which would have had an
extremely simple written exam. Full privileges would have required an
Extra, with its 20 wpm exam.

It's interesting that you didn't take the time to
review my proposal to FCC in response to WT Docket 98-143. If you'd
taken just a moment, you'd have noted that it included the same notion
of a "dual ladder" which included an option for advanced electronics
qualifications without Morse testing.

I reviewed it but did not see it as "progressive" in that sense. Your
proposal is actually a four-class system, with three tests: two
written and one code. The only incentive offered for more technical
tests is more power.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article ilgate.org,
"Hans
Kohb" writes:

"N2EY" wrote

Then why did the Navy (at least) keep training them, and to high levels of
proficiency?

Because until about 1960, most of the "small boys" (destroyers,
submarines, frigates, and fleet tugs) still used Morse for passing
traffic ashore. With the advent of Orestes (covered Baudot) in these
hulls, about 1963, the widespread training of Navy Morse code operators
ceased. After that point, each ship had a complement of 2 or 3 Morse
capable operators "just in case" until the late 70's when even that
modest capability was no longer maintained. We're talking about a
quarter century ago!

Sure - so FCC was behind that curve.

I fail to see the connection of the FCC and the US Navy insofar as
modes of communications "influence" in military radio. That is
solely your inference/opinion and not bolstered by any factual data.

Note also W4NTI's military service and use of Morse skill in same.

Totally irrelevant. Dan, W4NTI, served in the USAF and was TDY
in Thailand to an Army unit doing ELINT work, interceptions. That
is NOT communications, just military intelligence tasks.

While there is cooperation between military branches on methods
and hardware for same, the USN is not "influenced" on needed
choices of communications by what either the USA or USAF use.

Hans Brakob has a lot of experience in USN communications. I
have some experience in US Army communications. We have both
serviced in the military. You have not served in the US military and
have no prior claim to doing any sort of military communications.


But then why was the FCC so hot for more code testing in the 1960s?

Because ARRL had the ear of FCC minions like Johnny Johnston, et. al.

Yet it was FCC, not ARRL, that wanted more code testing. If FCC had simply
adopted ARRL's 1963 proposal, 13 wpm and an Advanced would have gotten hams
all privileges.

FCC came up with 16 wpm from a source other than ARRL. The League and others
eventually got FCC to drop that idea.

All this "insider information" on cause-effect is a lot of uncorroborated
opinions based on very little. 1963 was FORTY YEARS AGO and
you have not yet had any personal experience with amateur radio at
age 8.

In that same era others at FCC were pushing a "dual ladder" licensing
structure with 4 or five levels of progressively more technical no-code or
minimal-code "VHF/UHF Communicator" licensees.

You might want to recheck the dates and details on that, Hans.

You seem to be confusing civilian-military radio regulation
conditions around WW One with that of post-WW Two. Try to
understand their differences.

"N2EY" wrote

Your proposal is actually a four-class system, with three tests:
two written and one code.

I call it a two-class system, "Basic" and "Standard", each of which
could be endorsed for HF operation upon passing a 5WPM Morse exam. If
it suits your agenda, feel free to call that four classes.

The only incentive offered for more
technical tests is more power.

Incentive? I consider incentive licensing to be a spectaculure failure,
mostly an attempt at "social engineering" by ARRL/FCC, and my proposal
is not based on "incentives". The difference in power levels is based
on safety issues --- the Basic test material probably would not
prepare a licensee to safely deal with "full gallon" powered stations.
(As an aside, I do not belive the current Technican exam prepares an
applicant for these power levels either.)

73, de Hans, K0HB






--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

On 20 Jul 2003 02:35:45 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

My statement about future hams having no experience with Morse/CW
is plain FACT, not opinion, Bill.

There seem to be quite a few hams now who have no experience with
Morse/CW. There are 257,319 Technicians in the ARS, according to the
most recently posted figures from N2EY, some of which are undoubtedly
former Tech-Plus licensees renewed as Technician, but most of whom are
undoubtedly of the no-code variety. Even if 20% are renewed Tech+ then
that's still over 200,000 hams with no Morse/CW experience. And that
is a lotta hams - two or three football stadiums full, in fact.

It is also a fact that because of their
lack of experience, they are self-disqualified from having an "opinion"
about the subject.

I disagree - it's not a fact, it's your opinion. I also happen to
disagree with that opinion.

Larry, no disrespect intended here, but what's your current opinion of
eating...oh...how about...elephant dung, for example?

Most of us would say that the idea sounds quite disgusting, no thanks,
I'll pass. Same goes for cat dung, rat dung, bat dung, or any other
kind of dung for that matter. I don't need to have tasted 'em all in
order to form that opinion. Similarly, one does not need to have
learned to send and receive CW at 50 WPM in order to decide that one
is not interested in that particular mode.

Note that it is not my intention to equate CW skills with animal dung,
the skill remains a useful one to have and I don't begrudge those who
enjoy CW their pleasure at using the mode - not for a single minute.
I'm merely pointing out that expertise at a particular activity is not
a prerequisite for deciding whether or not one wishes to pursue said
activity. Do I need to be able to deadlift 600 pounds in order to
decide I don't wish to be an olympic weightlifter? Nope. Can I
currently deadlift 600 pounds? Nope. Does that render my decision to
not try to deadlift 600 pounds invalid? Nope.

That's not the same thing, Carl. I was referring to their "opinions," or
subjective impressions, of the Morse code. The decision-making process
they apply to decide whether or not to attempt to learn it is a much more
objective process.

Assuming that you agreed with my opinion that eating animal dung is
not a very good idea - did you arrive at that conclusion through
subjective or objective reasoning?

So work te process, be a recruiter for morse.

As has always been the case, the ability of any advocate of Morse code
testing to "recruit" new hams to the mode is limited to relating their
own experience. The new hams will be receptive to his in varying degrees,

....which will undoubtedly be directly proportional to the number of
times that another ham patiently explains the relative merits of the
mode and encourages them to give it a try, and inversely proportional
to the number of times that another ham calls them lazy, good for
nothing, not "real" hams and similar rhetoric.

yet they will, in fact, not have the same incentive to actually give it a try
that existed under the previous licensing process.

Hmmm, let's see...

Incentive under the old (current) licensing process: Either submit to
being coerced into learning code at a rate of at least 5 WPM, or
remain on 6m and above where, except for a relatively small number of
weak-signal enthusiasts and on repeaters that use a Morse ID'er, the
use of CW is virtually nil anyway and so their lack of Morse
proficiency matters not.

Incentive under the future licensing process: Either voluntarily
develop CW skills, or be content to either remain on the crowded phone
bands or use one of the other digital modes where, except for the
Morse ID on a RTTY or other signal or on 10m repeaters, the use of CW
will be virtually nil anyway and so their lack of Morse proficiency
matters not until they want to work the CW ops for higher point totals
during contests or to put those elusive CW ops' calls in the log.

There's definitely a difference, but I don't think it's as big a
difference as a lot of people may think.

In the end, whether or
not they learn it is strictly up to them, as it has always been.

Agreed...

The problem

Ahem...the difference...

is, in the future, they will still

Ahem...they will finally...

have full HF privileges, so they no longer
have nothing to lose by simply forgoing the whole Morse/CW mode.

Larry, you're supposed to be trying to convince them to try CW,
remember? They *do* have something to lose by forgoing the mode. You
know it, and I know it too, even though I happen to have chosen (for
now at least) not to pursue the use of CW. I suspect you'll "convert"
more no-coders into CW enthusiasts by pointing out what they're
missing than you'll "convert" by ostracizing and villifying no-coders.

They will, however, most likely petition the ARRL and the FCC for more
HF phone allocations -- and where do you think they'll come from?

73 de Larry, K3LT

Ahhhhh! So this isn't about the merits of the mode after all, it's a
turf war! Why didn't you just say so in the first place?

I'm going to wet my pants laughing if it ends up being PSK31 or Hell
or SSTV ops rather than phone ops that end up populating those parts
of the bands.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
...
On 20 Jul 2003 02:35:45 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

My statement about future hams having no experience with Morse/CW
is plain FACT, not opinion, Bill.

There seem to be quite a few hams now who have no experience with
Morse/CW. There are 257,319 Technicians in the ARS, according to the
most recently posted figures from N2EY, some of which are undoubtedly
former Tech-Plus licensees renewed as Technician, but most of whom are
undoubtedly of the no-code variety. Even if 20% are renewed Tech+ then
that's still over 200,000 hams with no Morse/CW experience. And that
is a lotta hams - two or three football stadiums full, in fact.

It is also a fact that because of their
lack of experience, they are self-disqualified from having an "opinion"
about the subject.

I disagree - it's not a fact, it's your opinion. I also happen to
disagree with that opinion.

Larry, no disrespect intended here, but what's your current opinion of
eating...oh...how about...elephant dung, for example?

Most of us would say that the idea sounds quite disgusting, no thanks,
I'll pass. Same goes for cat dung, rat dung, bat dung, or any other
kind of dung for that matter. I don't need to have tasted 'em all in
order to form that opinion. Similarly, one does not need to have
learned to send and receive CW at 50 WPM in order to decide that one
is not interested in that particular mode.


That's a specious argument and you know it.

You do have to actually eat an apple to determine if you will like it. It's
not possible to determine what a cake or whatever will taste like by reading
the ingredients of the mix. You have to eat it. For example, I hate
tomatoes, cheeses, and garlic. Yet I could not predetermine what pizza
tasted like. I had to try it. And you know what, I love pizza.

Note that it is not my intention to equate CW skills with animal dung,
the skill remains a useful one to have and I don't begrudge those who
enjoy CW their pleasure at using the mode - not for a single minute.

Yes it was and yes you do or you would not have used the dung comparison.

I'm merely pointing out that expertise at a particular activity is not
a prerequisite for deciding whether or not one wishes to pursue said
activity. Do I need to be able to deadlift 600 pounds in order to
decide I don't wish to be an olympic weightlifter? Nope. Can I
currently deadlift 600 pounds? Nope. Does that render my decision to
not try to deadlift 600 pounds invalid? Nope.

CW skills are more like music. You have to acquire a BASIC level of skill
to determine if you will like it. Almost every adult that I know wishes
they had learned to play an instrument and wishes their parents had made
them take lessons.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com...
"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
...
On 20 Jul 2003 02:35:45 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

My statement about future hams having no experience with Morse/CW
is plain FACT, not opinion, Bill.

There seem to be quite a few hams now who have no experience with
Morse/CW. There are 257,319 Technicians in the ARS, according to the
most recently posted figures from N2EY, some of which are undoubtedly
former Tech-Plus licensees renewed as Technician, but most of whom are
undoubtedly of the no-code variety.

20% renewals is a reasonable estimate.

Even if 20% are renewed Tech+ then
that's still over 200,000 hams with no Morse/CW experience.

Actually, that's not strictly true. We don't know how many of those
~200,000 have experience with code. An unknown number have the Element
1 CSCE, but haven't passed General theory yet. Others are studying but
haven't passed the code test - yet.

It is also a fact that because of their
lack of experience, they are self-disqualified from having an "opinion"
about the subject.

I disagree - it's not a fact, it's your opinion. I also happen to
disagree with that opinion.

Anyone can have an opinion about anything. Whether that opinion is
based on reasonable evidence and logic or not is another matter. For
example, a person who says that Sealtest vanilla bean ice cream is the
best ice cream in the world but has only tried a few other types of
ice cream isn't basing that opinion on reasonable evidence and logic.

Larry, no disrespect intended here, but what's your current opinion of
eating...oh...how about...elephant dung, for example?

Most of us would say that the idea sounds quite disgusting, no thanks,
I'll pass. Same goes for cat dung, rat dung, bat dung, or any other
kind of dung for that matter. I don't need to have tasted 'em all in
order to form that opinion.

Bad analogy. Here's why:

You would be hard pressed to find a rational person, at any time or in
any culture, who finds that activity anything other than disgusting.
Also, taste and smell are closely related, and it's very rare that
something will smell bad but taste good.

Similarly, one does not need to have
learned to send and receive CW at 50 WPM in order to decide that one
is not interested in that particular mode.

Not similarly. But the rest of the statement is quite reasonable. It's
like saying "I tried sushi a few times and I just don't like them. I
know others do, but not me. You go ahead, I'll have a cheeseburger."
(There's actually a song by Pat Donahue about this).

That's a specious argument and you know it.

You do have to actually eat an apple to determine if you will like it. It's
not possible to determine what a cake or whatever will taste like by reading
the ingredients of the mix. You have to eat it.

Smell can be an indicator, too. And it's possible to use all the right
ingredients and yet bake a terrible cake.

For example, I hate
tomatoes, cheeses, and garlic.

But you tried those things before you decided you hated them, right?

Yet I could not predetermine what pizza
tasted like. I had to try it. And you know what, I love pizza.

With anchovies?

Note that it is not my intention to equate CW skills with animal dung,
the skill remains a useful one to have and I don't begrudge those who
enjoy CW their pleasure at using the mode - not for a single minute.

Yes it was and yes you do or you would not have used the dung comparison.

There's the Utah Phillips story about the moose....

I'm merely pointing out that expertise at a particular activity is not
a prerequisite for deciding whether or not one wishes to pursue said
activity. Do I need to be able to deadlift 600 pounds in order to
decide I don't wish to be an olympic weightlifter? Nope. Can I
currently deadlift 600 pounds? Nope. Does that render my decision to
not try to deadlift 600 pounds invalid? Nope.

Which boils down to "I don't think I will like that".

CW skills are more like music. You have to acquire a BASIC level of skill
to determine if you will like it. Almost every adult that I know wishes
they had learned to play an instrument and wishes their parents had made
them take lessons.

I wish I'd had the opportunity, anyway.

Simple question: Have you ever thought you wouldn't like something,
tried it anyway, and decided you really liked it? Example: ever get
dragged to a movie you thought you wouldn't like and wound up liking
it so much that you bought the tape/DVD?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...
For example, I hate
tomatoes, cheeses, and garlic.

But you tried those things before you decided you hated them, right?

Based on my many postings, you should be able to deduce that I would not
have formed the opinion without trying them. However I will formally
confirm that I did taste them and my dislike is based on actual experience.


Yet I could not predetermine what pizza
tasted like. I had to try it. And you know what, I love pizza.

With anchovies?


Tried anchovies but they go in the do not repeat category. However bacon,
sausage, pepperoni, etc are all nice.

Note that it is not my intention to equate CW skills with animal dung,
the skill remains a useful one to have and I don't begrudge those who
enjoy CW their pleasure at using the mode - not for a single minute.

Yes it was and yes you do or you would not have used the dung
comparison.

There's the Utah Phillips story about the moose....

I'm merely pointing out that expertise at a particular activity is not
a prerequisite for deciding whether or not one wishes to pursue said
activity. Do I need to be able to deadlift 600 pounds in order to
decide I don't wish to be an olympic weightlifter? Nope. Can I
currently deadlift 600 pounds? Nope. Does that render my decision to
not try to deadlift 600 pounds invalid? Nope.

Which boils down to "I don't think I will like that".

CW skills are more like music. You have to acquire a BASIC level of
skill
to determine if you will like it. Almost every adult that I know wishes
they had learned to play an instrument and wishes their parents had made
them take lessons.

I wish I'd had the opportunity, anyway.

Simple question: Have you ever thought you wouldn't like something,
tried it anyway, and decided you really liked it? Example: ever get
dragged to a movie you thought you wouldn't like and wound up liking
it so much that you bought the tape/DVD?


If everyone in here was honest about past experiences, they would admit to
trying something they believed they would dislike (generally under pressure
of some type) yet ending up feeling quite the opposite.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:02:00 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
.. .

Note that it is not my intention to equate CW skills with animal dung,
the skill remains a useful one to have and I don't begrudge those who
enjoy CW their pleasure at using the mode - not for a single minute.

Yes it was and yes you do or you would not have used the dung comparison.

If you insist on thinking that you know what is inside my own mind
better than I do, go right ahead and delude yourself.

I'm merely pointing out that expertise at a particular activity is not
a prerequisite for deciding whether or not one wishes to pursue said
activity. Do I need to be able to deadlift 600 pounds in order to
decide I don't wish to be an olympic weightlifter? Nope. Can I
currently deadlift 600 pounds? Nope. Does that render my decision to
not try to deadlift 600 pounds invalid? Nope.

CW skills are more like music. You have to acquire a BASIC level of skill
to determine if you will like it.

I don't think so. Every time I turn on a broadcast band radio, I hear
what passes for music nowadays - often being performed by "musicians"
who sound as if they never bothered to acquire a basic level of skill
in much of anything related to music - while at the same time there
are countless people the world over who enjoy listening to music, even
though many of them couldn't carry a tune in a bushel basket to save
their necks.

Almost every adult that I know wishes
they had learned to play an instrument and wishes their parents had made
them take lessons.

Mine did. I gave it up as soon as I was given the opportunity. To this
day I wish they'd have let me spend the time I something I was
actually interested in. Different strokes for different folks.

Funny, though, I have yet to meet anyone who's told me they wish their
parents had made them learn Morse. shrug

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

N2EY wrote:

You would be hard pressed to find a rational person, at any time or in
any culture, who finds that activity anything other than disgusting.
Also, taste and smell are closely related, and it's very rare that
something will smell bad but taste good.

Have you heard of that coffee in which the beans are passed through the
digestive tract of a monkey? It seems to be real (although it now passes
through a critter called a Palm Toddy (Civet) Cat. Read:

http://www.geocities.com/unasoda42/p...eaturette.html

and:

http://home.earthlink.net/~stewartallen/india.html

and

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/kopiluwak.htm

I won't say this isn't some kind of joke, but we can always hope....


Let's go into Starbucks and ask for a cup of crappuchino....


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com...
"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...
For example, I hate
tomatoes, cheeses, and garlic.

But you tried those things before you decided you hated them, right?

Based on my many postings, you should be able to deduce that I would not
have formed the opinion without trying them.

I did, Dee - 'twas a rhetorical question.

However I will formally
confirm that I did taste them and my dislike is based on actual experience.

'zactly.

Yet I could not predetermine what pizza
tasted like. I had to try it. And you know what, I love pizza.

With anchovies?

Tried anchovies but they go in the do not repeat category. However bacon,
sausage, pepperoni, etc are all nice.

I can load one up so you can't see the crust. mmmmmmmmmm...bacon...I
gotta try bacon....

Note that it is not my intention to equate CW skills with animal dung,
the skill remains a useful one to have and I don't begrudge those who
enjoy CW their pleasure at using the mode - not for a single minute.

Yes it was and yes you do or you would not have used the dung
comparison.

There's the Utah Phillips story about the moose....

And the pie...

I'm merely pointing out that expertise at a particular activity is not
a prerequisite for deciding whether or not one wishes to pursue said
activity. Do I need to be able to deadlift 600 pounds in order to
decide I don't wish to be an olympic weightlifter? Nope. Can I
currently deadlift 600 pounds? Nope. Does that render my decision to
not try to deadlift 600 pounds invalid? Nope.

Which boils down to "I don't think I will like that".

CW skills are more like music. You have to acquire a BASIC level of
skill
to determine if you will like it. Almost every adult that I know wishes
they had learned to play an instrument and wishes their parents had made
them take lessons.

I wish I'd had the opportunity, anyway.

Simple question: Have you ever thought you wouldn't like something,
tried it anyway, and decided you really liked it? Example: ever get
dragged to a movie you thought you wouldn't like and wound up liking
it so much that you bought the tape/DVD?

If everyone in here was honest about past experiences, they would admit to
trying something they believed they would dislike (generally under pressure
of some type) yet ending up feeling quite the opposite.

You got that right, Dee.

Also, there's the effect of being exposed to something the wrong way.
Example: Old friend of mine got a new boyfriend who simply loved
calves' liver. She hated the stuff. I said "problem is, you've never
had it cooked the right way". So I made them both some of my special
recipe sauteed liver/bacon/onions combo. She was converted. They got
married. Ah, romance. Call me Cupid with a fryin' pan.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Dee D. Flint wrote:

Tried anchovies but they go in the do not repeat category. However bacon,
sausage, pepperoni, etc are all nice.

Feeling brave, Dee? Pizza with ham and pineapple. Sounds disgusting,
tastes great!

I tried that combo once. Sounds disgusting, tastes disgusting. YMMV

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Dee D. Flint wrote:

Tried anchovies but they go in the do not repeat category. However bacon,
sausage, pepperoni, etc are all nice.


Feeling brave, Dee? Pizza with ham and pineapple. Sounds disgusting,
tastes great!

It's called "Hawaiian Pizza" around here. Not bad at all.


- Mike KB3EIA -

w3rv

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

Funny, though, I have yet to meet anyone who's told me they wish their
parents had made them learn Morse. shrug

John:

I wish my parents had made me learn the Morse code.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

Feeling brave, Dee? Pizza with ham and pineapple. Sounds disgusting,
tastes great!

I tried that combo once. Sounds disgusting, tastes disgusting. YMMV

Jim:

Actually, an Hawaiian Pizza is best when the "ham" is actually Canadian
Bacon, and the pineapple is fresh, not canned. They have to be scattered
over the pizza BEFORE baking, not after. The ham (bacon) has to be
crisp, and the pineapple well caramelized. A properly prepared Hawaiian
Pizza is, as Martha would say, a very good thing!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

Funny, though, I have yet to meet anyone who's told me they wish their
parents had made them learn Morse. shrug

John:

I wish my parents had made me learn the Morse code.

I wish mine had *helped* me learn Morse code.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

I wish my parents had made me learn the Morse code.

73 de Larry, K3LT

I really should have known that was coming... :-)

Wait until you hear what his parents wished for... :-)

LHA

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

Funny, though, I have yet to meet anyone who's told me they wish their
parents had made them learn Morse. shrug

John:

I wish my parents had made me learn the Morse code.

73 de Larry, K3LT

I really should have known that was coming... :-)

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

I aim to please!

73 de Larry, K3LT

Larry:

OMG! Another thing we agree on...... damn, this is getting scary! My mouth
is watering and my finger getting ready to dial the pizza place after
reading this post!



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
Jim:

Actually, an Hawaiian Pizza is best when the "ham" is actually Canadian
Bacon, and the pineapple is fresh, not canned. They have to be scattered
over the pizza BEFORE baking, not after. The ham (bacon) has to be
crisp, and the pineapple well caramelized. A properly prepared Hawaiian
Pizza is, as Martha would say, a very good thing!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:

You would be hard pressed to find a rational person, at any time or in
any culture, who finds that activity anything other than disgusting.
Also, taste and smell are closely related, and it's very rare that
something will smell bad but taste good.

Have you heard of that coffee in which the beans are passed through the
digestive tract of a monkey?

Yes. That story surfaces every so often. Supposed to be a Vietnamese delicacy
or something.

It seems to be real (although it now passes
through a critter called a Palm Toddy (Civet) Cat. Read:

http://www.geocities.com/unasoda42/p...eaturette.html

and:

http://home.earthlink.net/~stewartallen/india.html

and

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/kopiluwak.htm

I won't say this isn't some kind of joke, but we can always hope....

Check

http://www.snopes.com

for urban legend confirmation/debunking

Let's go into Starbucks and ask for a cup of crappuchino....

Ever hear Utah Phillips story about the moose pie?

73 de Jim "It's good though!" N2EY