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

ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote in message ...

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

"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