|
[major snippage]
Here are some suggested questions for the survey: Answers for questions 1-11: SA = Strongly Agree, A = Agree, N = Neutral/No Opinion, D = Disagree, SD = Strongly Disagree 1. All Morse Code testing for a US amateur license should be eliminated as soon as possible. Neutral 2. Morse Code testing for US amateur licenses should be retained as it is today. Disagree 3. Morse Code testing for US amateur licenses should be reduced in some way but not totally eliminated. Disagree (that's been done already) 4. Amateur radio tests in the USA for license classes above entry-level should have the option of a Morse Code test or an additional written test on other modes. Disagree (I think) (entry level license should allow maybe 2 of the more "busier bands" say for instance like 10 meters and 2 meters.) 5. There should continue to be separate subbands on the HF amateur bands reserved for Morse Code and digital signals only Agree, as there needs to be some form of organization. Different parallel, the public roadways; if there wasn't some type of organization on the roadways there would be even more chaos than there is now. Allocations for the different voice, digital and morse code modes should be able to be created with adequate room for all parties to "play well together." 6. Separate subbands on the HF amateur bands reserved for Morse Code signals only should be created. See answer in question 5. 7. Separate subbands on the HF amateur bands reserved for Morse Code signals only should be created if the code test is eliminated. As long as some hams feel morse code is beneficial, there should be allocations for them as well as other modes. Periodic review of usage on some type of a regular basis could help to direct that. See question 5 response as well. 8. Subbands by mode on the HF amateur bands should be eliminated. See response to question 5 again. 9. Any further reduction, or elimination, of Morse code testing in the USA should be accompanied by more comprehensive written testing. That needs to happen, or needed to happen as far as 30 years ago or more. Any testing I have taken in the public/emergency services field has ALWAYS been at least 100 questions, and some cases as much as 250 questions. I am not declaring as to how many should fit the bill, but I will say we need more questions added to ALL amateur license tests. 10. If the code test is eliminated, there should be other changes to the privileges granted to the entry-level license classes (Novice, Technician, Technician Plus) Possibly... will have to get back on this one...... 11. The code test issue should be dealt with as a single issue and not connected to other changes. BINGO! 12. Of my current amateur operation, I use Morse code: B - 0 to 25% of the time 13. Of my current amateur HF/MF operation, I use Morse code: F - I am currently inactive on HF/MF 14. The ARRL leadership should take the following role in the code test issue: E. Stay the hell out of it until they truly represent all of the amateur radio community. -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... |
|
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:19:46 -0400, Robert Casey
wrote: On that note, we're still waiting for your opinion on eating elephant dung - good idea or bad? Tastes like crap. So I would recommend against it...... Having never eaten it, I don't know what crap tastes like. If you do, please enlighten those of us who don't. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ |
Jon Bloom wrote in message g...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:11:25 -0400, Brian wrote: Jon Bloom wrote in message g... But as you point out, nobody really knows what "operate" means in this case. For example, if a person's entire use of Morse code is to copy repeater IDs, which they do by laboriously copying down the dots and dashes and then looking up the letters in a table, is that "operation" of Morse? The survey doesn't say. Hmmmm. Are you saying that the "Operate CW" numbers are inflated? No, I'm saying the survey measures the respondents opinions of their own levels of activity. What that means in objective terms is something on which you're free to speculate, although I can't imagine what useful result would obtain from such speculations. Jon Jon, you can't, huh? At a time when the ARRL wanted to save CW testing, I could imagine the use of upping the numbers. Just my opinion. Brian |
"I Zorg" wrote in message ... On 23 Jul 2003 17:31:39 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote: "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ... Not a problem...let all the no code braindeads have phone. I'll just run cw on top of them with my narrow filter. We already do that. They're never get it. --------------------^^^^^^^ w3rv Can't you see this guy with a key? No wonder people on the other end never "get it." He can't even construct a meaningful sentence! And he's talking about jamming other operators to boot! Ain't CW operators a cut above the rest? (not) Jamming? How can I be jamming if Im dead zero beat and you dont hear a thing? IDIOT. Dan/W4NTI |
Man, it's a damned good thing that you CW operators will soon be put in your
place by the FCC. Just nothing but a bunch of jammers. Pitiful lids. It's time you were put in your places. They are only "jamming" for milliseconds. : |
"I Zorg" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:17:58 -0500, Dan/W4NTI wrote: Jamming? How can I be jamming if Im dead zero beat and you dont hear a thing? IDIOT. If you interefere with another licensed amateur's transmissions, you are an illegal jammer IDIOT!!! Zero beat or not (and I'll bet you aren't smart enough to really do that), any act of willful interference which causes receiver desensing or any other kind of problem is AGAINST THE LAW. IDIOT!! Man, it's a damned good thing that you CW operators will soon be put in your place by the FCC. Just nothing but a bunch of jammers. Pitiful lids. It's time you were put in your places. Nothing to worry about. You wont recognize cw if it bit you on the ass. That is obvious from your stupid comments. Oh and BTW...what makes you think because CW testing will be ended that CW itself will be ended? You really are a stupid idiot ain't ya? Dan/W4NTI |
Jon Bloom wrote in message g...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:08:45 -0400, N2EY wrote: Jon Bloom wrote in message g... On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:41:11 -0400, N2EY wrote: In article , (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) writes: Why not, 8 years ago, the Arrl did a survey. That's pretty close - 1996 They asked amateurs who had passed a morse code exam if they EVER used morse code. No, you are mistaken. On several counts. They asked 1100 US hams, chosen at random. Of these, 100 were Novices and 200 each Techs, Tech Pluses, Generals, Advanceds and Extras. So they asked hams who had not taken a code test as well as hams who had. The question was "How much do you operate Morse code?" and there were only three possible answers: "Regularly", "Rarely" and "Never". No definitions of what those terms mean, no questions on other modes, etc. (After all, a ham who is not on the air at all never uses Morse code on the air). Two out of three responded "no". I.e. 2/3's of the hams surveyed NEVER used morse code. Wrong again! 35% answered "Never" 37% answered "Rarely" 27% answered "Regularly" 1% did not answer. It is obvious that the question is so flawed as to be meaningless. For example, how much Morse operation is "regular"? It's only flawed for the purposes you're trying to put it to. Its original purpose was to gauge the level of interest based on use of Morse. For that purpose, it doesn't matter whether the respondent's use of Morse fits your definition of "regularly" -- or mine -- it matters only whether it fits the respondent's definition. I disagree, Jon. You refuse to accept that the survey wasn't intended to answer the question you want answered. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Too much is left to the respondent's interpretation. Too much for your purposes, yes. Too much for anyone's purposes. A person can have a 'high level of interest' in Morse, yet rarely or never operate, because of inactivity, equipment failure, etc. IOW a ham who rarely or never operates at all must, by definition, rarely or never operate Morse. A sizable percentage of those responding to the survey were completely inactive on ANY mode, so they probably answered the question "never". And that's just one problem. It's only a problem for you. Does once a year count as "regularly"? Does one day a month CW and all the rest 'phone constitute "rarely"? That judgement is left up to the individual responding. Exactly! Most of the cavilling about survey questions comes from misunderstanding the question's purpose and misuse of the results to try to "prove" things that the survey wasn't addressing. As I understand it, the survey was trying to determine what position ARRL should take WRT code testing at a WRC in the late 1990s (1997, I think). So why do the questions beat about the bush so much? Why notjust ask those surveyed what they think FCC should do, and how much they operate CW? Because it's not a plebiscite. Understood. But since ARRL is a representative organization, some might think the majority opinion on an issue like this would be important. If you want to sample opinion on a topic, hire a reputable research firm to formulate and conduct a survey that will elicit the facts you want. Trying to hammer an existing survey into something that it wasn't designed to be is almost certain to lead to skewed conclusions. 2) The survey left itself wide open to all sorts of interpretations because it was not well designed. The fact that the League payed a professional does not mean they got a good survey. The fact that the survey doesn't answer the questions you want answered doesn't mean it's not a good survey, either. I think the questions I want answered are relevant questions. But as you point out, nobody really knows what "operate" means in this case. Sure they do. It means to have QSOs using the mode. To you. To everybody? Who knows? For example, if a person's entire use of Morse code is to copy repeater IDs, which they do by laboriously copying down the dots and dashes and then looking up the letters in a table, is that "operation" of Morse? The survey doesn't say. How many hams do you know do that? I've known a few over the years. Exceptions that prove the rule. I guess these days most repeaters have voice ID, though. I know some that have both. Voice unless there is audio on the receive channel, so you don't have to talk over the ID. I don't know any. I do know lots of hams who have 2-way QSOs on the amateur HF bands using CW, though. Maybe a better example: If you just listen around the band are you "operating?" Yes. I revise my earlier definition. I bet you would get less than complete consensus on that one. If you listen a lot but rarely transmit, are you operating "regularly" or "rarely"? Depends on the respondent. So if it came to a vote you'd have a hard time keeping things as they are. Maybe. Try this "survey": Actually listen to the CW/digital subbands and see how much activity there really is. Try 40 meters below 7050 some evening. That's a much better way to get a feel for the true level of interest. Signals on the air are a much better measure of what's popular in ham radio than any survey results or any amount of Usenet bloviating. Then why was that question in the 1996 survey? I believe it was intended to provide background to the answers to the other questions in the survey. Much of the usefulness of surveys comes from crosstabbing of the results. The purpose of this survey was to sample opinions on Morse testing, not to nail down the percentages of operating time by mode. For the purposes of the survey, a simple indication of activity, as gauged by the member's own characterization, was sufficient. More would have been overkill and thus would have unneccesarily complicated the survey, leading to lower response rates -- to no good purpose. I don't think having a few more choices would be a problem. On a subject like this, most hams WANT to answer - hence the high response rate. One thing I found interesting in the results of the surveys sent to nonmembers was how many were returned due to changed address. If you listen to the HF/MF amateur bands, Morse/CW is second in popularity only to SSB. So if we already know that, what's the point of surveying -- to learn something that we already know? To put a more objective number on it. I strongly suggest that a well-constructed survey/poll of the entire ARRL membership be conducted, and the results published in QST. Web polls and small samples are not necessarily indicative of the views of the membership. The last time such a survey was conducted was 1975. I know, I responded to it. My wife's first job was a part-time job at HQ opening the survey responses. (She was four years old at the time, of course!) Tell her thank you for me. The questions were extensive and the results published in QST. Why can't this be done today? Make it a tear-out sheet in QST and have everyone enter their member number to avoid dupes. I have no idea whether that will happen -- it wouldn't if it were up to me. I'd consider it a monumental waste of resources. Interesting. 28 years ago, in paper-and-pencil days, Hq. thought it was a good idea, and had the resources. Whatever position ARRL takes on this issue will be very unpopular with a large number of members and nonmembers alike, so it is important to be able to back up that position with solid data. A valid survey of the entire membership, backing up the ARRL position, can only serve to improve ARRL's credibility with both the amateur community and FCC, and increase support for the position chosen -- whatever it may be. Who could fault ARRL for going with the majority opinion of its entire membership? All of those who disagree with the result, of course! I don't see how, if they were part of the survey. Too many amateurs, ARRL members or not, think that decisions are made in "ivory tower isolation", and that their views are not considered adequately when ARRL formulates a position. Polls won't change that. How do you know? It's been 28 years since the last one that surveyed all members. Those who dislike the result will just claim the poll questions were no good. (Oops!) Maybe not. While such a survey will not be free, it will be money well spent if the membership and amateur radio community perceives that ARRL is truly responding to member opinion and input. There's a difference between taking people's views into account and taking a direct vote. It's the difference between representative democracy and direct democracy. Exactly. The point is that there's a difference between passively asking for input and actively seeking it. (Say, were you a Perot voter by any chance?) Now you've gone from disagreeing with me to being insulting! ;-) It's because of Perot we had 8 years of Bill Clinton (he divided the Republican vote TWICE so that Clinton got in). Just like Ralph Nader gave George Bush II his shot at the White House. I don't quite understand why you think an all-inclusive vote should be taken when you don't even think the voters are smart enough to decide whether they operate CW "regularly" or "rarely"! Not a question of smarts. A question of getting accurate information. Some would say getting accurate information on this issue is a waste because it's a lost cause. On the other hand, if you are willing to spend the money to do the polling, please let us all know what results you get. If nothing else, it'll make good fodder for rrap. I thought things like polls were what my dues were for. In fact, it may be advisable to survey every radio amateur in the US. Such a survey might change the way the ARRL is viewed by nonmembers on both sides of the issue. People's minds are well made up on this issue, and nothing anyone does is going to change that. Agreed. But what is the majority opinion? Dump Element 1 ASAP? Keep it at all costs? Something else, like drop code but beef up the writtens? Those who support Morse testing will be angry with the ARRL if it comes out for elimination of the test no matter how that decision was made. Those who favor elimination will be equally angry if the ARRL supports continuation of testing. I think I said that way back in the beginning. Ah, here it is: "Whatever position ARRL takes on this issue will be very unpopular with a large number of members and nonmembers alike, so it is important to be able to back up that position with solid data. A valid survey of the entire membership, backing up the ARRL position, can only serve to improve ARRL's credibility with both the amateur community and FCC, and increase support for the position chosen -- whatever it may be. Who could fault ARRL for going with the majority opinion of its entire membership?" And those of us who think far too much energy has already been wasted on this subject will groan yet again if ARRL spends any more substantial resources on it. OK, fine, we'll just go with the results of the 1996 poll, shich showed the majority favoring code testing retention.... Here are some suggested questions for the survey: [snip] That will all fit on one side of one sheet of paper. Return address on the back. Fold it over, put a stamp on and send it in. And then we hire the mail crew to open and the data-entry crew to enter the responses from a half million 14-question survey responses. This is your idea of money well spent? They cannot be read by computer? How was it done in '75? Why not? In my opinion, because it's a waste of resources -- time and money -- that would be better devoted to tackling the problems Amateur Radio faces that are important -- a list that does not, in my mind, include anything to do with Morse testing. OK, fine. I'd put BPL far ahead of code testing in importance any day. But what I'm trying to point out is that many hams out here in the boonies feel ARRL ignores them and their opinions. Too many think that decisions are made "up there in Newington". Perhaps a large scale poll would help change that, perhaps not. However, I don't see how an attitude of "it's not worth the resources to poll the membership" is going to help change that "ivory tower" image. There's also the possibility that FCC will simply dump Element 1 on its own and save ARRL from having to take a position at all. In that case, polling would be a waste because it would not make any difference in the outcome. So how about this: Suppose FCC just dumps Element 1 by MO&O, saying it's all been debated before. All it would take is one sentence, something like "Based upon decisions made with regard to WT98-143 and the Wormser-Adsit-Dinelli Petition for Reconsideration, credit for Element 1 is hereby given to all applicants for any class of amateur radio license". Should there be other changes to the license requirements and privileges, particularly the entry-level license classes? Seems kind of odd that in a nocodetest future, most of the HF privileges of an entry-class ham would be CW. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes: On that note, we're still waiting for your opinion on eating elephant dung - good idea or bad? 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Bad. Very bad, indeed. Personally, I wouldn't do that. Your mileage may vary. I presume you have practical experience eating elephant dung on which you base that opinion. I know you wouldn't express an opinion if you weren't qualified to render one...right? John: I've had the experience of smelling elephant dung, and since the sense of smell is directly related to the sense of tast, my "experience" made me realize that the elephant dung would not make for a particularly wholesome and appetizing meal. OTOH, people who have never learned and used Morse code have no alternative experience from which to base their objections to code testing, since they haven't learned, first-hand, of it's operational benefits and advantages. The "elephant dung" argument is purely apples-to-oranges. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
Jon Bloom wrote in message g...
And then we hire the mail crew to open and the data-entry crew to enter the responses from a half million 14-question survey responses. This is your idea of money well spent? Why not? In my opinion, because it's a waste of resources -- time and money -- that would be better devoted to tackling the problems Amateur Radio faces that are important -- a list that does not, in my mind, include anything to do with Morse testing. Your list of priorities is yours and is not at all indicative of the membership's as a body. You're not any more prescient or more on top of what the membership thinks than I am. Since the code test wheel is apparently going to make yet one more revolution and many members do have opinions on the code test question I think a poll of the membership would be very much in order. Particularly in light of ARRL BoD divisive cat fight which preceeded the last revolution of the wheel. It's time for solid membership input on this one, repeat debacles get boring. I don't agree with Jim's proposal for a detailed survey for the same basic reasons you don't agree. I'd like to have a very simple version: "Do you want to have the code test eliminated. If yes check here." "Do you want the code test retained? If yes check here." Any four year old could handle the tabulation . . . Jon |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:15 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com