On 03 Aug 2003 18:00:32 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

I've never seen such sucking-up since I saw a flight
of a half-dozen or so Canada Geese devoured by a C-5B engine!

You shoulda been at KIAG three years ago when a GU-11 got eaten by an
F-117. Two Nighthawks came in. The first one ate a seagull as soon as
he touched ground. The second one landed hard and broke something.
They were both supposed to fly in that weekend's air show, neither of
them did. The broken one spent the weekend in the hanger. The one with
a B1RD in the engine spent the weekend on the taxiway, roped off with
guys standing around it holding M-16s and trying their darndest to
look like Steven Segal.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Great, now you'll have to thoroughly read and
catch up with all this really intelligent
stuff I've been posting!


Watch out. Too much activity in this newsgroup can lead to permanent brain
damage. Since I have a lot to do around the house (it's computer maintenance
day), I'll taking a break from this newsgroup until much later tonight.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart wrote in message ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

How was I excluded from the ARS by the Morse
code test?


In the past, you were not excluded (code testing served a need).

OK, I'll bite.

What need did code testing serve in the past that does not exist
today?

Before you say "other services used it", note that many if not most
hams had little chance of ever being part of those other services when
they used Morse. For example, people over a certain age, or with
certain physical conditions, would never be accepted in the military.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...


What need did code testing serve in the past that does not exist
today?

Before you say "other services used it", note that many if not most
hams had little chance of ever being part of those other services when
they used Morse. For example, people over a certain age, or with
certain physical conditions, would never be accepted in the military.

73 de Jim, N2EY

So now you want an age waiver in addition to the disability waiver for code testing?

Just how old are you Jim?

Dwight Stewart wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote:

OK, I'll bite.

What need did code testing serve in the past
that does not exist today?

Before you say "other services used it", note
that many if not most hams had little chance
of ever being part of those other services when
they used Morse. For example, people over a
certain age, or with certain physical
conditions, would never be accepted in the
military.


It served a need from the ITU's and FCC's perspectives.

Some of us would say it still does. All a matter of opinion.

And, yes, it did
have to do with the fact that other services used it - the pool of trained
operators concept in 97.1 of the CFR.

That "pool" thing is in Part 97, not ITU-R

However, it says "pool of trained operators" right? Not "pool of
trained CW/Morse operators". So it applies as a general reason for the
service to exist, not as a reason for code testing.

Since the services we serve don't use
code anymore, code simply no longer serves that need.

If it ever did. And amateur radio does not exist to serve other
services.

The "pool of trained operators" thing in 97.1 is really about the idea
of the ARS being a service where the licensees (hams) are skilled both
operationally and technically, able to do a lot of different things
well. This distinguishes it from other services, which usually involve
various types of certified equipment, channelized operation, and the
participation of both specialized professionals and unskilled users.
Look at cell phones - lots of specialized technology and technical
people do the hardware, so that the user doesn't have to know anything
other than how to "dial" a number. Heck, some users don;t even realize
their "phone" is actually a radio transceiver.

That only leaves code
use by ham operators for enjoyment.

And public service.

That doesn't warrant a unique license
requirement (unique compared to the other modes).

Your opinion noted. Others' opinions differ.

Besides, everything hams do is either "for enjoyment" or public
service. Does that mean none of it should be tested?

73 de Jim, N2EY

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
Dwight Stewart wrote in message ...

Besides, everything hams do is either "for enjoyment" or public
service.

But . . but . . geez, wait a minnit here! What about all the
technological leaps forward we're 'sposed to lead . . ? It sez so in
97.1 . . isn't that the Techs job??

It's everybody's job. And nobody's. You'll see, the techno folks who
will come into the ARS after Element 1 goes away will create a techno
revolution just like the one created when the Tech lost its code test.
Just watch....

Does that mean none of it should be tested?

That'll be covered in the next round . .

Maia & Co. are already working on that.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 04:53:49 -0400, Dwight Stewart
wrote:

You right about that, Kim. If all those outside these newsgroups were like
those here, everyone would have probably killed each other by now.

I'll say. I've noticed for awhile that there seems to be small
segment of the ham community who seem to think that vociferous
argument ought to be the major ham activity. They're loud, brash,
obnoxious and attract a lot of attention. By the looks of things,
they all seem to have descended on rra.misc and rra.policy. Now if we
could only figure out a way to keep them there, and off the air.

Ben

"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) And amateur radio does not exist to
serve other services. (snip)


Our public service is often service to other agencies (Red Cross, MARS,
and so on).


The "pool of trained operators" thing in 97.1 is
really about the idea of the ARS being a service
where the licensees (hams) are skilled both
operationally and technically, able to do a lot
of different things well. This distinguishes it
from other services, (snip)


The pool of trained operators concept relates to our ability to do the
other things outlined in 97.1 (public service, international goodwill, and
so on). At one time, code was a necessary part of at least some of that.
That is much less so today, hence the move to change the code testing
requirement.


(snip) And public service. (snip)


I'm not aware of the use of code by any of the typical served agencies
(Red Cross, MARS, and so on).


(snip) Besides, everything hams do is either "for
enjoyment" or public service. Does that mean none
of it should be tested?


Huh? I thought I was fairly clear about all this. Code was once necessary
for the goals and purposes outlined in 97.1. At the very least, that is much
less so today (some would say it is not at all so today). That severely
weakens the justification for a unique license requirement. If the license
requirement is actually removed, code will then be tested on an equal
footing with the other operating modes (written theory). Nothing in that is
an argument for or against testing anything else.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
Dwight Stewart wrote in message ...

Besides, everything hams do is either "for enjoyment" or public
service.

But . . but . . geez, wait a minnit here! What about all the
technological leaps forward we're 'sposed to lead . . ? It sez so in
97.1 . . isn't that the Techs job??

It's everybody's job. And nobody's.

Whew: The latter gets me off the hook . .

You'll see, the techno folks who
will come into the ARS after Element 1 goes away will create a techno
revolution just like the one created when the Tech lost its code test.
Just watch....

What AGAIN??! It won't be possible for us OFs to keep up with it if
it's even close to a repeat of the technology explosion of '92-'93.
We're doomed to obsolescence. Sob.

Does that mean none of it should be tested?

That'll be covered in the next round . .

Maia & Co. are already working on that.

With "leaders" like him and Stevenson how can we miss?

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) And amateur radio does not exist to
serve other services. (snip)

Our public service is often service to other agencies (Red Cross, MARS,
and so on).

The "pool of trained operators" thing in 97.1 is
really about the idea of the ARS being a service
where the licensees (hams) are skilled both
operationally and technically, able to do a lot
of different things well. This distinguishes it
from other services, (snip)

The pool of trained operators concept relates to our ability to do the
other things outlined in 97.1 (public service, international goodwill, and
so on). At one time, code was a necessary part of at least some of that.
That is much less so today, hence the move to change the code testing
requirement.

Dwight, that statement in 97.1 is an OLD thing going back decades.

It was put in there to rationalize the existance of amateur radio among
all the other very commercial radio services.

Three to four decades ago there MIGHT have been a "need" for "trained
operators" for the military draft. [the USA still had a draft and the Cold
War was very warm indeed] Never mind that the military already HAD
ways of training in the "radio arts."

Does national defense or the various aid agencies NEED amateurs who
are "trained" in DX contesting and sitting around telling old war stories
about when Kode Vas King? I don't think so.

(snip) And public service. (snip)

I'm not aware of the use of code by any of the typical served agencies
(Red Cross, MARS, and so on).

Morse code use will keep out the eveavsdropers and bad people from
the content of communications, thus not letting them know the deep
dark, very secret ways of the ham. Secure.

So I've been told.

(snip) Besides, everything hams do is either "for
enjoyment" or public service. Does that mean none
of it should be tested?

Huh? I thought I was fairly clear about all this. Code was once necessary
for the goals and purposes outlined in 97.1. At the very least, that is much
less so today (some would say it is not at all so today). That severely
weakens the justification for a unique license requirement. If the license
requirement is actually removed, code will then be tested on an equal
footing with the other operating modes (written theory). Nothing in that is
an argument for or against testing anything else.

Holier-than-thou old-timers just can't live with that, Dwight!

FCC "must" keep the "tradition" of morsemanship!

shrug

LHA