|
Question for the No coders
How is that some folks can spend hours telling you why something can't be
done and someone else can actually do it in a fraction of time that the dissenter took to tell you ---- can't can't can't? Case in point -- using google and groups search --- some of the no-coders have posted hundreds and I mean hundreds -- nay thousands -- of no code posts. I submit you could have learned the code in half the time it took to complain endlessly about the code. Get a dose of old fashioned America CAN DO and stop making excuses. 362,073 + USA Amateurs have done it (not including tech pluses - have no figures on these) . Take this test 1. CW is antiquated -- Yes __ No___ 2. I don't want to learn anything I don't Like -- Yes__ No ___ 3. I don't have time -- Yes __ No ___ 4. It is too difficult -- Yes__ No __ 5. Its all a case of dinosaurs trying to keep us out of Ham Radio Yes___ No ___ 6. I'll never use CW -- Yes ___ No ___ 7. It is just a dumb tradition -- Yes ___ No ___ 8.It is a waste of time -- Yes No ___ 9. Write In ______ Yes ___ No ___ Add up all your yes answers -- whether they are true or false -- THEY ARE ALL COPOUTS They are excuses that keep you from achieving your goals. Hope you don't do that with the rest of life's requirements. The old Elmer |
|
Hey thanks -- I'll add those to my tests for copouts
All in good fun "Vshah101" wrote in message ... From: "Elmer E Ing" ElmerE How is that some folks can spend hours telling you why something can't be done and someone else can actually do it in a fraction of time that the dissenter took to tell you ---- can't can't can't? One reason is self-esteem. Some of the people in my local club said they didn't want to learn Morse code at first, then they learned it anyway. By the way, same persons in club that did that now claim to enjoy Morse code. People that don't want to learn the code have the self esteem not to be pressured into it. Another reason is image. They don't want it shown that they put effort into a worthless (as perceived by non-Hams) pursuit. Its also irrelavant. Its also unfairly positioned in between the (technical) license classes. That equates code to technical ability. |
Thanks Keith I'll add those to the copout list.
BTW SSB is probably 30 or 40 years old. Better check you receiver and antennas -- the bands are loaded with CW activity. "Keith" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:14:51 -0700, "Elmer E Ing" Elmer E wrote: Case in point -- using google and groups search --- some of the no-coders have posted hundreds and I mean hundreds -- nay thousands -- of no code posts. Morse code is horse and buggy technology. If you want to pass a vehicle driving test maybe you should learn to ride a horse to obtain it? You never know when all the oil will dry up and you need to mount a horse to get to work. Listen to the morse code bands in the USA the signals are few and far. 3.600-3.725 MHz is a vast wasteland of morse code bandwidth that is hardly used. The 80M band is a wasteland all over the band. Try 30M -- hi hi. 20M has a lot of activity also. I worked a C6A from here in California on 6M CW -- ssb was buried in the noise. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
"Keith" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:14:51 -0700, "Elmer E Ing" Elmer E wrote: Case in point -- using google and groups search --- some of the no-coders have posted hundreds and I mean hundreds -- nay thousands -- of no code posts. Morse code is horse and buggy technology. If you want to pass a vehicle driving test maybe you should learn to ride a horse to obtain it? You never know when all the oil will dry up and you need to mount a horse to get to work. Listen to the morse code bands in the USA the signals are few and far. 3.600-3.725 MHz is a vast wasteland of morse code bandwidth that is hardly used. Something's wrong with your radio then. I find the CW bands to be rich in signals most of the time. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Keith wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:14:51 -0700, "Elmer E Ing" Elmer E wrote: Case in point -- using google and groups search --- some of the no-coders have posted hundreds and I mean hundreds -- nay thousands -- of no code posts. Morse code is horse and buggy technology. If you want to pass a vehicle driving test maybe you should learn to ride a horse to obtain it? Well, I learned to ride a horse before the age of 8. I was plowing on a John Deere by 10. The same thing could be said about Morse. Yes, it is old. But *if* radio should fail (terrorists, infrastructure, etc) then CW can get thru when others fail. I learned it before there was a hint of doing away with code for any license class, I still will know it if it goes away, and, yes, I can still ride a horse. Like CW horses are fun and no reason for me to have to do either at present. But if I need to I can. J You never know when all the oil will dry up and you need to mount a horse to get to work. Listen to the morse code bands in the USA the signals are few and far. 3.600-3.725 MHz is a vast wasteland of morse code bandwidth that is hardly used. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:47:17 -0400, "Jerry Oxendine"
wrote: The same thing could be said about Morse. Yes, it is old. But *if* radio should fail (terrorists, infrastructure, etc) then CW can get thru when others fail. I learned it before there was a hint of doing away with code for any license class, I still will know it if it goes away, and, yes, I can still ride a horse. Like CW horses are fun and no reason for me to have to do either at present. But if I need to I can. Just because you did blah blah in 1960 doesn't mean the technology savvy person of today should be tied down to some silly morse code test. I'm sorry to inform you that if ham radio doesn't change in the next few years there will be no one left to use it. For gods sake are you that arrogant and ignorant of the world around you? I bet you have a fancy computer. Let me put the morse code requirement in perspective for you. What if the FCC and a national computer user group required you to have a license to use a computer and to get a license you had to pass a keyboard test of 35 WPM? I bet you would be screaming bloody murder along with computer manufacturers and congress. The morse code test is the same way. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
"Jerry Oxendine" wrote:
(snip) But *if* radio should fail (terrorists, infrastructure, etc) then CW can get thru when others fail. (snip) That is very easy to claim but the fact that neither the military or government requires all their operators to learn CW clearly suggests there is something seriously wrong with that claim. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Elmer E Ing wrote:
Hey thanks -- I'll add those to my tests for copouts All in good fun Hey Elmer! That one also doesn't think there are any pretty women on the ARS, so you can paraphrase that to an excuse! A really strange excuse, but still an excuse. BTW, great job on trolling the troll. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
snip
Yeah, we heard all the same nonsense 11-12 years ago when the nocode ticket became available. Can you cite a single example of a nocode who "pushed the hobby/service forward" since then? Where's the BEEF?! And while you're at it perhaps you can explain what would change in this respect by handing nocodes access to the HF bands too? 73 Corry K4DOH w3rv None of the QRM/bad behaviour from no-coders ever materialised either, did it? All the people cited for QRM by the FCC are Extras, like I am. |
|
|
|
In article m, "Dee D. Flint"
writes: Listen to the morse code bands in the USA the signals are few and far. 3.600-3.725 MHz is a vast wasteland of morse code bandwidth that is hardly used. Something's wrong with your radio then. I find the CW bands to be rich in signals most of the time. If all you want to hear is morse signals, then "the bands are alive with the sound of music." Personally, I find it very dull to sit around listening to a Continuous Wave carrier signal. Your mileage may vary. LHA |
Fab Five Freddy told me everybody's fly, "Brian Kelly"
wrote in part: Yeah, we heard all the same nonsense 11-12 years ago when the nocode ticket became available. Can you cite a single example of a nocode who "pushed the hobby/service forward" since then? No. I can cite that the most noteworthy advances in amateur HF operations in the past 11-12 years have had little or nothing to do with the ability to send and receive Morse Code. There's no reason to believe that Morse Code will become more relevant in the future. But if you wanna play dirty, I can also cite the wonderful operations conducted by the code-fortified geniuses on 14.313 and several other HF frequencies. And the cavalcade of Extra Class code-fetishists sanctioned by the FCC for one violation or the other. Would the author of the "Red Panties Song" have been able to compose and sing that ditty on HF amateur frequencies without the exquisite sense of rhythm only a thorough grounding in Morse Code can provide? Where's the BEEF?! Don't quit your day job. And while you're at it perhaps you can explain what would change in this respect by handing nocodes access to the HF bands too? Of course not. But I bet you can. I'm sure it has something to do with liberals, people wanting "something for nothing" all the time, declining standards, Clinton, atonal music, Human Sacrifice, Dogs and Cats Sleeping Together, MASS HYSTERIA! ($1) Real Wrath of God stuff. Corry -- It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries. http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." -Albert Einstein |
In article ,
(N2EY) writes: (Brian Kelly) wrote in message .com... "Elmer E Ing" Elmer E wrote in message news:gk0Ua.11280$ff.3485@fed1read01... Thanks Keith I'll add those to the copout list. BTW SSB is probably 30 or 40 years old. SSB first showed up in the ham bands in 1934. AT&T had SSB running around ten years before hams did. However, the AT&T operations were fixed-frequency LF systems (5000 meters). HF SSB was not used by the telephone folks until the '30s, when about a half-dozen systems were put in service. One of the reasons AT&T went with SSB for the LF transatlantic telephone was antenna bandwidth. A 6 kHz wide AM channel at 60 kHz involves an antenna bandwidth of 10%. Hmmm...self-funded basement-workshop hams were less than 10 years behind AT&T and its nearly-unlimited resources... Next year will mark the 70th anniversary of ham SSB. Gawd I love these "new, modern modes" like SSB which make Morse such an artifact mode . . . Yup - and the theoretical background for SSB goes back even further. Truly an antique mode. Truly an idiotic statement coming from a champion of a mode that is much older, 159 years since 1844! :-) Here's a timeline: 1910 - G.A. Cambell (of AT&T) develops LC filters suitable for SSB in the LF range. Except that single sideband was not yet an accepted concept either in radio or wired communications. Those were "electric wave filters" for general electronic use. 1914 - G.R Eglund (of Western Electric) sketches geometric relationship of carrier and sidebands. 1915 - J.R Carson (of Western Electric) describes mathematical foundation of modulation and shows the theoretical advantages of SSB suppressed carrier transmission. And it should be noted that John Carson also categorized FM as generally unsuitable for communications in noisy environments. :-) He would later publicly retract that statement and do more mathematical studies...one of which was "Carson's Rule" on modulation index, a standard used in FM transmitter and system design. 1915 - Carson files for patent on SSB. It would be granted in 8 years, not 17. 1917 - Experimental 3 channel SSB telephone carrier system installed between Maumee Ohio and South Bend, Indiana. 1918 - "Type A" SSB telephone carrier system installed between Pittsburgh PA and Baltimore MD. Four channels using LSB between 5 and 25 kHz. Type A was the first nonexperimental commercial use of SSB, and eventually seven Type A systems were installed, remaining in service until the 1940s 1923 - Experimental one-way LSB 60 kHz radio system demonstrated between Rocky Point, L.I.,(New York), and London. Many of the components, including tubes, for this system were developed by Western Electric. 55 KHz. 1927 - Regular transatlantic telephone service using 60 kHz LSB put in service. Transmitting stations at Rocky Point and Rugby, England. Receiving stations at Houlton, Maine and Cupar, Scotland. A three-minute call cost $75. 55 KHz. 1932 - Carsons's SSB patent granted (17 years after filing). John Carson's patent (1,449,382) was granted in 1923, not 1932. Tsk, tsk...off by 9 whole years. 1933 - Robert Moore, W6DEI, puts an amateur station on 75 meter LSB. This station was later described in detail in R/9 magazine. It used LC filtering at 10 kHz to generate the SSB signal, followed by conversion to 200 kHz and 3950 kHz. KHz, not "kHz." Are you an engineer or not? Engineers should use correct terminology for physical terms. 1934 - Several amateur SSB stations are in the air using rigs similar to W6DEI's Between 1933 and 1934 the Dutch established a regular "shortwave" (HF) radio link between the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles using what would come to be the standard in service - four voice channels in a 12 KHz sideband via landline carrier equipment frequency multiplexing, the "outer" two generally handling 8 to 12 TTY circuits, also frequency-multiplexed by landline carrier equipment. The American - British link across the Atlantic went to HF by 1935. 1939 - 68 kHz channel added to Rocky Point system By 1939 both the US government and US military were outfitting for HF "commercial" SSB (12 KHz bandwidth, 4 voice channel) as fast as they could get equipment. They already has some 1934 design SSB transmitters from Western Electric in use. ADA started out with three of them, were replaced with post-war models as soon as available in the early 1950s. 1946 - R.B. Dome describes "Wide Band Phase Shift Networks" in Electronics magazine. December, 1946. 1947 - O. G. "Mike" Villard, W6QYT, puts Stanford University amateur station W6YX on 75 meter LSB with a phasing type transmitter using an audio phase shift network developed from the Dome article. 1952 - Western Electric's LD-T2 SSB transmitter was available to all buyers...4 KW PEP, automatic servo motor tuning (of 12 different stages) at 10 preset frequencies. All amplifier stages (individually shielded) were Class A except the final amplifier running Class AB. Half-minute QSY, easy, fast. ADA had four of them. The term "SSSC" (Single Sideband Suppressed Carrier) was frequently used in the early days. Not in commercial or military radio services of 1952...it was just "sideband" or "single sideband" in both written and spoken language in the USA and US forces abroad. This brings us to the point where SSB began to become common in amateur communications. Numerous homebrew transmitters and receive adapters were described in the amateur literature, followed by manufactured equipment. Early SSB efforts all used separate receivers and transmitters - the first SSB transceivers and matched-pair receiver/transmitter sets for the amateur market did not appear until the late 1950s (Cosmophone 35, Collins KWM-1 & KWM-2, Collins S-Line, etc.). Ever operate an AN/FRC-93? I don't think you've ever operated an AN/ARC-58 or AN/ARC-65. Those are airborne transceivers, single channel units primarily for USAF. All of the amateur radio SSB equipment, from day one, was SINGLE channel. SSB operation concentrated on 75 and 20 meters in the post-WW2 years because: - they were the most crowded 'phone allocations - 40 had no 'phone band, and 15 wasn't a ham band, until the early 1950s. The main reasons SSB was not more widely adopted by hams in the '30s were cost and complexity. ...and "most hams" didn't know squat about real radio theory so they went back to the usual beeping, yakking, and whining. :-) Except in the amateur 11 meter band...which they would lose in 1958 and never stop whining about it for the next 45 years! :-). In those years (late '40s-early '50s), QST had a regular column called "On The Air With Single Sideband". There were "SSB Handbooks" for hams put out by several publishers. And there were gripes that QST was becoming "too technical" and that ARRL was "forcing SSB down hams' throats". Well, you were there, right? Poor baby...must have been difficult. The more things change... The more things change the more YOU want to keep the old things. You've made a number of ERRORS in your little history missive. You've been corrected. Try to accept that in good grace...not your usual spiteful attitude as a procoder knowitall. LHA |
In article , Dwight Stewart
writes: "Jerry Oxendine" wrote: (snip) But *if* radio should fail (terrorists, infrastructure, etc) then CW can get thru when others fail. (snip) That is very easy to claim but the fact that neither the military or government requires all their operators to learn CW clearly suggests there is something seriously wrong with that claim. Those services don't expect such massive infrastructure failure, that's all. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Alun Palmer
writes: Yeah, we heard all the same nonsense 11-12 years ago when the nocode ticket became available. Can you cite a single example of a nocode who "pushed the hobby/service forward" since then? Where's the BEEF?! And while you're at it perhaps you can explain what would change in this respect by handing nocodes access to the HF bands too? 73 Corry K4DOH w3rv None of the QRM/bad behaviour from no-coders ever materialised either, did it? I've heard some on VHF/UHF. Local repeaters had a heck of a time with a few of 'em a couple years back. I'll dig up the story if you want. All the people cited for QRM by the FCC are Extras, like I am. I'm sure that comment is tongue-in-cheek, Alun. Just take a look at the FCC Enforcement logs. Note what mode was being used in most of those violations. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:01:04 -0700, Keith
wrote: For gods sake are you that arrogant and ignorant of the world around you? I bet you have a fancy computer. Let me put the morse code requirement in perspective for you. What if the FCC and a national computer user group required you to have a license to use a computer and to get a license you had to pass a keyboard test of 35 WPM? I bet you would be screaming bloody murder along with computer manufacturers and congress. The morse code test is the same way. Radio uses a natural resource (namely, the radio frequency spectrum). Computers do not. You are comparing apples to oranges. DE John, KC2HMZ |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ... "Brian Kelly" wrote: (snip) Can you cite a single example of a nocode who "pushed the hobby/service forward" since then? (snip) In what way are we supposed to push the hobby/service forward? Give us an example - an example of something a person with code ability has done in the last two to three decades to push the hobby/service forward. As I see it, the Technicians are doing pretty much doing the same things the other license holders are doing - talking on the radio, tinkering with their equipment, occasionally going to club meetings, occasionally helping out in disasters, and so on. All of these are contributions. Obviously, nothing special since other license holders are also doing the same things, but I wasn't aware Technicians were expected to do more than the other license holders. And while you're at it perhaps you can explain what would change in this respect by handing nocodes access to the HF bands too? You, Brian, aren't handing access to the HF bands to those without code ability. Regardless, since you're opposed to HF access for those without code ability, and that position is out of step with the current trend, it is up to you to make an argument to support that position. Demanding more from those without code ability than those with is not exactly a strong argument. One of the big no-code arguments is that code was keeping highly qualified people out of ham ram radio and that these people would push the hobby forward technically. So the other side asked what have the current no-coders done to push it forward to prove that dropping the code altogether would bring in the hi-tech types since we ought to have a bunch of hi-tech types in the no-code tech group. If one looks at reality, only a very, very limited handful of people came up with the technical advances regardless of license class so it's probably not a fair question anyway. Plus it would be skewed by the fact that prior to the no-code tech license, all hams had to have code. Neither side has a good argument attempting to use this point to prove anything. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dwight Stewart wrote in message ...
"Brian Kelly" wrote: (snip) Can you cite a single example of a nocode who "pushed the hobby/service forward" since then? (snip) In what way are we supposed to push the hobby/service forward? Beats me, ask those who repeatedly claim that eliminating the code tests will by some mysterious means or another "push the hobby/service forward". Which experince has already demonstrated is complete BS. Give us an example - an example of something a person with code ability has done in the last two to three decades to push the hobby/service forward. G3PLX for one. But that's not the point. The difference is that us coders don't go around bleating about how we "push the hobby/service forward". Which is one of the bogus battle cries of the free lunchers. As I see it, the Technicians are doing pretty much doing the same things the other license holders are doing - talking on the radio, tinkering with their equipment, occasionally going to club meetings, occasionally helping out in disasters, and so on. All of these are contributions. Obviously, nothing special since other license holders are also doing the same things, but I wasn't aware Technicians were expected to do more than the other license holders. EXACTLY my point. The nocodes haven't done a thing to "push the hobby/service forward", the circle is complete, thankew for the support. And while you're at it perhaps you can explain what would change in this respect by handing nocodes access to the HF bands too? You, Brian, aren't handing access to the HF bands to those without code ability. Regardless, since you're opposed to HF access for those without code ability, and that position is out of step with the current trend, it is up to you to make an argument to support that position. Watch for my response to the NPRM. It will not be in support of the claim that eliminating the code tests on the basis of "pushing the hobby/service forward" is a valid rationale. Demanding more from those without code ability than those with is not exactly a strong argument. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ w3rv |
Dwight Stewart wrote in message ...
"Jerry Oxendine" wrote: (snip) But *if* radio should fail (terrorists, infrastructure, etc) then CW can get thru when others fail. (snip) That is very easy to claim but the fact that neither the military or government requires all their operators to learn CW clearly suggests there is something seriously wrong with that claim. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ I think BOTH of you have lost context of what everyone is up in arms over. Who cares if CW will get through when the other modes fail, it's not important because those who pass the 5-wpm test are NOT equipped to take advantage of that mode. I'm living proof of that. I'm NOWHERE close to being Morse code proficient, yet I can pass Element 1 every day of the week and twice on Sunday...and very likely with 100% copy. We're talking about donning a set of headphones and having five minutes of perfectly sent CW piped through in a format that, with some minimal preparation, is fully expected. Ready? A one and a two and ... N0CW DE KN0WCW, UR RST IS 589. M_ N_M_ IS J_NA_HON. RI_ HE_E I_ _AES_. QT_ IS _LORI_A. _EATH_R I_ SU_N_. The above sample represents 92 characters as sent on the test. Remember, Numbers, punctuation marks, and prosigns count for two each. Can ANTONE really look at this and assuming that BOTH calls up front are missed, believe that the average Joe can't fill in the missed characters solely from commonn sense?! Does passing Element 1 demonstrate Morse proficiency? Heck no. It's not jumping through hoops, it's not a barrier, (Except to the lazy.) it's a forced TASTE. That's it. YES it's a method by which one is FORCED to utilize a little self discipline and try out a little CW. Like it...keep moving and practice on your own. Don't like it...drop it like a bad habit. But to say that: A. Morse code is a barrier to ham radio. B. Passing Element 1 represents "knowing" Morse code. C. If the military doesn't use it, it's no longer needed. Is pure horsefeathers. Sorry, but it's time to call the lazy...lazy. I personally believe that 5-wpm is great for entry-level HF (Including the General, BTW.) with 13-wpm for the Extra. The no-code Tech allows those who wish to enter ham radio sans the code so the barrier argument is empty. Try passing Element 1 and just hopping on 40 and see how "proficient" you feel. Finally, who gives a hoot whether or not the military uses CW...this is ham radio, rich with tradition. It's part of our culture. Don't like it...try scale modelling or gardening. I wanted more than CB could offer. I researched the requirements...and fulfilled them. END OF STORY. You better believe that I'll be writing the FCC and EVERY local and state rep who'll listen and I'll make sure they know that I'm a newbie and a CBer too. (No barrier to either.) A suggestion to all. (Even you NCTA.) When you get those political flyers in your mailbox, respond to them immediately re. your concerns. Those are when these guys are hungry for their jobs and will likely, at the very least, make inquiries. Remember, one ham's letter is responsible for the vanity call system AFTER his NPRM was denied. His letter ended up in the hands of a rep who had some say with the FCC's budget. How quickly the vanity call system was implemented WITHOUT a second NPRM. Your political and monetary clout will have much more leverage than NCI. I happen to believe that PCTA outnumber NCTA by 2:1...likely why the idea of a square and fair vote scares 'em $hitless. Then comes the "FCC knows best" whine to go along with the "regulatory" cheese. What a stroke of luck it is that the FCC has ZERO interest in the ARS and welcomes anything that'll reduce it's "regulatory" workload. (Oh, so THAT'S where that darned word fits in.) I for one cannot join in recent "celebration of underachievement." PCTA's, get off your duffs and write a letter. (Not to the FCC, to your local reps.) 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS# 9384 |
.. Can you cite a single example of a nocode who
"pushed the hobby/service forward" since then? Please define "pushed the hobby/service forward" ? |
"Steve Stone" wrote in message
... . Can you cite a single example of a nocode who "pushed the hobby/service forward" since then? Please define "pushed the hobby/service forward" ? That's too intelligent a question. You'll never get an answer. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
In article , Dwight Stewart
writes: I agree. But then we shouldn't either. Our equipment is also advancing, reducing the need for a fallback system (which may explain why code testing appears to be going away). A modern station, equipped with the latest gear (properly installed), has the ability to get through where needed. At that point, it is fairly useless to argue CW offers more than that (even if that can be proven - it hasn't). "CW gets through when everything else will..." - B. Burke |
I was on HF and communicating
before any of the regulars in here and I didn't have to use any morse code at all. Im sure your right, CB or 11 Meters is considered HF. |
|
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
(snip) If one looks at reality, only a very, very limited handful of people came up with the technical advances regardless of license class so it's probably not a fair question anyway. Plus it would be skewed by the fact that prior to the no-code tech license, all hams had to have code. Neither side has a good argument attempting to use this point to prove anything. What you said above pretty much sums up my thoughts on this also. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Brian Kelly" wrote:
Beats me, ask those who repeatedly claim that eliminating the code tests will by some mysterious means or another "push the hobby/ service forward". Which experience has already demonstrated is complete BS. Well, I suppose one could argue that those without code ability have pushed the hobby/service forward by just being there (shear numbers do help Amateur Radio). Of course, that is not likely to be an argument that satisfies you, but it was the only thing I could come up with at this moment. However, I think even those with code ability would agree that at least some have walked away from ham radio because of the code testing requirement. Would one of those have pushed the hobby/service forward? We'll obviously never know (especially since we're not even clear on what that phrase means). The difference is that us coders don't go around bleating about how we "push the hobby/service forward". Which is one of the bogus battle cries of the free lunchers. (snip) Well, with the amount of noise those with code ability make in general, it would be a little hard to notice even if they did. ;) The rest of your message seems more to be a declaration than a discussion so I'll let it go unanswered. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Steve Stone" wrote:
You guys have too much time on your hands and not enough to do. Please join your local ARES group and use your knowledge and free time in a productive manner. Wasting free time is pretty much what this newsgroup is all about, Steve. However, don't think everyone in this newsgroup spends all their free time here - most of us get our hands dirty with other things. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Steve Stone" wrote in message ...
. Can you cite a single example of a nocode who "pushed the hobby/service forward" since then? Please define "pushed the hobby/service forward" ? I have no idea what they're talking about, that's why I asked for an example. I'm still waiting for an answer. w3rv |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: (snip) If one looks at reality, only a very, very limited handful of people came up with the technical advances regardless of license class so it's probably not a fair question anyway. Plus it would be skewed by the fact that prior to the no-code tech license, all hams had to have code. Neither side has a good argument attempting to use this point to prove anything. What you said above pretty much sums up my thoughts on this also. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Yep. I think in nearly anything, many will enjoy and a few will excel. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
|
|
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: (WA8ULX) wrote in message ... I was on HF and communicating before any of the regulars in here and I didn't have to use any morse code at all. Im sure your right, CB or 11 Meters is considered HF. He's so fulla **** the whites of his eyes gotta be brown. Incorrect. They are blue. I for one was on the HF ham bands in 1951 *with CW* from W3CGS before I got my Novice ticket. Then you were BOOTLEGGING, old man. ILLEGAL. Tsk, tsk. Wrong. Flat out wrong ya Putz. Figger it out. The only "HF experience" he had in that timeframe was as a grunt U.S. Army apprentice RTTY equipment mechanic & babysitter 1952-53. Incorrect AGAIN! Microwave Radio Relay Operation and Maintenance Supervisor, (then) MOS 281.6. Temporarily doing Fixed Station Transmitters operation and maintenance (supervisor) 1953 to 1956 at US Army radio station ADA in Tokyo, Japan. 43 transmitters on HF ranging from 1 KW (BC-339) to 40 KW (AN/FRC-22)...working to Seoul, Pusan, Okinawa, Manila, Saigon, Anchorage, Seattle, Hawaii, San Francisco on a 24/7 schedule. Not a single circuit used any morse code. In 1952 I was in Basic Training and at the Signal School in Fort Monmouth, NJ. Like I sed, I was on HF before you were. AND originating the traffic content which you couldn't and didn't. Repeater mechanic. Bleh. The epithet-tossing garbage-mouthed old man seems to have difficulty with NUMBERS. I recall a jolly bit of BS of his about "26" patents that were only ONE. :-) Wrong. Flat out wrong ya Putz. LHA |
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: The claim is that code tests are not for the 21st century, and that the survival and proseprity of amateur radio depends in some way on complete elimination of code tests. Right on. Never mind that a decade of actual experince demonstrates otherwise. 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: (WA8ULX) wrote in message ... I was on HF and communicating before any of the regulars in here and I didn't have to use any morse code at all. Im sure your right, CB or 11 Meters is considered HF. He's so fulla **** the whites of his eyes gotta be brown. Incorrect. They are blue. That has to be an interesting look you've got there, Leonard. What color are the pupils? I for one was on the HF ham bands in 1951 *with CW* from W3CGS before I got my Novice ticket. Then you were BOOTLEGGING, old man. ILLEGAL. Tsk, tsk. I think we may see another gap in your knowledge looming. The only "HF experience" he had in that timeframe was as a grunt U.S. Army apprentice RTTY equipment mechanic & babysitter 1952-53. Incorrect AGAIN! Microwave Radio Relay Operation and Maintenance Supervisor, (then) MOS 281.6. Temporarily doing Fixed Station Transmitters operation and maintenance (supervisor) 1953 to 1956 at US Army radio station ADA in Tokyo, Japan. 43 transmitters on HF ranging from 1 KW (BC-339) to 40 KW (AN/FRC-22)...working to Seoul, Pusan, Okinawa, Manila, Saigon, Anchorage, Seattle, Hawaii, San Francisco on a 24/7 schedule. Not a single circuit used any morse code. I know you just forgot to mention, "Fifty years ago..." In 1952 I was in Basic Training and at the Signal School in Fort Monmouth, NJ. ....and a year later you were an expert. Dave K8MN |
Dwight Stewart wrote in message ...
"Brian Kelly" wrote: Well, I suppose one could argue that those without code ability have pushed the hobby/service forward by just being there (shear numbers do help Amateur Radio). Ya mean like sheer numbers have "helped" CB radio? Which matters more in ham radio, quantity or quality?? We're obviously not gonna have both. Of course, that is not likely to be an argument that satisfies you, I'll cheerfully give up thumping for code tests when the writtens get much stiffer than they are now. As the situation stands now everywhere I look the service is being dumbed down. How many examples of how that philosophy has backfired badly in other spheres do you have to see before you get the drift? Welfare? Public education? Where and how do we draw the line in ham radio? but it was the only thing I could come up with at this moment. Uh-huh. There's a reason for that. However, I think even those with code ability would agree that at least some have walked away from ham radio because of the code testing requirement. Not "some", uncountable hordes. I've been listening to that excuse for more decades than I'd like to admit. I never shed a tear for any of 'em. It's a blatent copout and a strong indicator of what ham radio would have gotten from them. Would one of those have pushed the hobby/service forward? We'll obviously never know (especially since we're not even clear on what that phrase means). Yeah yeah, and I'll never know how much more money I might have made if I'd gone to law school instead of engineering school. So what? We're talking about the path forward from here in ham radio and the discussions are based on what we DO know has happened both in ham radio and elsewhere. The difference is that us coders don't go around bleating about how we "push the hobby/service forward". Which is one of the bogus battle cries of the free lunchers. (snip) Well, with the amount of noise those with code ability make in general, it would be a little hard to notice even if they did. ;) Bleh! The rest of your message seems more to be a declaration than a discussion so I'll let it go unanswered. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ w3rv |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote: In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: (WA8ULX) wrote in message ... I was on HF and communicating before any of the regulars in here and I didn't have to use any morse code at all. Im sure your right, CB or 11 Meters is considered HF. He's so fulla **** the whites of his eyes gotta be brown. Incorrect. They are blue. That has to be an interesting look you've got there, Leonard. What color are the pupils? He's been swallowing his blue Listerine. Prolly by the gallon. He hasn't read the label yet. I for one was on the HF ham bands in 1951 *with CW* from W3CGS before I got my Novice ticket. Then you were BOOTLEGGING, old man. ILLEGAL. Tsk, tsk. I think we may see another gap in your knowledge looming. Dontcha love it? The average nocoode can see it a mile away. But not our Putz, yes sir, he knows *everything*. The only "HF experience" he had in that timeframe was as a grunt U.S. Army apprentice RTTY equipment mechanic & babysitter 1952-53. Incorrect AGAIN! Microwave Radio Relay Operation and Maintenance Supervisor, (then) MOS 281.6. Temporarily doing Fixed Station Transmitters operation and maintenance (supervisor) 1953 to 1956 at US Army radio station ADA in Tokyo, Japan. 43 transmitters on HF ranging from 1 KW (BC-339) to 40 KW (AN/FRC-22)...working to Seoul, Pusan, Okinawa, Manila, Saigon, Anchorage, Seattle, Hawaii, San Francisco on a 24/7 schedule. Not a single circuit used any morse code. I know you just forgot to mention, "Fifty years ago..." In 1952 I was in Basic Training and at the Signal School in Fort Monmouth, NJ. ...and a year later you were an expert. Zzzzzzz . . . Dave K8MN w3rv |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com