|
Keith wrote: On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:09:19 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: Now that you mention it, how does a fully blind ham tell what frequency he or she is on? I suppose that using the memory channels on an HF rig would be one method, but does anyone here know? But does the government require the blind to take a test to prove they can read the frequency read out in order to obtain a license? No, but they are expected to be able to keep their transmissions within the correct frequency ranges just like everyone else. One of my very best friends was a blind ham. I taught Novice classes with him for several years. He had devices to aid in tuning up his equipment and knowing what frequency he was on. He use Drake equipment and which tuned a certain number of KHz per dial revolution. He had marker oscillators for different frequencies and once he found a marker for a certain frequency he could count dial revolutions and know what frequency he was on and he was pretty accurate at setting the frequency. Later he obtained a rig with an audio frequency readout. So anyway, what does the question have to do with the Morse code requirement? |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:29:55 GMT, "D. Stussy" wrote:
It's not "element 1 credit" by itself that determines a Technician class licensee's operating privilege on HF. If it were, then I would agree that nothing has changed - but that's simply not the situation here. Stop confusing the people with a death grip on their morse code key with the facts. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:36:26 -0600, JJ wrote:
It does not mean that the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has changed yet. Phil is not unbiased in this since he is part of the ARRL legal goons that want to ram morse code down the throats of Americans so they can pick a microphone to talk on HF. Read 97.301(e) it depends on the International requirement for morse code proficiency. The requirement for morse code proficiency is GONE. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
Dick Carroll; wrote: Well JJ, there you have it! He holds an Extra class license, almost surely of the Lite category, and thus is a prime example of the New Age codehating hams. If I had a case on the table I now rest it. This guy makes me think you have a valid point Dick. |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:29:23 GMT, "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:
That's ridiculous ... the NEW ITU Radio Regs simply give administrations the CHOICE as to whether or not to have a Morse test as a requirement for licenses that convey privs below 30 MHz ... they do NOT preclude any administration from having it either way ... it's their choice. The regulation was not "rescinded" on July 5, 2003, it was simply MODIFIED. And 97.301(e) is dependent on a international requirement for morse code proficiency. There is no longer a international requirement for proficiency to send and receive morse code. The s25.5 regulation says that it is left up to the administration. . The FCC rules do not require a morse code proficiency unless the international proficiency is required. So the FCC has already written the rules. Now the ARRL thought their stupid trick to leave it to the administration would help keep more Americans from enjoy the ham radio hobby, but they screwed up in my opinion. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:13:14 -0400, "Bill Sohl"
wrote: And before July, there was no specific "code speed" international requirement...yet that didn't allow techs who could do 2 wpm morse on HF...the FCC mandated 5 wpm even though the ITU had no speed minimum. That was only for the test, it has nothing to do with 97.301(e) -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:52:54 GMT, "Phil Kane"
wrote: Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the requirement in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed. That is NOT what 97.301(e) says. 97.301(e) does not require a tech to possess element 1, it requires the tech licensee to meet the international standards set down in s25.5 to transmit on HF. The reason 97.301(e) was written that way is because the FCC expected the s25.5 reference to be deleted, but it was changed. The fact that it was changed does not mean a tech licensee is not meeting the requirements set down in 97.301(e). It doesn't mean a tech can get on 20 meters, it should mean he can operate on HF in the allocated tech bands according to the FCC rules. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:47:46 GMT, "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:
And YES, the FCC *does* have records of which Techs have HF privs, so the writer above is totally wrong. The FCC does not have information on techs who pass element 1. PERIOD. Only if they upgrade to general or extra. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
Len Over 21 wrote:
Whine, whine, whine...spiteful statements from someone who insists that all must do as he did because he is so magnificent. Not all must or can do what Steve did. The test standards are not now the same. You, on the other hand, can continue to do what you've been doing toward obtaining an amateur radio license--zip, nada, zilch, nuttin'. I'm sure you'll get that "Extra right out of the box" as soon as you figure out how to open the box. Dave K8MN |
Keith wrote:
On 27 Jul 2003 14:22:09 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: If you're going to go that route, then all of the questions in the written tests about voice modes have to go as well, because there's no way deaf people are going to use SSB, either. I'd love to see someone with a hearing disability receive weak signal CW on 80 meters in the middle of July. Requiring a deaf person to pass a code test to get a ham license is like making a blind person pass a drivers test before riding the bus, you never know when driver will pass out and the blind will have to take the wheel of the bus. You're correct, I won't work that 80 meter CW as well as those with good hearing. So What? Given enough volume in a headset, I'm a darn good contest op on SSB, better than a lot of people who have "perfect" hearing. So we've nulled that one out. NO, requiring a deaf person to learn CW is NOT like teaching a blind person to drive. Whereas the deaf can still navigate around with whatever aids they can come up with, (sometimes as simple as cranking up the volume on the headset or putting that finger against the speaker cone) the legally blind won't be able to drive without some technology that doesn't exist yet. So please don't tell those who cannot hear as well as you what they can and cannot do. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
Absolutely. To come to the conclusion that deaf people cannot learn and use CW is rather narrow-minded in my opnion. I bet there's a way that ANYONE could learn CW. It helps if a person types in all caps too! ;^) For goodness sake! By your example, Keith, blind people should not be licensed because, "how in the world would they know what frequency they are on?" Now that you mention it, how does a fully blind ham tell what frequency he or she is on? I suppose that using the memory channels on an HF rig would be one method, but does anyone here know? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
All international treaties have to ratified by Congress.... And you know how our recent history on treaty ratification has gone. (in other words we haven't ratified them) This could be interesting. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Keith wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:36:26 -0600, JJ wrote: It does not mean that the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has changed yet. Phil is not unbiased in this since he is part of the ARRL legal goons that want to ram morse code down the throats of Americans so they can pick a microphone to talk on HF. Read 97.301(e) it depends on the International requirement for morse code proficiency. The requirement for morse code proficiency is GONE. HAR! You'll just toss out every expert opinion until you get one you like. - Mike KB3EIA - |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:04:58 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:
So please don't tell those who cannot hear as well as you what they can and cannot do. I'm not you knuckle head. I'm saying the requirement for the hearing disabled to pass a morse code test is discriminatory. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 09:40:04 -0400, "Spamhater" wrote: HEY KEITH, IF YOU'RE NOT ILLITERATE, TRY READING PART 95 SOMETIME.... YOU WILL SEE HOW STUPID YOU SOUND. THE NEWEST VERSION! ALL AMATEURS ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A COPY OF CURRENT LAWS AVAILABLE... BUT SINCE YOU"VE OBVIOUSLY NOT READ THEM TO KNOW THE LAWS, YOU WOULDN'T BE AWARE OF THIS ONE EITHER! NOW, IS THIS BIG ENOUGH FOR YOU TO READ AND UNDERSTAND?????? DUHHHHH....... You're both on crack. Part 95 is the CB regs. The regs for ham radio are in part 97. DE John, KC2HMZ NOPE, I'm not on Crack, but you're right... Being I was in a "CB" room, got tunnel vision - so thought instinctlively of Part 95.. It is part 97 for Ham. So, "I" stand corrected... My error. JMS |
|
Keith wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:04:58 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: So please don't tell those who cannot hear as well as you what they can and cannot do. I'm not you knuckle head. I'm saying the requirement for the hearing disabled to pass a morse code test is discriminatory. And I'm saying it's not. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Keith wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:09:19 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: Now that you mention it, how does a fully blind ham tell what frequency he or she is on? I suppose that using the memory channels on an HF rig would be one method, but does anyone here know? But does the government require the blind to take a test to prove they can read the frequency read out in order to obtain a license? Are you telling me that you think the wo are related? - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Keith" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:36:26 -0600, JJ wrote: It does not mean that the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has changed yet. Phil is not unbiased in this since he is part of the ARRL legal goons that want to ram morse code down the throats of Americans so they can pick a microphone to talk on HF. Read 97.301(e) it depends on the International requirement for morse code proficiency. The requirement for morse code proficiency is GONE. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ BUT UNTIL THE AMERICAN LAWS are rewritten, changed, updated (pick your term), the CW requirement STILL exists in our Radio Laws. You can NOT sidestep laws that exist. A law may be come effective in one sense but when it affects so many countries, it takes time in the administrative governments to trickle down. As I understand it, there are yet, a few countries who will refuse to abide by the International Treaty's standards to the letter. The International Union decided to drop CW as a requirement, that does NOT mean WE have to. IF the other countries are not so willing to go with it either, then perhaps the FCC won't be so quick to jump either. Get off your lazy ass and learn 5 WPM CW. It is not any harder than learning to drive a car or program a computer. IF it is worth it to you to use 10 meters or any other band, then get your act together and make it a mission to actually LEARN something. "I" am NOT one of the biased ARRL people, I don't and won't belong to the ARRL. So my opinion is based purely on KNOWING that is doesn't take a hell of a lot of work to LEARN - CW @ 5 WPM. If the handicapped can do it, ANYONE CAN. If you can't, then you're not handicapped, you're plain brain dead and lazy. JMS |
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:09:44 -0700, Keith wrote:
Another problem that was pointed out to me are people with disabilities. According to the American with Disabilities Act the government can not discriminate against disabled people . Now that s25.5 is international law the government must now accommodate disabled people and they must do it without reasonable delay. You must really enjoy playing wannabe lawyer --- and missing the target. The issue of code and the ADA was hashed out by the FCC several years ago. Nothing changed. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane A real lawyer |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 05:02:04 -0700, Keith wrote:
The morse code test for deaf people is pure discrimination and now that s25.5 no longer requires a proficiency to know and send morse code the FCC better move fast to remove this discrimination. How stupid can one be - s25.5 now lets each Administration decide whether a code test is required. So far the US Administration (FCC) hasn't said that a code test is not required. "better move fast" -- hey, dummy, push the FCC and you will see how slow "big government" will move. I can guarantee that.... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 07:03:01 -0400, Spamhater wrote:
Don't open your mouth without facts which you have yet to provide any of in support of your lawlessness aim to sidestep a part you're apparently too damned lazy to do. He's an EXTRA class licensee...... The Twilight Zone..... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
D. Stussy wrote: I disagree that what is left means that any Technician or Novice has any HF privilege at all. The FCC rule still says that these licensees must show compliance with a non-existent regulation. Since they CANNOT COMPLY with a non-existent [international] regulation, they LACK the privilege. The compliance was met when it was required by international regulation (and it is still required by FCC regulations). According to your logic then no license class has any HF privileges since we met the compliance of an international regulation that no longer exists. So all license classes that took a code test are now non-compliant, so looks like we are all off HF until the FCC changes the rules. GEEEEESSSSHHHH!! |
D. Stussy wrote: On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Jim Hampton wrote: Please re-read Phil's reply again. You missed the point as to each administration is free to do as they please. So far, the FCC has not seen to eliminate the Morse requirement. Period. If any entity has a choice, then how can it be called a requirement? The international requirement meant that all entities had to require a code test for HF privileges. Now the international requirement has been dropped, now each entity can decided for itself if it wants to require a code test for HF privileges, and until the FCC changes the rules, it is still required for U.S. hams. What is so hard to understand about that? |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 01:11:31 -0400, Dwight Stewart wrote:
I'm not referring to the individual states within the United States. A "state" in this context is "a country or nation with its own sovereign independent government." That's called an "Administration" in ITU-speak. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:53:45 GMT, "Phil Kane"
wrote: You must really enjoy playing wannabe lawyer --- and missing the target. The issue of code and the ADA was hashed out by the FCC several years ago. Nothing changed. Phil from now on I will refer to you as Prince Jr. Listen Prince Jr., I can discuss anything regarding US law and express my opinions. Just because you are ARRL lawyer trying to force morse code down the throats of the disabled and helped destroy Amateur radio by keeping it a elite club doesn't mean I shouldn't voice my opinion. I have never said I was a lawyer or even a wannabe lawyer, good god I bet you are proud of your pals that are going after ten year old children trading muppet songs on the Internet. The reason disability recognition didn't change was because there was a international agreement that stopped the disabled who could not receive code from being exempt. Now that the international regulation has been changed to delete mandatory morse code proficiency the disabled should be provided a exemption promptly. (That is my opinion, is that OK Prince Jr?) Is it ok if I express my opinion Prince Jr? Or are you like the morons sending me carbon copies of complaints they are sending to Hollingsworth AKA "Prince" for daring to tell the FCC and the ARRL they are bone heads that have destroyed Amateur radio for selfish reasons. I mean I'm not the only person that thinks this about the ARRL, FCC and the morse code lunatics that have kept the ranks of ham radio so small it is ripe for the pickings by the commercial entities. The utilities will destroy HF with BPL and the rest of 50 Mhz and up bands that are worth billions of dollars will be sliced up in short order. All this time I was praying the ARRL and FCC would come around and I was a sucker to be a ARRL member for all those years. Then when it is time to dump the code the crazed bunch of "morse code or death" bunch sneak one in the back door. Now the cocksuckers want to drag out the death of morse code requirements for years. Who the hell was the ARRL board and staff saving the bands for? It certainly isn't for the average American citizen to become a ham radio operator. If you listen to ten meters it appears the truck drivers are now taking it over, so thank the ARRL and FCC for that. Thanks for sharing Prince Jr. I hope it was OK for this ham radio operator of twenty years to express his opinion. Should I include a legal disclaimer on all my post from now on? I hope you will not report me to the Oregon Bar Association. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
On 28 Jul 2003 16:39:37 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote:
He's just another refugee from the never-never land above 27 mhz who just can't wait a few more months to get his "due". Are lying or are you just displaying your ignorance? -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:41:24 -0400, "Spamhater" wrote:
Get off your lazy ass and learn 5 WPM CW. Pal I can receive CW at 18 WPM and I even have a fancy certificate from the US government to prove it. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
Keith ) writes:
I mean I'm not the only person that thinks this about the ARRL, FCC and the morse code lunatics that have kept the ranks of ham radio so small it is ripe for the pickings by the commercial entities. The utilities will destroy HF with BPL and the rest of 50 Mhz and up bands that are worth billions of dollars will be sliced up in short order. When was the last time you heard about amateur radio in your local newspaper or on your local tv stations? When your local ham clubs have an event, be it club meetings, Field Day, hamfest or something else that the public might like to know about, do they bother to get listed in the local events columns, and try to get mention on TV and radio, and even post to your local newsgroups? Or to put it another way, how did you find out about amateur radio? When I was a kid, I learned about it when there was an article in a publication intended for children. When I discovered hobby electronic magazines, amateur radio was still a part of those magazines, though it was right on the cusp of their disappearing. But when I could try for a license, I had to dig around to find a local ham club, going to the ARRL because I didn't know of any local clubs, and had no way of finding them. One of the failures of amateur radio is that it doesn't do a particularly good job of outreach. Notice there is a big difference between trying to sell something to fill seats, and trying to share something because it's important to you and you want others to know about it. Over the 31 years since I've been licensed, my impression is that amateur radio has increasingly disappeared from public view. Yes, there is the argument that ham radio has less and less relevance, but that just means people need to work harder at conveying thei importance of the hobby to themselves. Meanwhile, the licensing requirements have become less and less. About fifty years ago, you might say the halfway point of amateur radio, your FCC introduced the then-novel novice license, to make the entry requirements simpler. A simple test, a 5wpm code test, limited operating priviliges, and only valid for a year. Over the years, that was modified for less restrictive rules, and more priviliges. The US Technician license came out at the same time, and originally was only good for 220MHz and above. That too was modified tremendously over the years. Then the code was dropped for the technician class. Here in Canada, we had a no-code license a quarter century ago. But virtually nobody used it. Then in 1990, we got restructuring, and there was an entry level license that did not require a code test. So over fifty years, half of the time that amateur radio has been around, it has become increasingly simpler for people to join the hobby in North America. Yet, instead of doing a better job of outreach, the focus is always on making the license requirements simpler. Keep it up, and there will be absolutely no entry requirement. You think we need numbers to justify the bands, so you want to lessen entry requirements. But that may be a false path. Maybe we justify the ham bands because it is something more than a place to yak it up. Maybe the kids that use to come to ham radio aren't even hearing about the hobby in the first place. Maybe if they knew, it could be as appealing as it was to me when I was ten. Maybe like me, the code and theory tests are not impediments to joining the hobby, but a sense of accomplishment when they are passed. I was twelve, and went from 0 to 12wpm in four months, and I know I was always disappointed that I took the test (well, I had to go back a second month to pass the code test) in the last week of grade 6, because I was unable to boast to the kids at school. Maybe the need or lack of a code test isn't an issue to many people, because they haven't heard of amateur radio in the first place. Methinks you don't have a clue about the history of amateur radio. It didn't start when some regulatory body decided there should be a place for people to talk to their heart's delite. There were radio hobbyists almost as soon as Marconi spanned the Atlantic in 1901, when there were no rules and there wasn't even any use for radio. Those hobbyists played with this new thing, and in part helped to propel the field along. I'm not sure you could separate amateur from professional in those days. It was only once there started to be uses for radio that any rules were put in place. And amateur radio became a service in those early days by virtue of staking out a claim right from the start. Dilute the entry requirements too much, and what do you have to justify the bands, other than large numbers? But shift it back to where the test is not just an obstacle to overcome, and you may again make the hobby something that society in general benefits from. Michael VE2BVW |
Will somebody wake me up when this idiotic rant is over?
I just put the putz in my killfile. You may want to do so also. |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
He's just another refugee from the never-never land above 27 mhz who just can't wait a few more months to get his "due". DICK, how is it possible that you could know that? |
Please re-read Phil's reply again. You missed the point as to each
administration is free to do as they please. So far, the FCC has not seen to eliminate the Morse requirement. Period. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/03 |
Phil,
So how's retirement going :) 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "Phil Kane" wrote in message .net... On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:10:39 -0400, Spamhater wrote: Seems to me, the other Keith is too lazy to read the rules and regulations and instead wants a hand out. He needs to REALLY sit down and read the rules and regulations or have them read to him and get a grasp on the fact that you can't just do as you damned well please. Or listen to accurate interpretations by a local communications attorney who is willing to teach him without charge (ahem). He does the same thing on local scanner nets, too. Ready for this one...... he is an EXTRA Class licensee. I'm not going to "out" him further - at this stage. Why is he jumping up and down like a monkey on a string? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/03 |
"gw" wrote in message om... Dwight Stewart wrote in message ... "Bill Sohl" wrote: The FCC could, however, make rules changes which are based on the new treaty because the OLD treaty is gone, done, defunct, over...even if the US never ratified the new treaty. No nation is now bound by the old treaty at all. I asked Phil about something similar a few weeks ago, and he seemed to think it was not possible. After further research, I tend to agree with him. It does look like the changes to that treaty will have to be ratified first. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ hey look twistie .......its aaaron h voobner..........hey numbnutts i thought you were supposed to move to europe..... I thought I was aaaron h voobner? |
|
"C" wrote in message ... My only gripe with the code is the testing. It is stated as a 5 word per minute test. When I challenged the test a few weeks ago I found that it is actually anywhere from 13 to 18 words per minute, not 5 words per minute. The 5 words per minute is a lie.... Why not tell it like it is.... Those giving the test do not want to make it easy for anyone who has a learning disability or not. I have never been able to memorize anything easily when in school, and was accused of being from lazy to stupid. My father told me that I was ignorant because I was partly colorblind. I do not want sympathy, just after studying for almost a year to pass the 5 word per minute test for what it is suppose to be not what someone who is more proficient with the code wants it to be..... If my General CSCE expires again (this will be #2) I will never take it again and will have lost desire in a hobby that I grew up working in for the last 39 years....... C. In article , "Spamhater" wrote: "Keith" wrote in message ... On 27 Jul 2003 15:22:47 -0700, (Rich) wrote: I know a bed ridden quad who dictated 20 wpm to his wife.He uses a straw cw keyer. Can he hear? That is what we are talking about. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ There are cases where flashing lights are used for such a thing OR vibrating surfaces..... so being deaf is no excuse either. There ARE provisions. The main thing is, that IF the person is that handicapped, it is up to THEM or their family to provide any testing accessories to suit their needs, to allow the VEs to send the text. The VEs are not required to provide specialized equipment to cater to the handicaps needs. Not trying to be a smart ass here...but...how do you know it was 13 if you say you can't copy 13???. Could it be he was sending the characters fast and making the spacing long. I.E. Farnsworth method, which is the recomended way to conduct a test? If you want to quit. Thats your choice. I would suggest you go to a different test place with different folks instead. Dan/W4NTI |
On 28 Jul 2003 20:12:07 GMT, (Michael Black) wrote:
Over the 31 years since I've been licensed, my impression is that amateur radio has increasingly disappeared from public view. I agree with you 100%. The reason in my opinion is that the ARRL kept the morse code requirement for HF access and that kept a lot of my teenage friends out of ham radio way back in 1982 and through the present day. Today kids now have instant voice communications via the Internet and cell phones and can even send pictures and text messages with their phones. Now that the Internet is here and advanced digital cellphone is in every middle class kids pocket technology has passed by ham radio. Hams are the now the old technology brushed aside by technology advances. The ARRL just couldn't let code die and now it is too late. IMHO. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
... Kim W5TIT wrote: Absolutely. To come to the conclusion that deaf people cannot learn and use CW is rather narrow-minded in my opnion. I bet there's a way that ANYONE could learn CW. It helps if a person types in all caps too! ;^) For goodness sake! By your example, Keith, blind people should not be licensed because, "how in the world would they know what frequency they are on?" Now that you mention it, how does a fully blind ham tell what frequency he or she is on? I suppose that using the memory channels on an HF rig would be one method, but does anyone here know? - Mike KB3EIA - I have many blind friends/hams, and the way they do it is with radios that have speech boards on them. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Keith" wrote in message
... On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:04:58 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: So please don't tell those who cannot hear as well as you what they can and cannot do. I'm not you knuckle head. I'm saying the requirement for the hearing disabled to pass a morse code test is discriminatory. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ Keith: You are using this excuse for YOUR benefit, not anyone else's and I even daresay you probably don't give a damn about challenged individuals. You're really towing a line, here, and it's full of dead fish at the end of it. Quit using others for your own gain. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com