|
"Bert Craig" wrote in message . net... That's because it not supposed to. It "forces" the newbie to get a taste of CW. Then it's up to the individual to either take him/herself further or drop it entirely. Many will never know if CW truly interested them because they will not have been made to even try. Exactly. It's nice to see it so neatly. It's the same reason that students are required to study a number of items which they may or may not pursue in the future. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Much cut out but for this one:
I have always disagreed with a skill test in Morse being a condition for HF phone. I have never heard an argument for that that makes logical sense. The FCC Charter Part 97 sez: §97.1 Basis and purpose. The rules and regulations in this Part are designed to provide an amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the following principles: Only (d) is quoted as follows (d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts. So until the military abandoned Morse Code (recently), having a trained pool of operators proficient in Morse was a national asset. Certainly was true during WWII and the Korean war (in which I sent and received volumes of Military CW traffic), even into the cold war this was true. Sounds logical to me, how about you. Remember we are not arguing about who is right, but what is right -- OVER It had an additional attraction to those Hams entering the military -- a Ham proficient at morse could get a cushy chair at a radio (sometimes). Or more often --- a not so cushy job in a rain-filled fox hole! Now days - having "trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts" can be a great national asset when the Big Kahuna hits -- ala 9/11 but big time. And Lord forbid we ever have to mobilize a "Citizen Army" again, but if we do -- you can bet ye olde bottom dollar, hams who can operate, maintain, and repair electronics will be in high demand. Things have changed, so I would now agree that CW skill is no longer necessary (as a test), but we need to test so that we know those entering the Amateur Radio Service know the International and FCC rules and regs, enough technical knowledge to competently operate transmitters, and quite a bit more so we don't end up with a free for all on the Amateur Bands which for the most part has been up to now -- characterized by courteous, skilled, and knowledgeable operators. We need to ensure this proud tradition continues. We don't want a CB band or FRS band on the Ham Spectrums. Don't bother to tell me that the Ham Renegades (0.01%) are representative of the community as a whole. |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com... "Bert Craig" wrote in message . net... That's because it not supposed to. It "forces" the newbie to get a taste of CW. Then it's up to the individual to either take him/herself further or drop it entirely. Many will never know if CW truly interested them because they will not have been made to even try. Exactly. It's nice to see it so neatly. It's the same reason that students are required to study a number of items which they may or may not pursue in the future. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Then I say we test on every mode there is. If you support that for CW, then surely you support it for other modes. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "Bert Craig" wrote in message . net... That's because it not supposed to. It "forces" the newbie to get a taste of CW. Then it's up to the individual to either take him/herself further or drop it entirely. Many will never know if CW truly interested them because they will not have been made to even try. Exactly. It's nice to see it so neatly. It's the same reason that students are required to study a number of items which they may or may not pursue in the future. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Then I say we test on every mode there is. If you support that for CW, then surely you support it for other modes. Kim W5TIT No problem. I'm ready. Are you? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "Bert Craig" wrote in message . net... That's because it not supposed to. It "forces" the newbie to get a taste of CW. Then it's up to the individual to either take him/herself further or drop it entirely. Many will never know if CW truly interested them because they will not have been made to even try. Exactly. It's nice to see it so neatly. It's the same reason that students are required to study a number of items which they may or may not pursue in the future. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Then I say we test on every mode there is. If you support that for CW, then surely you support it for other modes. Kim W5TIT No problem. I'm ready. Are you? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Yep, but the testing in all areas of the mode will never happen. So, do you still support it just for CW? Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Brian wrote: "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... You are quite dislikable, whether you realize it or not. And you do seem to approach life from the comfort zone... Kim W5TIT Probably from a lifetime of work and play in a radio shack. He needs to get out more often. I get out very well on any number of bands. Ham radio is a pretend zone of life, Dave. No, Kim. It isn't. They all pretend to be friendly, gregarious individuals. Who? The folks in Wichita? Presbyterian Church elders? Most hams I've met in real life? I won't mention... It's probably a lucky thing for them. Maybe you've been pretending to be gregarious and friendly. Dave K8MN |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "Bert Craig" wrote in message . net... That's because it not supposed to. It "forces" the newbie to get a taste of CW. Then it's up to the individual to either take him/herself further or drop it entirely. Many will never know if CW truly interested them because they will not have been made to even try. Exactly. It's nice to see it so neatly. It's the same reason that students are required to study a number of items which they may or may not pursue in the future. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Then I say we test on every mode there is. If you support that for CW, then surely you support it for other modes. Kim W5TIT No problem. I'm ready. Are you? SPANK! Yee-haw! Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "Bert Craig" wrote in message . net... That's because it not supposed to. It "forces" the newbie to get a taste of CW. Then it's up to the individual to either take him/herself further or drop it entirely. Many will never know if CW truly interested them because they will not have been made to even try. Exactly. It's nice to see it so neatly. It's the same reason that students are required to study a number of items which they may or may not pursue in the future. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Then I say we test on every mode there is. If you support that for CW, then surely you support it for other modes. Kim W5TIT I'm with that! Good call, Kim. -- 73 de Bert WA2SI |
Alun Palmer wrote in message . ..
(N2EY) wrote in : In article , Alun Palmer writes: The continued existence of a CW test does actually threaten the future of the hobby, i.e. it is a 'deal killer' for recruitment. WHOA, hold on a second, there! Folks, here's a claim that the code test must go because it allegedly holds back growth in the ARS. Unfortunately, a lot of damage has already been done, as it has been allowed to persist long past it's 'sell by' date. Sounds like you're hedging your bets, Alun. Not atall. Since about 1995 there has been a paradigm shift caused by this medium we're using right now (the Internet). If code testing had been abolished significantly before that it would have boosted our numbers far more than it ever can now. All I'm really saying is that that opportunity is lost. Still, you're saying that increasing growth was and is a reason to get rid of Element 1. As for the internet, I say it is only one piece of a much bigger puzzle. The plain simple fact is that the survival of amateur radio is dependent on meeting needs/desires that cannot be met by the internet, cell phones, email, cheap long distance 'phones, etc. Those needs and desires are everchanging, btw. Not so long ago it was common for a ham's family members to get licenses for "honeydew" purposes. Some of those family members developed more interest, some didn't. Today, cell phones and FRS/MURS meet most of the "honeydew" needs so that recruiting tool is gone. Sure, 5 wpm is easy (higher speeds were not, but that's moot now). However, the CW test manages to be too slow to impart any genuinely useful level of CW ability, whilst at the same time putting off prospective hams. In other words, it's more counter-productive than useful. Sure. there is a lot of CW use by hams on HF, but there are precious few prospective hams who want to use it. How do you know they don't want to use it? At the past several Field Days, the CW ops generated the most interest. As a sideshow it generates interest. Think of it as being like a demonstration of some obscure craft in a living museum. Sure, people find it interesting watching a blacksmith shoe a horse (and that's not a dead art either), but it doesn't mean they are going to learn to do it. I disagree. Look at the interest in participation sports like running and cycling. Or in crafts. Or in learning to play musical instruments. Of course a lot depends on the presentation. If all anyone ever sees is somebody pounding out 5 wpm on a straight key, combined with horror stories of how "difficult" it supposedly is, they are less likely to be interested than if they see a fast effortless operation between skilled ops and an attitude of "almost anybody can learn to do this with some practice". There was a time in my life when, if somebody had told me that I could run a regulation marathon, I'd have told them they were nuts. Yet a few years later I had run two of them. The difference was seeing it done by others I could identify with, developing an interest, learning what was necessary, and then doing it. Put in all the written questions you like on CW, though, as that won't cause the same kind of problem. I think it's true that those who want to keep a code test would likely have wanted to keep spark if they had been around back then. Different thing entirely. Spark for hams wasn't outlawed in the USA until 1927 - long after hams had stopped using it. By choice. If they really could stop the wheel of progress, the hobby likely would die with their generation, but luckily that won't happen. Do you want code USE by hams to continue or not, Alun? Honestly? I don't care if it does or not. Your answer avoids the question. For the record I think it will continue. It does have some advantages (but then, so do a lot of other modes). Keeping out all those who aren't interested in CW may keep a few 'breakers' out, but it keeps out most people, period. That may suit a few people here, but it isn't the way forward. Ultimately, keeping the code test would do far more to destroy the hobby than letting in a few CBers (and I do mean a few, as most of them are not smart enough to pass the written tests). If we keep a code test, the hobby will fail for lack of interest. Luckily, I don't expect that to happen. OK, let's look at some facts: - Growth in the ARS in the USA from 1980 to 1990 (when there were no waivers and all hams had to pass at least 5 wpm) was almost exactly the same as from 1990 to 2000 (when both waivers and codetestless licenses were available) - Overall, the ARS in the USA has kept on growing for the past 35 years. In fact, since the end of WW1, the only periods of non-growth were WW2 and most of the 1960s. And now a challenge to all this stuff about disincentives. Soon the code test will probably be gone. There will probably be a surge of new licenses and upgrades, then back to growth rates near to what they were before. If we don't see more long-term growth without code tests, will you admit you were wrong and help get code tests reinstated? You know I won't (a wise man only asks questions to which he knows the answers, and you're no fool). If I know the answer, what's the point of asking the question? I have always disagreed with a skill test in Morse being a condition for HF phone. I have never heard an argument for that that makes logical sense. Here's one: 'phone takes up much more spectrum. And if we say there should not be a skill test in one mode in order to be allowed to use another, it's equally valid to say there should not be a test on theory in order to use manufactured, no-tune radios either. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
... Kim W5TIT wrote: Does one have to be in ham radio exactly as long as you, be as old as you, have been on HF SSB and CW as much as you, before you think they're "worthy?" Why no, Kim. Then again, I didn't write anything like that. Perhaps you just had a feeling... Yeah, all folks like you like to do is "imply" and then get all uppity and persnickity when you're asked about your implication. Let me ask it this way: WHY do you even mention the number of years of licensure, or for how long certain classes of licensure may have been held, or under what regulations that licensure was achieved? Why bring it up? I've stopped here on your post, so if there's any *real* pertinent stuff, I've missed it... Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: Does one have to be in ham radio exactly as long as you, be as old as you, have been on HF SSB and CW as much as you, before you think they're "worthy?" Why no, Kim. Then again, I didn't write anything like that. Perhaps you just had a feeling... Yeah, all folks like you like to do is "imply" and then get all uppity and persnickity when you're asked about your implication. Folks "like you" snipe at my comments directed toward Carl and not at Carl for his comments to Larry. Don't get all uppity with me, Kim. Let me ask it this way: WHY do you even mention the number of years of licensure, or for how long certain classes of licensure may have been held, or under what regulations that licensure was achieved? Why bring it up? Here's a two-parter for you, Kim. a) Because I am free to do so. b) I chose to do so. I've stopped here on your post, so if there's any *real* pertinent stuff, I've missed it... Well, it won't be the first time. Dave K8MN |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: "Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Brian wrote: "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... You are quite dislikable, whether you realize it or not. And you do seem to approach life from the comfort zone... Kim W5TIT Probably from a lifetime of work and play in a radio shack. He needs to get out more often. I get out very well on any number of bands. Ham radio is a pretend zone of life, Dave. No, Kim. It isn't. They all pretend to be friendly, gregarious individuals. Who? The folks in Wichita? Presbyterian Church elders? Most hams I've met in real life? I won't mention... It's probably a lucky thing for them. Maybe you've been pretending to be gregarious and friendly. You're a massive waste of time, Dave. Run out of comments or did I just hit a nerve? Go play with Len... He wasn't available but you stepped up to the plate. Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote: "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... Then, why the opening remarks then and now, with this post, about how long Carl was a Tech and his alledged comments on CW? Why enter that into your remarks at all, Dave, if not to cast attention to that? If you are casting attention to that, then why? Dave has a problem with the old Techs, the Tech Plusses, and presumably the Techs with Code. I didn't address those you mention. I addressed Carl. Exactly. You continued to address Carl as if he were a Tech. Which he is not. They aren't 13wpm hams. They aren't worthy to share his band space. No, they haven't been tested at 13 wpm or at 20 wpm. I didn't address that issue. Oh, my. Oh, dear. You merely addressed Carl's tenure on the Technician band space. Now that Carl can share Dave's band space... Carl may share some space with me. Carl can share any space with you that he wishes. That is what the FCC mean's by issuing him an Extra license. Get used to it. Naw, nevermind. There are plenty of areas on a number of bands where I doubt I'll run into Carl. Come to think of it, I doubt I'll run into you in those spots. Duh! I don't have Extra priv's, Oh Master of Amateur Radio!!! Go work some Frenchmen on 6M. I've heard they've got all kinds of priveleges!!! Hi, hi (maniacal laughing in Morse with or without Steve's shoes). Sebentee Tree, Brian |
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "Bert Craig" wrote in message . net... That's because it not supposed to. It "forces" the newbie to get a taste of CW. Then it's up to the individual to either take him/herself further or drop it entirely. Many will never know if CW truly interested them because they will not have been made to even try. Exactly. It's nice to see it so neatly. It's the same reason that students are required to study a number of items which they may or may not pursue in the future. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Then I say we test on every mode there is. If you support that for CW, then surely you support it for other modes. Kim W5TIT I'm with that! Good call, Kim. -- 73 de Bert WA2SI It's pretty darned logical to me... Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... Then, why the opening remarks then and now, with this post, about how long Carl was a Tech and his alledged comments on CW? Why enter that into your remarks at all, Dave, if not to cast attention to that? If you are casting attention to that, then why? Dave has a problem with the old Techs, the Tech Plusses, and presumably the Techs with Code. I didn't address those you mention. I addressed Carl. Exactly. You continued to address Carl as if he were a Tech. Which he is not. No, I continued to address Carl as a churl, which he is. Which is how you address Techs. They aren't 13wpm hams. They aren't worthy to share his band space. No, they haven't been tested at 13 wpm or at 20 wpm. I didn't address that issue. Oh, my. Oh, dear. You merely addressed Carl's tenure on the Technician band space. I didn't address space at all. I addressed Carl's sitting on an old Tech ticket for 2 1/2 decades until the requirements were lowered. Ding, ding, ding. The bell on my M28 rings each time you bring that up. Now that Carl can share Dave's band space... Carl may share some space with me. Carl can share any space with you that he wishes. That is what the FCC mean's by issuing him an Extra license. Get used to it. Naw, nevermind. Carl may share some space. May share all space. While the FCC permits Carl the same access as I hold, no amount of wishing on his part will make it likely that Carl will share space with me in some areas of the bands. If such did come to pass, he likely wouldn't recognize that fact. Nor would you. You treat him as if he were still a Tech. There are plenty of areas on a number of bands where I doubt I'll run into Carl. Come to think of it, I doubt I'll run into you in those spots. Duh! I don't have Extra priv's, Oh Master of Amateur Radio!!! Duh, indeed! I don't operate only in Extra Class band segments but I do use morse about 50% of the time. I'm banking on not running into you. I don't need West Virginia. Go work some Frenchmen on 6M. I've heard they've got all kinds of priveleges!!! French hams fall under the jurisdiction of the French PTT. Indeed they do. I don't tell them where they can operate and neither does the FCC. Nor does the government of Tanzania. They are responsible for the operation of their stations and I am responsible only for the operation of mine. Smoke 'em if you got 'em. |
Brian wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... Then, why the opening remarks then and now, with this post, about how long Carl was a Tech and his alledged comments on CW? Why enter that into your remarks at all, Dave, if not to cast attention to that? If you are casting attention to that, then why? Dave has a problem with the old Techs, the Tech Plusses, and presumably the Techs with Code. I didn't address those you mention. I addressed Carl. Exactly. You continued to address Carl as if he were a Tech. Which he is not. No, I continued to address Carl as a churl, which he is. Which is how you address Techs. That's another incorrect claim you've made. They aren't 13wpm hams. They aren't worthy to share his band space. No, they haven't been tested at 13 wpm or at 20 wpm. I didn't address that issue. Oh, my. Oh, dear. You merely addressed Carl's tenure on the Technician band space. I didn't address space at all. I addressed Carl's sitting on an old Tech ticket for 2 1/2 decades until the requirements were lowered. Ding, ding, ding. The bell on my M28 rings each time you bring that up. Then you need to check your wiring. Now that Carl can share Dave's band space... Carl may share some space with me. Carl can share any space with you that he wishes. That is what the FCC mean's by issuing him an Extra license. Get used to it. Naw, nevermind. Carl may share some space. May share all space. He may and he may not. While the FCC permits Carl the same access as I hold, no amount of wishing on his part will make it likely that Carl will share space with me in some areas of the bands. If such did come to pass, he likely wouldn't recognize that fact. Nor would you. Sure I would, Brian. You treat him as if he were still a Tech. No, I treat him as if he were still a churl. There are plenty of areas on a number of bands where I doubt I'll run into Carl. Come to think of it, I doubt I'll run into you in those spots. Duh! I don't have Extra priv's, Oh Master of Amateur Radio!!! Duh, indeed! I don't operate only in Extra Class band segments but I do use morse about 50% of the time. I'm banking on not running into you. I don't need West Virginia. So your reason for not using morse is that you don't need West Virginia? That's some interesting logic. Go work some Frenchmen on 6M. I've heard they've got all kinds of priveleges!!! French hams fall under the jurisdiction of the French PTT. Indeed they do. You understand that now? You seemed to have trouble with it in the past. I don't tell them where they can operate and neither does the FCC. Nor does the government of Tanzania. Nor does the CEO of Nabisco. Has there been a problem in the past with those pesky Tanzanians issuing notices to scofflaw French hams? They are responsible for the operation of their stations and I am responsible only for the operation of mine. Smoke 'em if you got 'em. I gather from some of the things you've written that you've got 'em and that you're smoking 'em. Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... Then, why the opening remarks then and now, with this post, about how long Carl was a Tech and his alledged comments on CW? Why enter that into your remarks at all, Dave, if not to cast attention to that? If you are casting attention to that, then why? Dave has a problem with the old Techs, the Tech Plusses, and presumably the Techs with Code. I didn't address those you mention. I addressed Carl. Exactly. You continued to address Carl as if he were a Tech. Which he is not. No, I continued to address Carl as a churl, which he is. Which is how you address Techs. That's another incorrect claim you've made. Prove it. They aren't 13wpm hams. They aren't worthy to share his band space. No, they haven't been tested at 13 wpm or at 20 wpm. I didn't address that issue. Oh, my. Oh, dear. You merely addressed Carl's tenure on the Technician band space. I didn't address space at all. I addressed Carl's sitting on an old Tech ticket for 2 1/2 decades until the requirements were lowered. Ding, ding, ding. The bell on my M28 rings each time you bring that up. Then you need to check your wiring. For what? Now that Carl can share Dave's band space... Carl may share some space with me. Carl can share any space with you that he wishes. That is what the FCC mean's by issuing him an Extra license. Get used to it. Naw, nevermind. Carl may share some space. May share all space. He may and he may not. Take it up with his hairdresser. The FCC says he may share all space, and thats good enough for me. While the FCC permits Carl the same access as I hold, no amount of wishing on his part will make it likely that Carl will share space with me in some areas of the bands. If such did come to pass, he likely wouldn't recognize that fact. Nor would you. Sure I would, Brian. How is that? You treat him as if he were still a Tech. No, I treat him as if he were still a churl. A Tech. There are plenty of areas on a number of bands where I doubt I'll run into Carl. Come to think of it, I doubt I'll run into you in those spots. Duh! I don't have Extra priv's, Oh Master of Amateur Radio!!! Duh, indeed! I don't operate only in Extra Class band segments but I do use morse about 50% of the time. I'm banking on not running into you. I don't need West Virginia. So your reason for not using morse is that you don't need West Virginia? That's some interesting logic. No, I'd prefer not to work you on any mode, including CW. Go work some Frenchmen on 6M. I've heard they've got all kinds of priveleges!!! French hams fall under the jurisdiction of the French PTT. Indeed they do. You understand that now? You seemed to have trouble with it in the past. None whatsoever. But it takes two amateurs to make a circuit. I don't tell them where they can operate and neither does the FCC. Nor does the government of Tanzania. Nor does the CEO of Nabisco. Has there been a problem in the past with those pesky Tanzanians issuing notices to scofflaw French hams? Did Nabisco issue any? And I never classified Tanzanian Officials as "pesky." They are responsible for the operation of their stations and I am responsible only for the operation of mine. Smoke 'em if you got 'em. I gather from some of the things you've written that you've got 'em and that you're smoking 'em. I'd have to be to intentionally work bootleggers. |
Brian wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... Then, why the opening remarks then and now, with this post, about how long Carl was a Tech and his alledged comments on CW? Why enter that into your remarks at all, Dave, if not to cast attention to that? If you are casting attention to that, then why? Dave has a problem with the old Techs, the Tech Plusses, and presumably the Techs with Code. I didn't address those you mention. I addressed Carl. Exactly. You continued to address Carl as if he were a Tech. Which he is not. No, I continued to address Carl as a churl, which he is. Which is how you address Techs. That's another incorrect claim you've made. Prove it. Au contraire, mon petit electrolyte, you need to prove that your claim is correct. They aren't 13wpm hams. They aren't worthy to share his band space. No, they haven't been tested at 13 wpm or at 20 wpm. I didn't address that issue. Oh, my. Oh, dear. You merely addressed Carl's tenure on the Technician band space. I didn't address space at all. I addressed Carl's sitting on an old Tech ticket for 2 1/2 decades until the requirements were lowered. Ding, ding, ding. The bell on my M28 rings each time you bring that up. Then you need to check your wiring. For what? A faulty dinger. Now that Carl can share Dave's band space... Carl may share some space with me. Carl can share any space with you that he wishes. That is what the FCC mean's by issuing him an Extra license. Get used to it. Naw, nevermind. Carl may share some space. May share all space. He may and he may not. Take it up with his hairdresser. The FCC says he may share all space, and thats good enough for me. Please quote that "may share space" FCC document. He's allocated the same frequencies. He may or may not share the same space. While the FCC permits Carl the same access as I hold, no amount of wishing on his part will make it likely that Carl will share space with me in some areas of the bands. If such did come to pass, he likely wouldn't recognize that fact. Nor would you. Sure I would, Brian. How is that? That is one for the little electrolyte to ponder. Go to it! You treat him as if he were still a Tech. No, I treat him as if he were still a churl. A Tech. No, I treat him as if he were still a churl. There are plenty of areas on a number of bands where I doubt I'll run into Carl. Come to think of it, I doubt I'll run into you in those spots. Duh! I don't have Extra priv's, Oh Master of Amateur Radio!!! Duh, indeed! I don't operate only in Extra Class band segments but I do use morse about 50% of the time. I'm banking on not running into you. I don't need West Virginia. So your reason for not using morse is that you don't need West Virginia? That's some interesting logic. No, I'd prefer not to work you on any mode, including CW. Why didn't you write that instead of leading us to believe that the reason was that you don't "need" West Virginia? Go work some Frenchmen on 6M. I've heard they've got all kinds of priveleges!!! French hams fall under the jurisdiction of the French PTT. Indeed they do. You understand that now? You seemed to have trouble with it in the past. None whatsoever. But it takes two amateurs to make a circuit. It certainly does. Two Frenchmen working each under fall under the jurisdiction of the French PTT. A station in France working a station in Tanzania is quite the different story. If the Frenchman breaks his regs, it is up to the French authorities to discipline him. Maybe they've contracted the job to some fellow in Ohio. I don't tell them where they can operate and neither does the FCC. Nor does the government of Tanzania. Nor does the CEO of Nabisco. Has there been a problem in the past with those pesky Tanzanians issuing notices to scofflaw French hams? Did Nabisco issue any? Did Tanzania? Did France? And I never classified Tanzanian Officials as "pesky." No, you didn't. I used that term in sarcastic response to your misdirection. They are responsible for the operation of their stations and I am responsible only for the operation of mine. Smoke 'em if you got 'em. I gather from some of the things you've written that you've got 'em and that you're smoking 'em. I'd have to be to intentionally work bootleggers. Why are you intentionally working bootleggers? Dave K8MN |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "Bert Craig" wrote in message . net... That's because it not supposed to. It "forces" the newbie to get a taste of CW. Then it's up to the individual to either take him/herself further or drop it entirely. Many will never know if CW truly interested them because they will not have been made to even try. Exactly. It's nice to see it so neatly. It's the same reason that students are required to study a number of items which they may or may not pursue in the future. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Then I say we test on every mode there is. If you support that for CW, then surely you support it for other modes. Kim W5TIT No problem. I'm ready. Are you? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Yep, but the testing in all areas of the mode will never happen. So, do you still support it just for CW? Kim W5TIT Yes. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Now that Carl can share Dave's band space... Carl may share some space with me. Carl can share any space with you that he wishes. That is what the FCC mean's by issuing him an Extra license. Get used to it. Naw, nevermind. Carl may share some space. May share all space. He may and he may not. Take it up with his hairdresser. The FCC says he may share all space, and thats good enough for me. Please quote that "may share space" FCC document. Please quote the "Farnsworth Exam at 13-15wpm is the same as the Morse Exam at 5wpm" FCC document. He's allocated the same frequencies. He may or may not share the same space. Which is it? May or May Not? |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
Dick Carroll; wrote: . You know as well as anyone, better than most, that almost the only "enforcement" we've had on the ARS for many years prior to Riley's appointment WAS the code test. Now, a 'difficult' (for that type of individual) test which discourages, yea, FILTERS him from active, open participation is a poor excuse for monitor vans and well trained and equipped crews. But it's what we had. Now we have Riley and a 5wpm code test. Soon only Riley. When he goes, I for one believe the ARS will follow his exit, not far behind. By that time there will be far more than adequate evidence that the ARS is no longer a viable self- policing entity, staffed with conscientious people willing and able to conduct themselves in a manner commensurate with the priveleges granted, most of which will shortly be summarily withdrawn. Dick, EVERY time there has been change of any real sort in ham radio, there have been cranky olde fartz like you preaching "end of the world" doom and gloom ... and every time it has not come to pass ... There have also been predictions and promises of a "brave new world" that the new changes would bring. Which also did not come to pass. Witness: conversion from spark to CW; conversion from AM to SSB; introduction of packet radio and other "new-fangled @^#%$ computer thingies"; None of these were forced on hams by regulatory change. Hams adopted them voluntarily. For example, spark wasn't outlawed for hams until 1927, even though it was essentially abandoned by hams by 1923 or 24. AM is still popular on HF - in fact, more popular than 20-30 years ago. What caused hams to abandon AM in large numbers was the simple fact that an SSB transceiver was less expensive than an AM receiver-transmitter combo of equal effective power. That transition also drastically reduced the amount of homebrewing done by hams. Packet is still mostly the 1200 baud of the '80s. The biggest new modes of the past decade or so are PSK-31 and APRS. Good stuff! the introduction of the no-code Tech license; Which has not resulted in greatly increased longterm growth nor a techno revolution. restructuring 3 years ago; Which has not resulted in greatly increased longterm growth nor a techno revolution. and many others I'm sure I've omitted. Here are some, just for discussion: - the 1929 rules changes that drastically cut the spectrum available to hams and greatly increased the signal quality requirements. - the 1951 introduction of the Novice, Tech and Extra licenses - the "incentive licensing" changes of 1968-69 that drastically increased the requirements for a full privileges license. And ushered in a period of growth and innovation.... The point is, the world (and ham radio) is NOT going to end ... despite your rants that it is. That depends on what is meant by "ending". Actually, on the contrary, if these changes hadn't happened and we were still stuck in the spark era (i.e., if cranky olde fartz like you had stopped the progress of ham radio over the years), we WOULD be in danger. Apples and oranges. Rules changes are not the same thing as choices made by hams. And the AM-SSB wars did not help amateur radio. If you want to see what presents the biggest danger to the future of ham radio LOOK IN THE MIRROR ... the enemy you fear is yourself, with your backward thinking, unwillingness to accept progress, and lack of tolerance for newcomers (unless, of course, they've suffered through the same fraternity hazing rituals that you had to endure, lo those many years ago and think in exactly the backward, narrowminded ways that you do). When you're done looking in the mirror, you can look a your cronies, Larry, Dave Heil, and the whole list of like-thinkers... they are also part of the enemy you fear ... for they think and act essentially the same way as you do. THERE is where the REAL danger to the future of ham radio lies ... in people who are so married to/stuck in its past that they despise any thought of change, progress, and the newcomers that it will bring (unless the newcomers are acceptable "clones" cast in your own image). Well, there you have it. However, those newcomers are the future of ham radio ... for us older guys will surely die, and if there aren't younger folks to replace us ham radio will die with us. I am younger than you, Carl. In fact I'm younger than many who post here. Yet I'm more of an oldtimer, too. There are newcomers of all ages today. I have already seen many hams come and go, either as SKs or dropouts. There are many who are hams only in that they are still in the FCC database. A good number of them are much newer than me. It's up to us to WELCOME and ENCOURAGE them ... their ways will not be the ways of the past ... things change and nobody can freeze time. Yet at the same time it is folly to equate "change" with "progress". Not all of the changes in the ARS have been for the best. I can remember a time when you simply could not find anything of offensive content on the ham bands - they were G rated, regardless of mode. This wasn't just because of the mores of the times or enforcement by FCC - it was "the way hams did things" - a tradition of high standards - passed on from oldtimers to newcomers. I can also remember a time when most hams were unafraid to build, repair, modify or simply fool with their equipment. Today it is the homebrewer who is unusual. The most important values of the ARS do not need to change. Things like adherence to the regulations and standards, courtesy on the air and off, technical know-how, operating skill, welcome and help for the newcomer, respect for the oldtimer, making a place and a space for all who follow the rules.....these things must be preserved, or ham radio is dead. But insulting, berating, demeaning them, and trying to keep them out is not the way .. If they see hams insulting, berating and demeaning each other, what are they to think? Think about these things long and hard before you look yourself in the mirror again ... without some reflection, reconsideration, and change in your ways, you may not like what you see ... the enemy that is YOU. Am I "the enemy"? (Try to be *completely* like Scrooge ... go through the change, don't stay stuck in the first part ...) Words for all of us to live by.... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "N2EY" wrote in message m... If it weren't for the thousands of hams who have entered via the no-code tech license, the ham population would be something like 1/2 what it was in 1990 ... Prove it. There is nothing demonstrating that this had any significant effect on the growth of the number of hams. You are stating an opinion. Nothing more. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
In article , Ben Coleman
writes: On 7 Aug 2003 15:33:36 -0700, (N2EY) wrote: - the "incentive licensing" changes of 1968-69 that drastically increased the requirements for a full privileges license. And ushered in a period of growth and innovation.... Actually, ham growth took a distinct drop virtually from the moment 'incentive licensing' (a.k.a. 'punishment licensing') was proposed in the early '60s. See my other post about the dates and details. There were lots of other factors to the drop in growth. Seems a number of OTs (and NTs, probably) didn't like the idea that they were going to have privileges (including some of the most choice frequency segments) taken away from them and they'd have to pass a test (or two or three) to get them back. True - but there was also widespread support for incentive licensing among hams. Opinion ran almost exactly 50-50. This coincided with a number of well-known manufacturers finding that it was no longer financially profitable to stay in the ham market. Who? The 1960-68 period was marked by the introduction of many new SSB transceivers and matched-pair receiver-transmitters, often at prices lower than comparable AM equipment Besides the high priced Drake and Collins gear, there were offerings from WRL/Galaxy (DB-84, Galaxy 3, 5, and others), National (NCX-3, National 200, NCX-5, NCX-1000), Swan (monobanders, tribander, 350, 500) Hallicrafters (SR-150, SR-160, SR-400, SR-2000, HT-46/SX-146), and SBE. Heathkit had the SB series and the monobanders. There was no shortage of good equipment. If there appears to be increased growth after 'incentive licensing', it'll likely just be that ham growth returned to its normal levels after recovering from the blow to morale inflicted by the implementation of incentive licensing. Perhaps. The '70s were a period of growth despite lots of hurdles. It appears the ARRL and the FCC learned from this - I don't think there's been any proposals from either since then that envision taking away privileges from any particular class of license. ARRL learned, FCC didn't. In 1975, FCC proposed a complex 7 class "two ladder" system that would have reduced the privilegs of many hams. ARRL and others fought it successfully. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
Alun Palmer wrote:
(N2EY) wrote in : In article , Alun Palmer writes: Not atall. Since about 1995 there has been a paradigm shift caused by this medium we're using right now (the Internet). If code testing had been abolished significantly before that it would have boosted our numbers far more than it ever can now. All I'm really saying is that that opportunity is lost. I find it hard to take anyone seriously who uses the term "paradigm shift", especially if he proceeds to jump to a false conclusion or to several of them. Sure. there is a lot of CW use by hams on HF, but there are precious few prospective hams who want to use it. How do you know they don't want to use it? At the past several Field Days, the CW ops generated the most interest. As a sideshow it generates interest. Think of it as being like a demonstration of some obscure craft in a living museum. Sure, people find it interesting watching a blacksmith shoe a horse (and that's not a dead art either), but it doesn't mean they are going to learn to do it. But you haven't addressed the question posed: How do you know what prospective hams want to do? Dave K8MN |
Brian wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Now that Carl can share Dave's band space... Carl may share some space with me. Carl can share any space with you that he wishes. That is what the FCC mean's by issuing him an Extra license. Get used to it. Naw, nevermind. Carl may share some space. May share all space. He may and he may not. Take it up with his hairdresser. The FCC says he may share all space, and thats good enough for me. Please quote that "may share space" FCC document. Please quote the "Farnsworth Exam at 13-15wpm is the same as the Morse Exam at 5wpm" FCC document. That's totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. He's allocated the same frequencies. He may or may not share the same space. Which is it? May or May Not? That's correct. Dave K8MN |
|
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Dave Heil writes: Alun Palmer wrote: (N2EY) wrote in : In article , Alun Palmer writes: Not atall. Since about 1995 there has been a paradigm shift caused by this medium we're using right now (the Internet). If code testing had been abolished significantly before that it would have boosted our numbers far more than it ever can now. All I'm really saying is that that opportunity is lost. I find it hard to take anyone seriously who uses the term "paradigm shift", especially if he proceeds to jump to a false conclusion or to several of them. No problem. We all find your attempts at judge, jury, and executioner to be ineffectual, puerile, and rather stupid. Who's "We"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? "False conclusion?" Yes, false conclusion. Hardly. You've been wrong before. It shouldn't come as a surprise this time. Had the no-code-test Technician never been created, US ham radio would have been short by 200K ham licenses by the time of "Reconstruction." I referred to the statement concluding that the internet is the reason we don't have more hams. Ham radio is not about web pages, e-mail and usenet. Sure. there is a lot of CW use by hams on HF, but there are precious few prospective hams who want to use it. How do you know they don't want to use it? At the past several Field Days, the CW ops generated the most interest. As a sideshow it generates interest. Think of it as being like a demonstration of some obscure craft in a living museum. Sure, people find it interesting watching a blacksmith shoe a horse (and that's not a dead art either), but it doesn't mean they are going to learn to do it. But you haven't addressed the question posed: How do you know what prospective hams want to do? Oh, my, now the judge, jury, and executioner pretends to have prescience! See? Now YOU'VE jumped to a false conclusion. I didn't pretend prescience; I asked a question. Tsk, tsk, tsk...all you can do is put down others who raise questions that might threaten your "superior" status in amateur radio. Tsk, tsk indeed, Foghorn. You have it backwards. Someone made a statement, I asked the question. Why are you concerned with my status in amateur radio? You aren't involved. Try READING what Alun said. He raises a valid point. Try reading what I said. Alun raised a point. It isn't necessarily valid. I asked a question. You're all fogged up. You are still REFUSING to accept anything contrary to your precious viewpoints. That won't make them go away. Granted, my precious viewpoints are not going away. Let me ask you, are you now accepting anything contrary to YOUR precious viewpoints? It just arouses enmity among all those who refuse to worship your radiogod status. What's it to you? You have nothing to do with amateur radio. Have you made up your mind yet. Some time back you stated that I wasn't a radio god then I was a radio god then I wasn't a radio god. Have you made up your mind yet? Dave K8MN |
|
In article , Dave Heil
writes: What's it to you? You have nothing to do with amateur radio. Still trying the old misdirection & personal insult type thing. :-) Have you made up your mind yet. Some time back you stated that I wasn't a radio god then I was a radio god then I wasn't a radio god. Have you made up your mind yet? You PRETEND to have great expertise (on the order of godlike judgement and capability). It would seem that your PRETENSE has made you very tense (and angry) when someone shows your pretense for what it is. :-) LHA |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Dave Heil writes: What's it to you? You have nothing to do with amateur radio. Still trying the old misdirection & personal insult type thing. :-) Are you insulted by a truthful statement? Do you find the fact that you have no amateur radio license to be insulting? What does morse code testing or an age limit in amateur radio licensing have to do with you? Have you made up your mind yet. Some time back you stated that I wasn't a radio god then I was a radio god then I wasn't a radio god. Have you made up your mind yet? You PRETEND to have great expertise (on the order of godlike judgement and capability). I do have some expertise in amateur radio and I have decades of experience. That something grates on you doesn't make it a pretense. It would seem that your PRETENSE has made you very tense (and angry) when someone shows your pretense for what it is. :-) I'm not angry, Leonard. I'm actually smiling as I write these words: You haven't shown anything to anyone when it comes to amateur radio. Dave K8MN |
Brian wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Please quote that "may share space" FCC document. Please quote the "Farnsworth Exam at 13-15wpm is the same as the Morse Exam at 5wpm" FCC document. That's totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Why? ...because the Farnsworth method was not under discussion. It is irrelevant to the request made of you. I thought the existence of FCC documents were now part of the discussion. At least you broght it up. Tell you what David, in the future put your comments that are not open for discussion in brackets [xxx]. OK? It'd be easier if you just stuck to the matter being discussed. Farnsworth exists as the de facto "code" exam, even though the FCC documents specify Morse Code. Yet the FCC documents DO assign the exact same priveleges to Carl that they do you, yet you insist on arguing it. What doest it have to do with the FCC's "may share space" document? Part 97 addresses your and Carls priveleges. It certainly does. So? We weren't discussing installing towers within a certain distance from an airport but that's in Part 97. That would make you a fool. I'd guess the fool to be one who is asked about a regulation about "sharing space" and responds with some nonsense about the Farnsworth method of learning morse. You don't believe in sharing space which the FCC says you must share in a document called Part 97. I've never stated that I don't believe in sharing space. That's something you've tried to establish. You remain the fool, Farnsworth not withstanding. I'm sure that's the way you see it, little electrolyte. He's allocated the same frequencies. He may or may not share the same space. Which is it? May or May Not? That's correct. So you don't know. Incorrect, Farnsworth. I do know and I provided the answer. Wrong. Something does not become "wrong" due to your failure to comprehend it. Dave K8MN |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: I do have some expertise in amateur radio and I have decades of experience. Whoopee. Now go off and USE all that "experience." Try "elmering" some nincompoops. Gain some worship from idiots. All you do in here is a lot of bullying nonsense and trying to toss your weight around. Go ahead, punk, advance the state of the amateur art. You've had DECADES of "experience" and should be able to... You haven't done it. LHA |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Dave Heil writes: I do have some expertise in amateur radio and I have decades of experience. Whoopee. Now go off and USE all that "experience." I'm sure that it will come as no surprise if I tell you that I use my experience almost daily. Try "elmering" some nincompoops. Gain some worship from idiots. Are you looking for some help? All you do in here is a lot of bullying nonsense and trying to toss your weight around. That seems to be your function here, Leonard. Go ahead, punk, advance the state of the amateur art. You've had DECADES of "experience" and should be able to... You haven't done it. You've had a self-declared "interest" in amateur radio for decades. You told us a number of years ago that you were going for an "Extra right out of the box". You haven't done anything to gain entry into amateur radio. Dave K8MN |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
... Kim W5TIT wrote: Yeah, all folks like you like to do is "imply" and then get all uppity and persnickity when you're asked about your implication. Folks "like you" snipe at my comments directed toward Carl and not at Carl for his comments to Larry. Don't get all uppity with me, Kim. Why not, Dave? I'm bored and going through old stuff of yours to stir you up. You've probably already responded to some old, old, stuff... Kim W5TIT |
|
|
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: Yeah, all folks like you like to do is "imply" and then get all uppity and persnickity when you're asked about your implication. Folks "like you" snipe at my comments directed toward Carl and not at Carl for his comments to Larry. Don't get all uppity with me, Kim. Why not, Dave? I'm bored and going through old stuff of yours to stir you up. You've probably already responded to some old, old, stuff... Len's older than you, right? Dave K8MN |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com