"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