RadioBanter - Question for the No coders : post from Kim

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim"

writes:

[Preface: this message is rather confusing to try and keep attributes on, so
I hope I do a decent job of it]

The point is, what does passing a CW test prove in the way of
knowledge--other than that one can pass a CW test?

It proves that:

1) The person has learned a useful radio skill at a very basic level.

Then, why not have a "net operation" test? Net operation is fairly
standard. That's as basic a level as you can get: everyone understands
the
English Language (at least those who are testing for a US amateur radio
license).

Actually, based on some postings here, understanding of English should not
be
taken for granted!

Net operation test? Good idea! In fact, I have posted suggestions here
about a
similar (but simpler) test. Basic idea was that the person taking the
test
would demonstrate the ability to send and receive simple messages in
standard
form using either CW/Morse, voice, or a data mode. I can google up the
details
if you want.

Well. No, you don't have to do that. I believe you ;) I think it's a
great idea to have some such thing like that.

However, when I proposed such a test as a replacement for the code test,
there
was universal opposition from nocodetest folks. That's when I realized
that for
some of the loudest complainers here it wasn't really about the code at
all,
but about the idea of operating skills and standard procedures.

They had a problem with the way you say you proposed it: as a choice of
either CW/Morse, voice, or a data mode?! Geeze, that is whining! Because I
don't have a problem with that at all. In fact, even if the CW test hangs
around, I think the presentation of it ought to be in net format. The
questions could be something like, "who was the net control station," etc.

2) The person was willing and able to devote the time and effort
necessary
to learn that skill.

That has nothing to do with their participation in ham radio.

So? There's no requirement that any licensee actually participate. There
used
to be, btw.

I understand that. I also understand there used to be requirement for
upgrading with a certain amount of time. I know that is why there is such a
population of folks who think it's an all-out sin to stay as a Novice, Tech,
etc.

BUT, the current requirements do not mandate that a licensee participate; so
why have that as part of a scope for an amateur radio license? If the
requirement for participation hours comes back, *then* include testing
parameters that will measure a person's willingness, devotion...

3) The person has been exposed to a useful, widely-used-by-hams radio
communications mode other than voice or data.

Like I said, then test on voice. It's the widest-used-by-hams radio
communication. Why not test the most used mode?

Why test what almost everyone can do?

I think your proposal is similar to the idea of "testing voice." Use a test
that measures the capability of one to conform to net standards. While nets
all have different *styles* the standards are pretty much throughout.

My proposed message-skills test would have left the choice of mode up to
the
person being tested. What could be fairer?

Absolutely! I hope you don't think I'd have a problem with something like
that?

Then your knowledge of amateur radio is very lacking. Like it or not,
CW/Morse
is a very big part of amateur radio today. Of course, that by itself
doesn't prove we must have a code test.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

And, was that you acquiescing?

Nope.

When you boil down all the arguments, almost everything on any ARS license
test
(real or proposed) comes down to somebody's opinion on what's important
and
what isn't. Proof just doesn't exist, one way or the other. Take Ohm's
Law -
why MUST it be tested? Some hams do perfectly well with little or no
knowledge
of it, and yet it's on the tests because somebody thinks it's important
enough
to force it down everyone's throats.

True, but you reasoned that the parts of the testing process I have a
problem with were for measure of devotion, and such. We are not discussing,
really, what is important in ham radio for--truly--the only real important
thing for ham radio is that one comprehend, be familiar with, and employ the
Rules and Regulations from the FCC; and become familiar with the "ways" of
ham radio (gentelmen's agreements, standard communication protocols, etc.)

While unpopular for ham radio, if someone doesn't take the time to "be
careful" in building equipment, putting up and antenna, building
this-or-that, it is generally them that is going to get hurt. Advertisement
of a few tragedies and people are going to get the idea that they need some
independent study to be safe in what they do with ham radio. No net
control, RACES or ARES Coordinator is going to turn loose an inexperienced,
rough rider of a ham onto the general public. So, IMHO, the only true
measure for ham licensing should be through a written test that measures
knowledge of the FCC R&R, the Communications Act, etc.

HOWEVER; I concede and certainly will agree to keep CW testing, because I do
believe in *some* of the traditions of ham radio; and CW is one of them. I
also like your idea and would support something like that.

It's bad enough that the written tests don't prove a whole lot,
without
the added argument of CW in the mix. To continue to support CW as
some form of
proof that people know more about ham radio, know more about
communication,
know more about the standards and technology of ham radio, et al, is
to
continue to do nothing but whine about a tradition--which is really
all
CW really is: A TRADITION that no one wants to see fade away.

You are mistaken on several counts there, Kim.

1) The written tests are what they are. They are in a continuing state
of
development.

2) ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, a ham who has Morse skills knows more about
amateur radio than one with no Morse skills.

I disagree. A ham who has CW skills knows more about CW than one with no
CW
skills.

And since CW/Morse is a big important part of amateur radio, a ham who has
CW
skills knows more about amateur radio than one with no CW skills.

I think we are splitting hairs, here.

You cannot escape that conclusion. Of course, that conclusion does not
prove
that CW must have its own test, just that "ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, a ham who
has
Morse skills knows more about amateur radio than one with no Morse
skills."

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

3) Morse/CW has certain advantages to hams beyond being "just another
mode".

That does not merit a CW test.

In your opinion. In others' opinions, it does.

Well, certainly. I'm puzzled here. I always deal in opinions.

4) Morse/CW is more than "just a tradition". It's a useful mode of
radio
communication enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of hams.

That does not merit a CW test.

In your opinion. In others' opinions, it does.

(see above)

5) There do exist folks who want Morse/CW USE (not just the TEST) by
hams
to simply go away. They are a very small minority, but they do exist.
Or at
least
there are people whose rhetoric indicates they want Morse use by hams
to
end.

That's their problem, not mine. I don't believe CW will ever exit from
the
ham radio scene.

I hope you are right about that.

Of course, whether all of that "proves" we must have a code test is
simply
a matter of opinion.

Passing CW is nothing.

Maybe not to you. To others, it's a big deal.

Well, I worded that wrong. Passing CW is a big deal, but it does nothing
for the benefit of ham radio, save that that particular operator may use
CW--but that particular operator would probably have used CW anyway,
then.

If it does nothing, why all the fuss?.

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!! Why, Jim? A cursory explanation from me would be: 1)
that CW is such a tradition that any attempt to alter its state is seen as
an assault on a very beloved part of ham radio, 2) that, to many, change is
very difficult; mostly to reason seekers, i.e., if any change is made to CW
is must mean ____________ and that CW will fade from the ARS, 3) there is
some degree of....well, jealousy would be a lousy term...but some degree of
bad feeling for others not having to be "raked through the coals" to get
their license, and 4) the longheld belief that CW study to pass a test
proves what you and I are debating here.

But, the root of your question: "why all the fuss" gets a whole ABSOLUTELY
from me. Why all the fuss?

[Snipped, but hopefully illuminated below:]

That's simply illogical. No test, no matter how contrived, will filter
out
every single "jerk" from the ranks of amateur radio. Or anything else,
for
that matter.

I know that, and you know that. But others here either don't know that
or
don't want to let go of that part of the argument.

I've never seen anyone argue that a code test is a perfect "jerk filter".
I
have seen people argue that it is not a "jerk filter" at all. I've also
seen
arguments that since it's not a perfect "jerk filter", it has no effect at
all
on "jerks".

The phrase "dumbing down" comes to mind. Most of us would agree that jerks
are dumb. If CW testing is supported to the extent that to lose it is to
"dumb down" the ARS, and bring the CBers in, and...well, you know all the
comments; then isn't that an acknowledgement of the belief that, somehow,
the CW test keeps all that from happening? Like I said, you and I know that
it doesn't; but there are those who believe it does.

Look at how much it takes just to become a physician. The training and
testing
required is phenomenal, and designed to weed out the incapable. The
hard
work
and dedication required just to get into medical school are
extraordinary,
and
yet that's just the beginning. I could go on and on, but you get the
picture.

I will not argue the merit of CW testing against the measure of training
and
testing for a professional field. There is no reason to put someone
through
the same stressful training and testing that a physician goes through,
for
an amateur radio license.

Apparently you did not get the picture at all.

The point is simply that NO test or training is a perfect "jerk filter",
not
even at the level of what doctors go through.

I would not argue that, as noted above.

Using CW as a test to prove "diligence" to the desire of wanting to
be
a ham radio operator is pure crap in my not-so-humble opinion.

OK, fine. At least you note that it's your opinion.

Jim, all my statements are my opinion. Can I ask you what in the world else
you think they would be?

One would hope, Jim, that everyone realizes we post our opinions.

We post both opinions and objective facts. The problem is that some folks
try
to pass off their opinions as objective facts.

I hope I don't do that. If I do, it is not intentional.

It is wrong to even attempt to measure someone's desire and
interest.

Why? I'd rather have an ARS consisting of a few hundred thousand
interested,
active, dedicated, skilled, knowledgeable hams than one of a few
million
inactive, apathetic, unskilled, ignorant ones who could not care less.
Code test or no code test.

And, I'd rather have *everyone.*

That means there should be no tests and no qualifications at all. We've
seen
what happens to a radio service that takes that route. No thanks.

Well, then let me clarify that I mean I would have everyone who meets
whatever requirements there is currently when they are "applying." Maybe
it's only here, but I tell you I have seen more crappy people--those who
would probably earn the title lid, cbplusser, etc.--get wiped off the air
because of being ignored. Now, if the floodgates opened and there is not a
testing structure of some kind, or a licensing structure of some kind, ham
radio would certainly become a cesspool. Remember that CB radio used to be
much better until the FCC relaxed regulations there; or, more to the point,
quit enforcement opportunities there.

If I have an Extra
license and I have no equipment or haven't even been on the radio in
years,
then what did passing CW prove, in terms of proven interest?
Nothing.
And it never will.

Incorrect. It proved that at one time the person had the interest.

Oh, wow...

When's the last time YOU were on the ham bands, Kim?

A loooong time ago; but I am still interested. And, m'darlin' is putting
his radio back in his truck so I imagine we'll be full fledged again soon.
By the way, I understand it is quite common for people to drop out, come
back, drop out, come back, etc.

Because those modes don't require the acquisition of new skills for
their
use.

Uh, 'scuse me? They require being able to establish communication
between
devices, have the signal within a certain bandwidth, etc.

Plug 'n' play, Kim. No test for that. Does it really take a lot of skill
to use
an HT?

Nope, but let's say it is a test requirement to put together an APRS
station, under the guidelines and equipment that was available only up to
about five years ago. It is NOT easy, and at that time everything had to
wired yourself, or you could pay a much-higher-than-I-was-willing price--but
for testing we'd leave out the order for the wiring harness. That is using
a TNC, radio, GPS receiver, and we could even through in the computer for a
full APRS station. Not easy. In fact, even with my much more technical
husband on board, we still had to call to North Carolina and have a elmer
walk us through the way to do it! I'd have failed a ham test for
sure--wouldn't Dick and Larry and Dave just love that!

But note this plain, simple fact: Almost all of the FCC enforcement
actions for
"jerk-like" on-air behavior (obscenity, jamming, failure to ID,
exceeeding
license privileges, etc., etc.) are against hams using PHONE modes, not
CW/Morse or data modes. ALL of us have taken written tests detailing
what
we
should and should not do on the air, but it seems like violations are
much
more
prevalent among the talkers than the brasspounders or keyboarders. Why?

I've already said that there are probably more reasons for that than it
being because a CW operator is a finer person than others who are not.

" a CW operator is a finer person than others who are not. " Has a nice
ring to
it...

heh heh, I knew you were going to like that.

Nothing could be finer than to handle my brass keyer in the mornin'
Nothing could be finer than to hear the longs n shorts in my speaker hornin
(poetic license there)

Anyway...

Carpal tunnel? Not a problem - the side-to-side motion of a bug or paddles
avoids CTS, while the up-and-down motion of keyboards promotes it. Just
another
advantage of CW...

73 de Jim, N2EY

Kim W5TIT

---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to