| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Question for the No coders : post from Kim
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Put it that way, Mike, yes. It is hard to argue that removing *any* part of a test is not a reduction in the amount of knowledge needed to pass a test. But, that is simply a word game and nothing else. It's more than a word game. Encouraging radio knowledge of all types is one of the most basic reasons to have the ARS exist at all. The tests are there to insure a minimum knowledge level. ("Knowledge" including skills, concepts, facts, etc.) 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. 2) The person was willing and able to devote the time and effort necessary to learn that skill. 3) The person has been exposed to a useful, widely-used-by-hams radio communications mode other than voice or data. What does passing the written tests prove in the way of knowledge--other than that one can pass a written test? It proves that: 1) The person has learned some useful radio knowledge at a very basic level. 2) The person was willing and able to devote the time and effort necessary to learn that knowledge. 3) The person has been exposed to several aspects of the amateur radio service (regulations, operating practices, technology). If you see the parody in both of those questions, then I go one step further and say: What does passing a CW test have to with anything related to overall knowledge of ham radio?!!!!!???? In my mind, *NOTHING* 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. 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. 3) Morse/CW has certain advantages to hams beyond being "just another mode". 4) Morse/CW is more than "just a tradition". It's a useful mode of radio communication enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of hams. 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. 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. And it proves nothing to anyone else, except that they studied CW and passed it in a test. I've seen idiots on every side of ham radio, so it does nothing to prove quality or *interest* as everyone seems to like to argue. If CW was that kind of instrument, then we'd have no jerks on ham radio and, believe me, I've heard them. 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. 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. And yet there are some physicians who are jerks, pure and simple. Not many, but some. And they make life hell for the rest, through things like high malpractice insurance premiums and over-regulation. 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. 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. 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. Yes, CW is a useful communication skill. Hell, *ANY* type of communication skill is useful. If we place such importance on CW, then why not RTTY, phone, ATV, etc. Because those modes don't require the acquisition of new skills for their use. You know what I'm saying. Not really. And, if CW proves a higher plane of dedication and knowledge, then why are there extremely skilled CW operators out there, who are real jerks?! And you know there are. No, I don't. Name some. If your only reference is how a few folks behave in this newsgroup, it should be remembered that lots of folks on both sides of the code test fence have behaved like real jerks in their posts here. So, how can someone, *anyone* then turn around and say that CW proves *anything*? It proves nothing but that the person studied for and passed the CW requirement. Seems to me that you want the Morse code test to be a perfect "jerk" filter. And of course no test can do 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? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article , Mike Coslo writes: Put it that way, Mike, yes. It is hard to argue that removing *any* part of a test is not a reduction in the amount of knowledge needed to pass a test. But, that is simply a word game and nothing else. It's more than a word game. Encouraging radio knowledge of all types is one of the most basic reasons to have the ARS exist at all. The tests are there to insure a minimum knowledge level. ("Knowledge" including skills, concepts, facts, etc.) 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). 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. 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? What does passing the written tests prove in the way of knowledge--other than that one can pass a written test? It proves that: [Skip 1 and 2, we already went over those] 3) The person has been exposed to several aspects of the amateur radio service (regulations, operating practices, technology). Agreed. If you see the parody in both of those questions, then I go one step further and say: What does passing a CW test have to with anything related to overall knowledge of ham radio?!!!!!???? In my mind, *NOTHING* 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. And, was that you acquiescing? Yes, CW is incredibly important and a big part of amateur radio. But, no, it does not prove that we must have a code test. 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. 3) Morse/CW has certain advantages to hams beyond being "just another mode". That does not merit a CW test. 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. 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. 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. And it proves nothing to anyone else, except that they studied CW and passed it in a test. I've seen idiots on every side of ham radio, so it does nothing to prove quality or *interest* as everyone seems to like to argue. If CW was that kind of instrument, then we'd have no jerks on ham radio and, believe me, I've heard them. 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. 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. 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. One would hope, Jim, that everyone realizes we post our opinions. 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.* 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... Yes, CW is a useful communication skill. Hell, *ANY* type of communication skill is useful. If we place such importance on CW, then why not RTTY, phone, ATV, 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. You know what I'm saying. Not really. And, if CW proves a higher plane of dedication and knowledge, then why are there extremely skilled CW operators out there, who are real jerks?! And you know there are. No, I don't. Name some. If your only reference is how a few folks behave in this newsgroup, it should be remembered that lots of folks on both sides of the code test fence have behaved like real jerks in their posts here. No, it would not be only by a few folks in this newsgroup. And, I won't name them because they are from my local area. Suffice it to say their interference for the use of spelling curse words in CW was frequent and sufficient enough to end a years long tradition of hams getting together every night at 10:00PM for a phone net on 10M. So, how can someone, *anyone* then turn around and say that CW proves *anything*? It proves nothing but that the person studied for and passed the CW requirement. Seems to me that you want the Morse code test to be a perfect "jerk" filter. And of course no test can do that. Not at all. Others already think it does. 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? 73 de Jim, N2EY 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. And, talking is much easier and quicker to let things roll off that we shouldn't. CW is mostly callsign/whereabouts/weather/TNX and that's it. If an actual conversation ensues, I'm sure no one (except the jerks I know of) would waste their time getting carpal tunnel with cursing in CW. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... CW is mostly callsign/whereabouts/weather/TNX and that's it. If an actual conversation ensues, I'm sure no one (except the jerks I know of) would waste their time getting carpal tunnel with cursing in CW. There you are wrong. There are many extensive conversations on CW. They converse about the same things voice operators do. I've heard them talking about their careers, families, computers, buying and selling on ebay and a myriad of other topics. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: Dick Carroll still has not described the items he would need to set up a CW station in a disaster situation. Why should he, Kim? Dave and Dick have nothing to prove to you, little Kimmie dear. They are grown up, mature, adults, and you are (or act like) a little child screaming for attention any way you can get some. Nobody in this NG is going to lift a finger to prove a damn thing to the likes of YOU, Kim, so just forget that, and start showing proper respect for your moral and intellectual superiors -- you know, people like Dave, Dick, and myself! 73 de Larry, K3LT I'm showing you guys you're number one right now... _ _ | _ _ Kimmie: You see, sweetheart, this is just the kind of thing I'm talking about. It is quite juvenile to be making insulting hand gestures on Usenet! Only a petulant little girl like yourself would do that. Not a mature, grown up, adult woman. So please go to your room now, and don't ever do that again! 73 de Larry (that's MISTER Roll to you), K3LT |
"N2EY" wrote:
(snip) 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? Very simple answer, Jim. The FCC has limited personnel today. The few they have simply don't have the time to sit around listening, as code users pound out their incredibly slow conversations, to catch violations. ;) Actually, the differences in violations between the various modes isn't that hard to understand. The phone modes dominate ham radio usage, therefore it should be obvious more violations will occur in those modes. In addition, phone users exchange information at a greater rate when compared to CW users and conversations occur more often when compared to data users. Both of these lead to greater opportunities for violations to occur. If all these differences were factored in, I suspect the differences in violations would be far less. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
In article , "Kim"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Mike Coslo writes: Put it that way, Mike, yes. It is hard to argue that removing *any* part of a test is not a reduction in the amount of knowledge needed to pass a test. But, that is simply a word game and nothing else. It's more than a word game. Encouraging radio knowledge of all types is one of the most basic reasons to have the ARS exist at all. The tests are there to insure a minimum knowledge level. ("Knowledge" including skills, concepts, facts, etc.) 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. 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. 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. 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? My proposed message-skills test would have left the choice of mode up to the person being tested. What could be fairer? What does passing the written tests prove in the way of knowledge--other than that one can pass a written test? It proves that: [Skip 1 and 2, we already went over those] 3) The person has been exposed to several aspects of the amateur radio service (regulations, operating practices, technology). Agreed. Well, there you have it. If you see the parody in both of those questions, then I go one step further and say: What does passing a CW test have to with anything related to overall knowledge of ham radio?!!!!!???? In my mind, *NOTHING* 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. Yes, CW is incredibly important and a big part of amateur radio. But, no, it does not prove that we must have a code test. Exactly. Just like Ohm's Law. 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. 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." 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. 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. 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?. And it proves nothing to anyone else, except that they studied CW and passed it in a test. I've seen idiots on every side of ham radio, so it does nothing to prove quality or *interest* as everyone seems to like to argue. If CW was that kind of instrument, then we'd have no jerks on ham radio and, believe me, I've heard them. 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". 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? Yes, CW is a useful communication skill. Hell, *ANY* type of communication skill is useful. If we place such importance on CW, then why not RTTY, phone, ATV, 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? You know what I'm saying. Not really. And, if CW proves a higher plane of dedication and knowledge, then why are there extremely skilled CW operators out there, who are real jerks?! And you know there are. No, I don't. Name some. If your only reference is how a few folks behave in this newsgroup, it should be remembered that lots of folks on both sides of the code test fence have behaved like real jerks in their posts here. No, it would not be only by a few folks in this newsgroup. And, I won't name them because they are from my local area. Suffice it to say their interference for the use of spelling curse words in CW was frequent and sufficient enough to end a years long tradition of hams getting together every night at 10:00PM for a phone net on 10M. Never heard of such a thing around here. How do you know who these folks are/were? What was their problem with a local 10 meter 'phone net? Doesn't take any real skill to program a keyer, computer or keyboard to send cuss words. So, how can someone, *anyone* then turn around and say that CW proves *anything*? It proves nothing but that the person studied for and passed the CW requirement. Seems to me that you want the Morse code test to be a perfect "jerk" filter. And of course no test can do that. Not at all. Others already think it does. Who? 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... And, talking is much easier and quicker to let things roll off that we shouldn't. All the more reason to promote CW as a mode and downplay voice. CW is mostly callsign/whereabouts/weather/TNX and that's it. Not at all, Kim. I'm on HF CW several times a week, mostly ragchewing on 80 and 40. Typicla QSO is at least a half hour, usually more. Call/QTH/wx/rig/name/age/ham experience is all done withing 5-10 minutes max at the speeds normally eno****ered. Wonderful QSOs with many wonderful people. No cussing, no jamming, no nastiness. Lots of politeness and good manners. If one or both ops have QSK, conversation flows naturally. If an actual conversation ensues, I'm sure no one (except the jerks I know of) would waste their time getting carpal tunnel with cursing in CW. 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 |
|
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Mike Coslo writes: Put it that way, Mike, yes. It is hard to argue that removing *any* part of a test is not a reduction in the amount of knowledge needed to pass a test. But, that is simply a word game and nothing else. It's more than a word game. Encouraging radio knowledge of all types is one of the most basic reasons to have the ARS exist at all. The tests are there to insure a minimum knowledge level. ("Knowledge" including skills, concepts, facts, etc.) 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. But what about Morse is so important that it is "equal to all else" in terms of a "pass or don't get an HF license" ??? Actually, I think the written test should be broken down into subelements that each require a passing grade. Safety, Regs, and Theory would be one possible split. 2) The person was willing and able to devote the time and effort necessary to learn that skill. This goes to "work ethic" and "quality of operator" arguments that have already been rejected by the FCC ... let's not keep beating that horse. I'm simply pointing out what passing the test proves. Doesn't prove the test must exist. 3) The person has been exposed to a useful, widely-used-by-hams radio communications mode other than voice or data. So??? That exposure is a good thing. Doesn't mean it must exist, though. 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. Correction ... a ham who has Morse skills is able to operate better Morse than one with no Morse skills. PERIOD. No, that's not correct, Carl. Since Morse code is a big part of amateur radio, the person with Morse skills knows more about amateur radio than the person without those skills IF ALL ELSE IS EQUAL. The same can be said for, say, the ham who understands and can use Ohm's Law as opposed to the ham who cannot. Or the ham who can use the standard phonetics skillfully, as opposed to the person who can't. 3) Morse/CW has certain advantages to hams beyond being "just another mode". 4) Morse/CW is more than "just a tradition". It's a useful mode of radio communication enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of hams. So? So it makes sense to promote things that are useful to hams. That is no reason to make it a requirement, Sure it is. But it's just one reason. when the majority of hams and would-be hams have no desire to use Morse. How do you know they don't want to use Morse, Carl? 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. Apples vs. oranges ... providing medical treatment is often a life and death thing ... being able to operate/or not operate Morse is not. You missed the point completely, Carl. The bit about doctors was simply to point out that no test is a perfect "jerk filter". Not even the rigorous training physicians go through results in a completely "jerk free" profession. No amount of testing that is reasonable could result in a "jerk free" ARS. As far as the "character filter" thing goes ... the FCC has already ruled on that ... it doesn't fly. You miss the point: No test is a perfect filter. The 5 wpm code test certainly isn't. 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. You seem to leap to the conclusion that folks who are not interested in Morse fall into the "inactive, apathetic, unskilled, ignorant" category. WHERE do you get THAT? Look again at what I wrote - I'm saying I prefer quality over quantity. Note the last line: "CODE TEST OR NO CODE TEST" False assumption, not based in any factual reality.; Would you rather have lots of hams who are inactive, apathetic, unskilled and ignorant, or fewer hams that are the opposite, Carl? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 07:41:03 -0400, Dwight Stewart wrote:
Very simple answer, Jim. The FCC has limited personnel today. The few they have simply don't have the time to sit around listening, as code users pound out their incredibly slow conversations, to catch violations. ;) For reasons that I disagreed with then and I disagree with now, (but that's another story) the FCC' s enforcement response is driven by complaints, not by "Patrolling the Ether" (tm) as in days of yore. How many complaints of amateur CW violations do you think "Riley" gets? (Somebody pounding out "FU" in Morse on a Touch-Tone (tm) pad on a repeater input does not count as CW....) -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... CW is mostly callsign/whereabouts/weather/TNX and that's it. If an actual conversation ensues, I'm sure no one (except the jerks I know of) would waste their time getting carpal tunnel with cursing in CW. There you are wrong. There are many extensive conversations on CW. They converse about the same things voice operators do. I've heard them talking about their careers, families, computers, buying and selling on ebay and a myriad of other topics. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Wow, most of the CW operators I've known even state that all they "pretty much" do is exchange information. Most of them also only use it during a contest, though. Maybe that's the difference. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... CW is mostly callsign/whereabouts/weather/TNX and that's it. If an actual conversation ensues, I'm sure no one (except the jerks I know of) would waste their time getting carpal tunnel with cursing in CW. There you are wrong. There are many extensive conversations on CW. They converse about the same things voice operators do. I've heard them talking about their careers, families, computers, buying and selling on ebay and a myriad of other topics. Dee, don't waste your time trying to convince Kim with facts. Her mind, such as it is, is already made up. Still sniping, Dick? You sure are a chicken... Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
Floyd Davidson wrote in message ...
ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote: 73 de Larry (that's MISTER Roll to you), K3LT Two faced hypocrite. If she makes one insulting gester and that means she is "petulant", what do the dozens and dozens that you post make you? Flatulent. |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... CW is mostly callsign/whereabouts/weather/TNX and that's it. If an actual conversation ensues, I'm sure no one (except the jerks I know of) would waste their time getting carpal tunnel with cursing in CW. There you are wrong. There are many extensive conversations on CW. They converse about the same things voice operators do. I've heard them talking about their careers, families, computers, buying and selling on ebay and a myriad of other topics. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Wow, most of the CW operators I've known even state that all they "pretty much" do is exchange information. Most of them also only use it during a contest, though. Maybe that's the difference. Interesting data, Kim. Do you have evidence that your anecdotal tale is indicative of national stats--or do you just have a feeling? Dave K8MN |
In article , Floyd Davidson
writes: Two faced hypocrite. If she makes one insulting gester and that means she is "petulant", what do the dozens and dozens that you post make you? I dunno, Floyd. Let's look them over. Please repost AT LEAST one DOZEN of my "insulting gestures" and we'll examine them, one by one. C'mon, now, get busy with Google and post a dozen of my insulting gestures, or you're the hypocrite! 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Dick Carroll;"
writes: You see, sweetheart, this is just the kind of thing I'm talking about. It is quite juvenile to be making insulting hand gestures on Usenet! Naw, Larry, she's mooning you ! Dick: I don't think so. If she were mooning me, it would be more like this: | | ___________________|___________________ Her puny little __|__ would be more like J.Lo. mooning me! And nobody's ever gonna mistake Kim's derrière for J.Lo's!!! Kim was clearly making a hand gesture. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
"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 |
"Phil Kane" wrote in
.net: On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 07:41:03 -0400, Dwight Stewart wrote: Very simple answer, Jim. The FCC has limited personnel today. The few they have simply don't have the time to sit around listening, as code users pound out their incredibly slow conversations, to catch violations. ;) For reasons that I disagreed with then and I disagree with now, (but that's another story) the FCC' s enforcement response is driven by complaints, not by "Patrolling the Ether" (tm) as in days of yore. How many complaints of amateur CW violations do you think "Riley" gets? (Somebody pounding out "FU" in Morse on a Touch-Tone (tm) pad on a repeater input does not count as CW....) -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon So what do we call it then? I have certainly heard F-U-C-K sent in Morse on a repeater. |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... CW is mostly callsign/whereabouts/weather/TNX and that's it. If an actual conversation ensues, I'm sure no one (except the jerks I know of) would waste their time getting carpal tunnel with cursing in CW. There you are wrong. There are many extensive conversations on CW. They converse about the same things voice operators do. I've heard them talking about their careers, families, computers, buying and selling on ebay and a myriad of other topics. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Wow, most of the CW operators I've known even state that all they "pretty much" do is exchange information. Most of them also only use it during a contest, though. Maybe that's the difference. Kim W5TIT Just cruise the bands at non-contest times and that is when you will find the extended conversations. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... CW is mostly callsign/whereabouts/weather/TNX and that's it. If an actual conversation ensues, I'm sure no one (except the jerks I know of) would waste their time getting carpal tunnel with cursing in CW. There you are wrong. There are many extensive conversations on CW. They converse about the same things voice operators do. I've heard them talking about their careers, families, computers, buying and selling on ebay and a myriad of other topics. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Wow, most of the CW operators I've known even state that all they "pretty much" do is exchange information. Most of them also only use it during a contest, though. Maybe that's the difference. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to Kim keeps referencing all her friends that do CW. And what they tell her. Hey Kim....here is an eye opener for you. CW ops actually to 'communicate' Yes there is the wx reports, rig here is etc. But real CW ops don't bother with that booooorings stuff. We talk about everything under the sun. Get you 'CW OP BUDS' :) to get their speed up around 40 and check out 7030 or so. There are some 'real' conversations going on. Dan/W4NTI |
In article , "Kim"
writes: Wow, most of the CW operators I've known even state that all they "pretty much" do is exchange information. Not me. Most of them also only use it during a contest, though. Not me. Maybe that's the difference. Of course. The 'phone and data folks do the same - get the QSO and on to the next, which is what contests are all about. DXing is similar. CW ragchewing is a completely different game. Tremendous fun once you have the skills and a decent rig. And CW can offer a feature most other modes don't - full break-in, or QSK. The receiving op can interrupt the sending op just by tapping the key. Great for traffic handling, too. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Dwight Stewart
writes: "N2EY" wrote: (snip) 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? Very simple answer, Jim. The FCC has limited personnel today. The few they have simply don't have the time to sit around listening, as code users pound out their incredibly slow conversations, to catch violations. ;) HAW! Actually, the differences in violations between the various modes isn't that hard to understand. The phone modes dominate ham radio usage, therefore it should be obvious more violations will occur in those modes. True to a point - but HF/MF usage isn't that much slanted towards 'phone. The ratio of cited violations is far greater than the ratio of users. And since enforcement is complaint-driven, FCC monitoring activity isn't a factor. In addition, phone users exchange information at a greater rate when compared to CW users Some do. But in general, decent CW ops exchange info at a rate that is close to that of people talking. Although the raw WPM is less, CW uses abbreviations and prosigns, while 'phone tends to be full of pauses, redundancies and phonetics. and conversations occur more often when compared to data users. Both of these lead to greater opportunities for violations to occur. If all these differences were factored in, I suspect the differences in violations would be far less. I don't think so. The worst I've ever heard on the CW bands was one ham calling another a lid for tuning up and calling a DX station on the DX's freq after the DX had clearly stated he was working split. The worst I've heard on the 'phone bands I am too embarrassed to even describe. It should be noted that the vast majority of hams behave very appropriately on the bands, regardless of mode or license class. But it only takes a few bad apples to make all of us look bad. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Interesting. Of course, I never gave a hang for contests, but I recall the
RPN (Rochester Peanut Whistle Net) that we had years ago. We met evenings on 15 CW. I'm trying to recall ... there was me (then WB2OSP), Tim WB2KAO (still has that call), Greg WB2GLK (now a 4 call and I'm not sure ... I'd have to look it up), Mike (WA2SEY now W2AV) and a couple of others. I can't imagine us getting on a bunch of evenings only to state rrr tnx fer call ur 5nn here in Rochester,, ny (heck, we were all from Rochester!). I enjoyed rag chewing, and preferred cw back then. When in the service, I usually split my operating around 1/3 ssb, 1/3 cw, 1/3 rtty. I used to talk via rtty with Norm, VK2NP, for hours on end. ssb and cw contacts were usually in the range of 15 minutes to half an hour. Even a cw contact for 15 minutes did consist of far more than simple weather, rig, etc exchanges as my cw contacts were fairly high speed cw (usually - although I did enjoy dropping into the novice 40 or 15 meter bands to give a few folks a chance to work something more than a couple of states away. Those were usually limited as you imply simply by the limitation of slow cw). The cw contacts close approached the limit of the rtty gear running a tape reader. rtty was 60 words per minute, too much for me, but at the time I had no problem putting 40 words per minute perfect copy on paper and 50 words per minute before I was struggling to copy it. Most of my contacts were between 30 and 50 words per minute cw. Come to think of it, a lot of voice contacts were just what you mentioned - signal, weather, rig, name, and - oh yes - *please* QSL. Don't get me wrong; I don't care whether someone else want to learn code or not; I just don't care for a bunch of folks who want to blame it for their washing machines over-sudsing :) As far as carpel-tunnel, I never used a straight key (although I could send decent code to about 22 and shaky code to about 28 with one). A small amount of movement and the Hallicrafters HA1-TO keyer took care of the tough stuff :) A few hours of cw contacts never bithered me a bot. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... Wow, most of the CW operators I've known even state that all they "pretty much" do is exchange information. Most of them also only use it during a contest, though. Maybe that's the difference. Kim W5TIT --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/4/03 |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
y.com: "Alun Palmer" wrote in message ... "Phil Kane" wrote in .net: On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 07:41:03 -0400, Dwight Stewart wrote: Very simple answer, Jim. The FCC has limited personnel today. The few they have simply don't have the time to sit around listening, as code users pound out their incredibly slow conversations, to catch violations. ;) For reasons that I disagreed with then and I disagree with now, (but that's another story) the FCC' s enforcement response is driven by complaints, not by "Patrolling the Ether" (tm) as in days of yore. How many complaints of amateur CW violations do you think "Riley" gets? (Somebody pounding out "FU" in Morse on a Touch-Tone (tm) pad on a repeater input does not count as CW....) -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon So what do we call it then? I have certainly heard F-U-C-K sent in Morse on a repeater. Anything from an unidentified transmission to interference to jamming for starters depending on the exact events. It probably violates a number of FCC rules. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE The point is that Phil is trying to say that jamming in MCW doesn't count as jamming in CW, which is like trying to say that there's a vital difference between using FM or SSB to jam. |
"N2EY" wrote:
But it only takes a few bad apples to make all of us look bad. And the FCC should go after those bad apples, whatever their license class. Ham operators should also informally ostracize the bad apples by not talking to them or inviting them to participate in other activities. Like the troublemakers in these newsgroups, these people are seeking an audience. Deprive them of that and they often change their ways fairly quickly. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Alun Palmer wrote in message .. .
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in y.com: "Alun Palmer" wrote in message ... "Phil Kane" wrote in .net: On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 07:41:03 -0400, Dwight Stewart wrote: Very simple answer, Jim. The FCC has limited personnel today. The few they have simply don't have the time to sit around listening, as code users pound out their incredibly slow conversations, to catch violations. ;) For reasons that I disagreed with then and I disagree with now, (but that's another story) the FCC' s enforcement response is driven by complaints, not by "Patrolling the Ether" (tm) as in days of yore. How many complaints of amateur CW violations do you think "Riley" gets? (Somebody pounding out "FU" in Morse on a Touch-Tone (tm) pad on a repeater input does not count as CW....) -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon So what do we call it then? I have certainly heard (expletive deleted) sent in Morse on a repeater. That's awful. I haven't heard anything that bad on the CW/data subbands, though. Have you? Anything from an unidentified transmission to interference to jamming for starters depending on the exact events. It probably violates a number of FCC rules. Let's see: Obscenity, failure to ID, jamming, unauthorized use of a repeater. For starters. The point is that Phil is trying to say that jamming in MCW doesn't count as jamming in CW, which is like trying to say that there's a vital difference between using FM or SSB to jam. No, that's not the point at all. The point is that hams actually using CW/Morse for communications don't gather anywhere near as many enforcement actions as hams using 'phone modes for communications. The difference is far more than can be accounted for by the greater popularity of 'phone modes. Is there a CW equivalent of the W6NUT repeater, 14,313 or 3950? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
On 5 Aug 2003 08:22:13 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:
So what do we call it then? I have certainly heard F-U-C-K sent in Morse on a repeater. It is intentional and usually unidentified interference to voice communications (except if the repeater is running Packet or SSTV as several of our club and/or ARES/RACES repeaters do). It is NOT interference with CW/Morse communication or by a station in a legitimate QSO using CW/Morse. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon Oregon Tualatin Valley Amateur Radio Club |
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:36:33 GMT, Dwight Stewart wrote:
Actually, my comment was a joke, Phil. Notice the "wink face" after that paragraph. But, you're right - the FCC does depend mainly on complaints. In many cases (VHF, local issues, and so on), there isn't much else they can do. At one time the FCC was putting up a network of remote VHF/UHF receivers in various cities for monitoring and single-bearing df purposes. Access was dial-up with multiple passwords, and the system piped audio and bearing info back down the line over voice-over modems. The test installaton that we used the most was in St. Louis, MO. Boston, Washington, and Los Angeles/San Diego had integrated networks of multiple receivers constituting a real df system for what we today call "Homeland Security" purposes. The California system was funded by the Coast Guard who was the primary client, and it was used very heavily for marine safety and rescue purposes. With the funding cuts (a.k.a. The Great Rape) of the mid-90s the rest of the system never got built. I don't know if the CG kept up the maintenance funding on the system as they were 'sposed to do. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
|
In article , Dwight Stewart
writes: "N2EY" wrote: But it only takes a few bad apples to make all of us look bad. And the FCC should go after those bad apples, whatever their license class. I agree 100%. But FCC's are very limited, thanks to the mandate to "get the government off your back" from 20+ years ago. And the general unpopularity of things like taxes. Ham operators should also informally ostracize the bad apples by not talking to them or inviting them to participate in other activities. I agree 100%. And many of us do. But there are those who don't accept our "old fashioned values" and traditions. Like not cussing or jamming on the air. Did ostracizing clean up 3950, 14313 or W6NUT? Like the troublemakers in these newsgroups, these people are seeking an audience. Deprive them of that and they often change their ways fairly quickly. Sometimes. OTOH they sometimes cluster together and reinforce each other when that is done. We had an example of that a few years ago on a local repeater. Solution was to shut down the repeater when the bad apples showed up, which deprived everyone of its use. Total dependence on enforcement and peer group rejection is not adequate if basic "social" values are not inculcated into people's thinking. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
On 06 Aug 2003 22:21:48 GMT, N2EY wrote:
Sometimes. OTOH they sometimes cluster together and reinforce each other when that is done. We had an example of that a few years ago on a local repeater. Solution was to shut down the repeater when the bad apples showed up, which deprived everyone of its use. We ran into this in the 70s and 80s in San Francisco. The problem there was that the goal of the "bad apples" was to shut the repeater down. After we hauled one of the ringleaders into Federal court on the complaint of the N. Cal. DX Club (it was pure coincidence that the judge was a classmate of the chief complainant) the problem abated somewhat and the yoyos gathered on one particular machine which gets shut down from time to time. And this was nothing compared to the NUT machine. Total dependence on enforcement and peer group rejection is not adequate if basic "social" values are not inculcated into people's thinking. For sure. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On 6 Aug 2003 15:13:10 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:
We're not quite above such things. You oughta been there the nite in the early '70s when the Big Guns got together and decided to hammer Radio Moscow off a freq around 7.030. You bet it worked, Moscow moved up the band and didn't come back. Remember my story about "Radio Moscow does not operate on 16.xxx MHz" ?? ggg -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
And the FCC should go after those bad apples, whatever their license
class. Dream on, cant wait till the CBplussers start filling up HF, and you all start crying to the FCC. I will be setting here laughing my ASS off |
|
In article , "Phil Kane"
writes: Total dependence on enforcement and peer group rejection is not adequate if basic "social" values are not inculcated into people's thinking. For sure. I thought the brainwashing has been quite well done by you-know-who membership organization? :-) LHA |
|
"Phil Kane" wrote in
.net: On 5 Aug 2003 08:22:13 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote: So what do we call it then? I have certainly heard F-U-C-K sent in Morse on a repeater. It is intentional and usually unidentified interference to voice communications (except if the repeater is running Packet or SSTV as several of our club and/or ARES/RACES repeaters do). It is NOT interference with CW/Morse communication or by a station in a legitimate QSO using CW/Morse. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon Oregon Tualatin Valley Amateur Radio Club So using Morse to deliberately interfere with phone is OK, then? |
Alun Palmer wrote in message . ..
(N2EY) wrote in m: Alun Palmer wrote in message .. . "Dee D. Flint" wrote in y.com: "Alun Palmer" wrote in message ... "Phil Kane" wrote in .net: On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 07:41:03 -0400, Dwight Stewart wrote: Very simple answer, Jim. The FCC has limited personnel today. The few they have simply don't have the time to sit around listening, as code users pound out their incredibly slow conversations, to catch violations. ;) For reasons that I disagreed with then and I disagree with now, (but that's another story) the FCC' s enforcement response is driven by complaints, not by "Patrolling the Ether" (tm) as in days of yore. How many complaints of amateur CW violations do you think "Riley" gets? (Somebody pounding out "FU" in Morse on a Touch-Tone (tm) pad on a repeater input does not count as CW....) -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon So what do we call it then? I have certainly heard (expletive deleted) sent in Morse on a repeater. That's awful. I haven't heard anything that bad on the CW/data subbands, though. Have you? I really do only use phone, so I wouldn't know what was being sent down there. I can assure you that such things don't happen nearly so often (if at all) on the CW subbands. Anyone who doubts this is invited to listen for themselves. Anything from an unidentified transmission to interference to jamming for starters depending on the exact events. It probably violates a number of FCC rules. Let's see: Obscenity, failure to ID, jamming, unauthorized use of a repeater. For starters. The point is that Phil is trying to say that jamming in MCW doesn't count as jamming in CW, which is like trying to say that there's a vital difference between using FM or SSB to jam. No, that's not the point at all. The point is that hams actually using CW/Morse for communications don't gather anywhere near as many enforcement actions as hams using 'phone modes for communications. The difference is far more than can be accounted for by the greater popularity of 'phone modes. Is there a CW equivalent of the W6NUT repeater, 14,313 or 3950? 73 de Jim, N2EY Probably not. That's my entire point. I have, however, heard endless repeated CQ calls sent in CW by US hams on top of DX phone ops who were innocently using their phone subbands, that happen to be regarded as CW frequencies in part 97. Frequency? Date, Time? I am 90% sure that it is deliberate jamming, and it is a long term ongoing situation. How do you know it is deliberate? Perhaps the CQers could not hear the DX 'phones. Perhaps the DX phones were on top of US CW ops innocently sending CQ on frequencies that, by bandplan, are CW/digital. The FCC has definite criteria for deliberate interference. One criterion is if a station allegedly being interfered with changes frequency, and the alleged interferer changes frequency too. Presumably the perpetrators are too ignorant to understand that FCC rules end at the border? Who are "the perpetrators" in that case? You are presuming guilt without adequate proof. Do you have any evidence that the alleged violators could hear the alleged victims? Or evidence that the alleged victims were using the frequency first, rather than the other way around? Most CW ops use narrow filters - 500, 400, 250 Hz are common choices.* Useless for 'phone, of course. The CQers may not have realized how close they were to the DX 'phones. How much room should a CW station give a weak 'phone station? Of course the DX 'phones could have switched to CW and answered the CQers, then politely asked them to move. 73 de Jim, N2EY *My Southgate Type 7 has two cascaded 8 pole 500 Hz crystal filters, giving an effective bandwidth of less than 400 Hz and very steep filter skirts. And it has an audio LC filter as well. |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net... On 6 Aug 2003 15:13:10 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote: We're not quite above such things. You oughta been there the nite in the early '70s when the Big Guns got together and decided to hammer Radio Moscow off a freq around 7.030. You bet it worked, Moscow moved up the band and didn't come back. Remember my story about "Radio Moscow does not operate on 16.xxx MHz" ?? ggg -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Hey Phil, isn't that a violation of FCC (...and international?) rules/regs? (...and it gets a giggle?) Certainly NOT as "plain and simple" as I was led to believe wrt following the rules. Lol. ;-) -- 73 de Bert WA2SI |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:33 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com