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

ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote:
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

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

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?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"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

(N2EY) wrote


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?

Well, it's certainly clear that if the CW test reduces jerks on CW,
then a talking test would reduce jerks who talk on their radios?

PTTI! Damn, Jim, what a concept!

Or maybe your whole jeremiad about FCC enforcement means that FCC
monitors are no-coders who wouldn't recognize those infractions when
done in Morse.

Or maybe attributing a lower "jerk quotient" to Morse operators is the
lamest excuse EVER for keeping a Morse examination.

Sunuvagun!

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

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