In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

[AND GETS ANSWERED IN ALL CAPS SO THAT HE CAN HEAR
EVERYTHING LOUD AND CLEAR]

N2EY wrote:
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

What WILL be the end of ham radio is a lack of significant
growth ...

Let's get it straight - is dropping Element 1 going to give us lots more
growth
or not?

I'm going to interject here, since I'm still on Vacation and can only
get in so many posts for a bit.

NO EXCUSES!

I don't understand a few of the things Carl says here. That we will
dissapear unless we get "significant growth".

What exactly is that? a 100 percent increase in a day? increase at 1
percent over population increase?

IT'S ALL ARCHIVED IN GOOGLE. OLD ARGUMENT IN HERE, THAT REV.
JIMMIE WAS TRYING TO WEASEL OUT OF BY USING THAT TIRED OLD
LUMPING OF TECH-PLUSSES WITH TECHS PLOY.

HAD YOU SEEN THE ARGUMENT AWAYS BACK YOU WOULD HAVE
UNDERSTOOD THAT US AMATEUR RADIO WAS ACTUALLY
SHRINKING WITHOUT THE NO-CODE-TEST TECHNICIANS COMING
ON BOARD.

I'd like to know the advances they will bring.

I WANT TO KNOW THE "ADVANCES" THE PRO-CODERS BROUGHT
IN OVER THE LAST HALF-CENTURY.

I want to hear how those who oppose the ending of the Morse code
requirement are keeping ham radio from marching forward.

THE LIVING MUSEUM OF THE ARCHAIC RADIOTELEGRAPHY
SERVICE IS ALWAYS OPEN, ALWAYS BEEPING. SOME AREN'T
MARCHING, BUT ARE USING WALKERS.

Time for the roadmap to the future to be laid out.

WHO ARE YOU, RAND-MCNALLY? THE USCGS?

Or is this like the last scene in "The Candidate"?

MORE LIKE "THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE."

I find it amusing that even though the PCTA's have lost the war, that
those who brought this to bear cannot avoid smacking us around a little
bit yet. It might be fun, but isn't doing anyone a bit of good.

AWWWW....POOR POOR LITTLE HOCKEYPUCK!

FEEL BEAT UP DO YOU?

TSK, TSK.

Gloat time is over.

NOT BY A LONG SHOT, HOCKEYPUCK.

PRO-CODERS HAVE HAD A HALF CENTURY PLUS OF GLOATING
AND BROW-BEATING THOSE THAT DIDN'T CARE TO USE MORSE
OR DIDN'T SEE THE NEED TO USE IT.

HALF CENTURY.

Your time has come.

Nope. YOURS has. You aligned yourself with the pro-coders on the
barricades. You WILL lose. Try, try to get used to the reality.

You now have the chance to prove that you were right.

That was "proven" a long time ago by every OTHER radio service.

The old Beepers wanted to preserve their youth long, long after
and kept up the pressure for all AMATEURS to test for code.

The IARU finally saw the light of reality for the International
Amateur Radio community. ARRL may never see it. ARRL
seems a law unto itself with all its brainwashing over the years.

And browbeating the losers isn't a very good start.

POOR BABY!

My, the HOLIER-THAN-THOU attitude sounds so "noble!"

You ain't no "loser," hockeypuck. You just picked the wrong
side and try to disguise your whining with that holier-than-thou
hypocritical BS about some imaginary "ethics."

If you are going to restart all that tinnitus whining, you're out of
luck. I have it too and I'm not whining or making excuses.

A half century ago I and hundreds in my outfit were busy doing
primary HF communications trans-Pacific. NO morse code
used for that then, none after, not even after HF communications
went from primary to secondary status in 1978.

Sorry to hijack the thread, Jim!

Back under the bridge, troll...

LHA

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

A half century ago...(SNIP)

You were unlicensed in the Amateur Radio Service, a "tradition"
you continue to this date...

Sorry to hijack the thread, Jim!

Back under the bridge, troll...

Takes one to know one, eh, Lennie...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
Dick,

EVERY time there has been change of any real sort in ham radio, there
have been cranky olde fartz like you preaching "end of the world" doom
and gloom ... and every time it has not come to pass ...

There have also been predictions and promises of a "brave new world"
that the new changes would bring. Which also did not come to pass.

I would submit that the change from spark to CW was a big, progressive
change.

Not in Jimmie's day of around 1923 or 1924. He lived it all. In fantasy.

Likewise the change from AM to SSB.

...which would not have happened if AT&T hadn't used it on wireline
"carrier" equipment...or a number of commercial communications
carriers hadn't used it on HF in the 1930s...or USAF's SAC had
contracted Collins and RCA for military single-channel SSB
transceivers.

From plain RTTY to things like AMTOR, PACTOR, PSK31, etc.

If one extra can't understand a 1947 landmark paper on communications
theory, why do you expect a bunch of amateurs will understand the
relationship between noise, bandwidth, and error rate? :-)

Did these changes come about overnight? No. Did OTs bitch
and whine? Yes.

"B&W." Like sour old root beer. :-) :-) :-)

Sorry to slight A&W which makes very good root beer...


None of these were forced on hams by regulatory change. Hams adopted
them voluntarily. For example, spark wasn't outlawed for hams until
1927, even though it was essentially abandoned by hams by 1923 or 24.

Nobody is proposing a regulatory change that will prohibit or in any way
restrict the USE of Morse ... all that's being asked for is to eliminate the
test requirement that even the FCC and the IARU admit are not in the
best interest of the future of ham radio.

All them holier-than-thou old-timers are too good to be true...as long
as you agree with their old, outmoded ways of radio. :-)

Nobody is being forced to do anything ... in fact, the proposed/anticipated
change will STOP forcing folks to do something that many don't want to
do ...

IARU saw the light. ARRL refused to look, so far. That kind of
spells out how it will go in the USA on test element 1.

ARRL won't let go of the code test until the last morse recording is
removed from their director's cold, dead fingers.

So, the "None of these were forced on hams by regulatory change." argument
doesn't hold water Jim.

You were speaking at a holier-than-thou old-timer in ham radio, Carl.

:-)

AM is still popular on HF - in fact, more popular than 20-30 years
ago. What caused hams to abandon AM in large numbers was the simple
fact that an SSB transceiver was less expensive than an AM
receiver-transmitter combo of equal effective power. That transition
also drastically reduced the amount of homebrewing done by hams.

What drastically reduced the amount of homebrewing done by hams
is a combination of the following:

1) technology got more "complicated" for the uninitiated
2) parts got harder to buy at reasonable prices in small quantities
3) the performance and quality of "store-bought" gear
improved and at the same time the cost in (adjusted) $
dropped dramatically.

Heck, you can buy a decent 2m transciever for $150 today
... something with performance, quality, reliability, and ergonomics
that the average ham couldn't duplicate for 3x that price when
buying parts in small quantities.

Does that mean I think homebrewing should roll over and die?
CERTAINLY NOT ...

Nope. QST and QEX will still feature landmark weekender
project articles for regenerative receivers and two-transistor
transmitters built in tuna tin cans. Real earthshaking
technical advancements! :-)

the introduction of the no-code Tech license;

Which has not resulted in greatly increased longterm growth nor a
techno revolution.

If it weren't for the thousands of hams who have entered via the
no-code tech license, the ham population would be something
like 1/2 what it was in 1990 ...

Actually, more like 2/3. That argument was done in here about
four years ago. Rev. Jimmie wouldn't accept it then, still won't.

I think his world was stuck in the 1930s when he had finally
abandoned spark for tubes.

When you start out with an old, greying demographic (and I'm
no "spring chicken"), if there are no newcomers, the population
can only drop dramatically.
[snipped here for lack of time and tiredness ... it's been a LONG day]

Poor greying babies! :-)

Boo hoo. Grey hair! Tsk, tsk. :-)

LHA

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
om...

More likely the boom after WWII (and Korea) was due to military
radio folks becoming hams when they got out ...

There has never been a correlation made between the growth of ham
radio and new batches of war vets.

It should be noted that the number of US hams grew from about 60,000 on VJ Day
to almost 100,000 in 1951, when the restructuring that gave us the "name"
classes (including Novice) took place. Some of that was obviously returning
vets, some was "pent up demand", etc.

btw, FCC continued to conduct ham exams and issue amateur operator licenses
during WW2. They simply suspended all station licenses. So there were plenty of
hams but no ham stations for them to operate legally. This was a big
improvement over WW1, when all licenses were revoked, equipment had to be
dismantled and sealed, and even antennas had to be lowered to the ground and
removed.

The far more likely reasons were
the overall increase in the standard of living and more personal
leisure time aided and abetted by a heightened awareness of radio
comms and technology in general after those wars.

All big factors. Something as simple as a VA or FHA mortgage and a bunch of
Liberty bonds made a big difference.

And to a lesser
extent the availability of surplus mil-spec hardware for cents per
pound was a boon to growth.

Sure. Plus wartime manufacturing advances meant that prices on both parts and
manufactured gear went down compared to inflation.

More younger people joined the hobby for
all these reasons plus the availability of the then-new Novice license
was a big shot in the arm for growth. "I wuz one" . . .

The Novice had the effect of drastically reducing the age of the average
newcomer. Some folks back then were not happy about that.

The boom in the 60's was probably due to the emergence of economical
JA radios,

There was no boom in the '60s. JA radios did not really appear until the mid
'70s.

That growth occurred when brands like (bloody expensive!) Drake,
Collins, Hammarlund, Heath, B&W and the rest were the only games in
town.

Yep - the '40s, 50s and very early '60s.

a general increase in the interest in electronics, and later, the
emergence of VHF/UHF FM and repeaters ...

'70s, not '60s. Driven by cheap surplus land-mobile stuff.

HF equipment suppliers were and still are almost entirely driven by
market needs and expectations and the competition to meet those needs
and expectations per buck per performace capability. The availability
of the HF riceboxes in the '70s did just that for the existing
population of hams. I've never known of an example of anybody getting
into ham radio simply because the newer HF equipment provided more
bang for the buck.

Actually, what really has a big effect is the perceived cost to get started. In
the bad old days most hams started out with a receiver and simple wire antenna,
costing whatever they could afford. For many it was a $10 Command set or $25
used SWL rx or homebrew. Once the license was earned, a simple tx and TR system
was added. Not state of the art even for the times but a lot of fun was had and
the expenditures were modest and spread out in time. Most of all, beginners had
lots of examples of simple inexpensive first stations. And there was a long
road of improvements possible, all spread out in time.

Today the "paradigm" seems to be a new transceiver, manufactured antenna, etc.,
all at considerable cost up-front before even any listening is done.

Equipment availability for the bands above HF was never been much of a
driver in growth until the Tech license was converted from being an
experimenters ticket to a communicators ticket and even then there
wasn't all that much growth. It wasn't until the 1980s that Techs got
into packet in a big way and into the FM voice infrastructures because
of the increasingly inexpensive VHF/UHF riceboxes that the they became
major players in the growth equation. It was the Disincentive
Licensing maneuver of '91 and the availabilty of $150 2M FM xcvrs
which really done the deed. So now we have numbers. What else did we
get out of that one?

I dunno that we even got that much in the way of numbers. Sure, a lot of hams
started out as post-1991 Techs, and we've grown considerably since then. But
look at the '80s growth, and the '70s growth....

Actually, it's not a bad idea to use existing PC capabilities to do the
signal processing for multiple modes ... it's all software ... and within
the limits of a typical SSB radio, you can do some interesting, albeit
rather slow, stuff on HF.

There ya go again dammit. It's gonna STAY that way too until YOU
figger out how to pull it off without screwing up the bands by being a
spectrum hog for your own jollies.

9600 is a kludge in virtually all of the rice-boxes ... and it's not fast
enough to really be interesting or all that useful ...

9600 would have helped ten years ago but it never happened. In the
meanwhile packet and the Internet have been interlaced and the need
for 9600 has all but disappeared.

I would respectfully disagree ... the idea that "hams can't work
with SMT" is bogus ...

I agree!

Then YOU snip the frigging resistors and jumpers in this frigging SMT
radio so that I can get on 60M. Ya need a 10X magnifier just the SEE
the things on the frigging PCB!

All part of the tool kit.

Building a radio will involve components ... some may be "store-bought"
ICs, others will be R/L/C, perhaps some discrete transistors, etc. ... BUT
there is no reason that reasonably technically-inclined, intelligent hams
cannot
"build" their own custom ICs at home these days ... there are all sorts of
programmable logic devices, ranging from a few thousand or less gates to
several millions of gates ... and the software to do design, simulation,
verification,
and programming is either affordable, or in some cases free.

You do your conceptual design, code it in VHDL, simulate it, synthesize it
into a file that is used to program the IC and voila, something that had NO
"personalilty" ... no "idea of how to do anything" ... is now a functional
"custom IC." This is REALLY cool stuff ... and there are lots and lots of
free "cores"out there for all sorts of things ... SPI interfaces,
microcontrollers,
FEC, and on and on and on ... all things that can be "hooked up" together
and/or with your own code and synthesized into your own IC ...

Let's see,

What I'm hearing is that it's "reasonable" to expect hams who are not
electrical engineering professionals to
do a "conceptual design, code it in VHDL, simulate it, synthesize it into a
file that is used to
program the IC" and then integrate it. We can also expect them to use "lots and
lots of
free "cores"out there for all sorts of things ... SPI interfaces,
microcontrollers,
FEC, and on and on and on ... all things that can be "hooked up" together
and/or with your own code and synthesized into your own IC"s. And then put it
all together into
a functioning, useful RADIO - on their own time and with their own money and
tools.

But it is not "reasonable" to expect them to learn enough Morse code to pass
Element 1. OK, fine.

And when it's all said and done the average ham won't learn or know
any more than he/she needs to pass the tests and/or to get on the air
and meet their specific operating objectives. Whatever takes the least
effort and brain pain prevails.

btw, I don't see anyhting on Shannon's work in the question pools.

Fred is working on it . . .

Actually I think a "21st century Novice" license isn't such a bad idea. The
problem is on the other end of the scale.

Folks just need to think in new paradigms ... unfortunately, that does not
seem to be the strong suit of many present hams.

Another "bell the cat" problem. Which new paradigms? The real problems most
hams, particularly new ones, face are
things like CC&Rs, and RFI.

I heard exactly that same lament in the 1950s and it was just as true
then as it now. What conclusions do you draw from that as it relates
to the health, welfare and growth of ham radio?

What matters is not how many hams there are but how many active hams there are.
The FCC database sez 687,000 or so in the USA alone. What do you think the
bands would sound like if even 10% of them were on the air at once?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

What WILL be the end of ham radio is a lack of significant
growth ...

Let's get it straight - is dropping Element 1 going to give us lots more
growth or not?

I don't understand a few of the things Carl says here. That we will
dissapear unless we get "significant growth".

There are more US hams today than at any time in the past.

What exactly is that? a 100 percent increase in a day? increase at 1
percent over population increase?

That's what I've been asking.

I'd like to know the advances they will bring.

Similar to what newcomers have always brought.

I want to hear how those who oppose the ending of the Morse code
requirement are keeping ham radio from marching forward.

Time for the roadmap to the future to be laid out.

Don't hold yer breath waiting;-)

Or is this like the last scene in "The Candidate"?

Refresh my memory on that one, Mike.

I find it amusing that even though the PCTA's have lost the war, that
those who brought this to bear cannot avoid smacking us around a little
bit yet. It might be fun, but isn't doing anyone a bit of good.

What "war"?

FCC has been pushing for nocodetest since 1975. They've been nibbling away at
both the code and written tests since then.

Gloat time is over. Your time has come. You now have the chance to
prove that you were right. And browbeating the losers isn't a very good
start.

Maybe we'll see a lot of newcomers and technoadvances after the code test goes.
And maybe we won't. Personally, I don't think we'll see either.

If that happens, what will be blamed for the ARS' perceived problems??

A few other countries have dumped code testing. More are on the way to it. It
will be interesting to see what happens in those countries.

Sorry to hijack the thread, Jim!

You didn't hijack anything.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:



What WILL be the end of ham radio is a lack of significant
growth ...



Let's get it straight - is dropping Element 1 going to give us lots more
growth or not?

I don't understand a few of the things Carl says here. That we will
dissapear unless we get "significant growth".


There are more US hams today than at any time in the past.

What exactly is that? a 100 percent increase in a day? increase at 1
percent over population increase?


That's what I've been asking.

I'd like to know the advances they will bring.


Similar to what newcomers have always brought.

I want to hear how those who oppose the ending of the Morse code
requirement are keeping ham radio from marching forward.

Time for the roadmap to the future to be laid out.


Don't hold yer breath waiting;-)

Or is this like the last scene in "The Candidate"?

Refresh my memory on that one, Mike.

The Candidate is a pretty good film about an idealistic fellow, (Robert
Redford) the son of a former Governor, who gets caught up in running for
office after being prodded by the local political machinery. Along the
way, he compromises most all of his values (all that is not relevant to
the case at hand. But in the end, after being elected to office, amongst
the victory celebration, he looks to his campaign manager (Peter Boyle -
Haw) completely confused, and asks "What do we do now?" He was
completely lost and didn't know what to do.

My point is that I see a close relationship between that ending and the
situation we have here. No real thought has been given to the aftermath
of the ending of the Morse code test.

Back to now...


After such a change, lots of different ideas come out of the woodwork
to replace the vacuum left by the probable disappearance of the Morse
code test. Some ideas are good, some make me shudder.


But the fact is that since if the test disappears and nothing else
happens, it very well does mean that it is a reduction in knowledge
required to get a ticket. All arguments on what constitutes "knowledge"
in these regards is kind of like defining "is". You have to learn less,
no possible dispute without looking pretty silly.

All this means that those who believe that requirements for a ticket
should be lowered have the upper hand.

Those who do not believe that, that is to say that a Morse code test is
a desirable thing, or those who want the writtens to be reflective of a
fair degree of competence, have an uphill battle, and at the moment are
regarded as the losers.

I am very disappointed that the winners in this one do not seem to have
any plan at all. All we hear are their personal thought on how *they*
don't support some of what is being proposed. That's nice, but Doggonit,
That doesn't cut it! They have to be darn active in seeing that things
don't fall apart around us. The ball is in their court now, and it seems
they don't know what to do with it. I don't really care what they
personally think, I want to see what they are going to do. And so far.......


Gloat time is over. Your time has come. You now have the chance to
prove that you were right. And browbeating the losers isn't a very good
start.


Maybe we'll see a lot of newcomers and technoadvances after the code test goes.
And maybe we won't. Personally, I don't think we'll see either.

Probably not. Those who do advance the art are a small core of
technical adroit's, who come up with techniques that must not only
advance the art, but must be adapted by enough people to make them
viable. After all, it isn't much fun to have the newest cool method of
communication if there is only a couple people to communicate with.


If that happens, what will be blamed for the ARS' perceived problems??


The PCTA's, because of their being so negative, and scaring the new
people away? I'd bet a cup of coffee on that one. It is a pity when you
lose someone to blame, eh?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

What WILL be the end of ham radio is a lack of significant
growth ...

Let's get it straight - is dropping Element 1 going to give us lots more
growth or not?

I don't understand a few of the things Carl says here. That we will
dissapear unless we get "significant growth".

There are more US hams today than at any time in the past.

What exactly is that? a 100 percent increase in a day? increase at 1
percent over population increase?

That's what I've been asking.

I'd like to know the advances they will bring.

Similar to what newcomers have always brought.

I want to hear how those who oppose the ending of the Morse code
requirement are keeping ham radio from marching forward.

Time for the roadmap to the future to be laid out.

Don't hold yer breath waiting;-)

Or is this like the last scene in "The Candidate"?

Refresh my memory on that one, Mike.

The Candidate is a pretty good film about an idealistic fellow, (Robert
Redford) the son of a former Governor, who gets caught up in running for
office after being prodded by the local political machinery. Along the
way, he compromises most all of his values (all that is not relevant to
the case at hand. But in the end, after being elected to office, amongst
the victory celebration, he looks to his campaign manager (Peter Boyle -
Haw) completely confused, and asks "What do we do now?" He was
completely lost and didn't know what to do.

Sounds pretty familiar.....

My point is that I see a close relationship between that ending and the
situation we have here. No real thought has been given to the aftermath
of the ending of the Morse code test.

Some of us have given it real thought, and have posted ideas. But the
mantra has always been that eliminating the code test would solve
everything.

Back to now...

After such a change, lots of different ideas come out of the woodwork
to replace the vacuum left by the probable disappearance of the Morse
code test. Some ideas are good, some make me shudder.

Such as?

But the fact is that since if the test disappears and nothing else
happens, it very well does mean that it is a reduction in knowledge
required to get a ticket. All arguments on what constitutes "knowledge"
in these regards is kind of like defining "is". You have to learn less,
no possible dispute without looking pretty silly.

Sure. But that's been going on for decades now. Some folks would even
say it is justified because a ham doesn't have to know as much today
to get on the air and avoid breaking the rules.

For example: How many hams do you know who use barefoot rigs that
require tuneup in order to operate properly? (Not the ATU - the rig
itself). Besides me, that is.

How many do you know who regularly use 100% homebrew stations?

Etc.

All this means that those who believe that requirements for a ticket
should be lowered have the upper hand.

Been that way for decades.

Those who do not believe that, that is to say that a Morse code test is
a desirable thing, or those who want the writtens to be reflective of a
fair degree of competence, have an uphill battle, and at the moment are
regarded as the losers.

Not by everyone.

Looking back on the history, however, shows that license requirements
are only one factor - and probably not as major a factor as some would
have us believe. What really matters is the interest and drive of the
person involved. Some people will learn just enough to pass the test
and then shut down, forgetting most of what they "learned" in a short
time. Others will go far beyond the test levels. It's all a choice.

"Radio" and "electronics" are such wide-ranging subjects that nobody
can be an expert at all of it. Or even most of it. The repeater expert
may be in the dark about wire antennas. The digital folks may be
helpless with power supplies. And even the most knowledgeable "radio
professionals" can be utterly clueless about the practical aspects of
amateur radio.

I am very disappointed that the winners in this one do not seem to have
any plan at all.

Actually, some of them do. For instance, here are some gems from Fred
Maia, W5YI:

- Outlaw all forms of amateur bulletins and one way information
transmissions, INCLUDING CODE PRACTICE, below 30 MHz (1995 petition to
the FCC)

- Reduce the entry level license to a 20 question written and include
voice privileges on the bands above 20 meters

Here are some others I've seen, by various others:

- Institute an age requirement of 14 years as the minimum for any
class of amateur license

- Eliminate all subbands-by-mode

- Reduce the number of license classes to one all-privs license.

- Reduce the number of license classes to two - entry and all-privs.

You get the idea.

All we hear are their personal thought on how *they*
don't support some of what is being proposed. That's nice, but Doggonit,
That doesn't cut it! They have to be darn active in seeing that things
don't fall apart around us. The ball is in their court now, and it seems
they don't know what to do with it. I don't really care what they
personally think, I want to see what they are going to do. And so far.......

What you're seeing is what I call the "Zen method of design", where
they will never tell you what they want, only what they don't want.

Gloat time is over. Your time has come. You now have the chance to
prove that you were right. And browbeating the losers isn't a very good
start.

Maybe we'll see a lot of newcomers and technoadvances after the code test goes.
And maybe we won't. Personally, I don't think we'll see either.

Probably not. Those who do advance the art are a small core of
technical adroit's, who come up with techniques that must not only
advance the art, but must be adapted by enough people to make them
viable. After all, it isn't much fun to have the newest cool method of
communication if there is only a couple people to communicate with.

BINGO!

Which means that the advance must be publicized, affordable, and offer
hams something they want.

Example: Cecil, W5DXP, used to rave about PACTOR-2. I started to look
into it, and discovered that (at the time) implementing it required
not just a shack computer but a $600 dedicated PACTOR 2 box. Which
explains why so few hams use the mode, compared to, say, PSK-31.

If that happens, what will be blamed for the ARS' perceived problems??

The PCTA's, because of their being so negative, and scaring the new
people away?

"Negative"? We're not "negative" - we're FOR something!

I'd bet a cup of coffee on that one. It is a pity when you
lose someone to blame, eh?

'zactly. But you'll never sell that one.

Meanwhile, the real challenges don't get the spotlight. Like CC&Rs -
what good are licenses if we cannot put up effective antennas?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo

writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

What WILL be the end of ham radio is a lack of significant
growth ...

Let's get it straight - is dropping Element 1 going to give us lots more
growth or not?

I don't understand a few of the things Carl says here. That we will
dissapear unless we get "significant growth".

There are more US hams today than at any time in the past.

What exactly is that? a 100 percent increase in a day? increase at 1
percent over population increase?

That's what I've been asking.

I'd like to know the advances they will bring.

Similar to what newcomers have always brought.

I want to hear how those who oppose the ending of the Morse code
requirement are keeping ham radio from marching forward.

Time for the roadmap to the future to be laid out.

Don't hold yer breath waiting;-)

Or is this like the last scene in "The Candidate"?

Refresh my memory on that one, Mike.

The Candidate is a pretty good film about an idealistic fellow, (Robert

Redford) the son of a former Governor, who gets caught up in running for
office after being prodded by the local political machinery. Along the
way, he compromises most all of his values (all that is not relevant to
the case at hand. But in the end, after being elected to office, amongst
the victory celebration, he looks to his campaign manager (Peter Boyle -
Haw) completely confused, and asks "What do we do now?" He was
completely lost and didn't know what to do.

Sounds pretty familiar.....

My point is that I see a close relationship between that ending and the

situation we have here. No real thought has been given to the aftermath
of the ending of the Morse code test.

Some of us have given it real thought, and have posted ideas. But the
mantra has always been that eliminating the code test would solve
everything.

YOU ARE MISTAKEN.

Unless that was YOUR twisted "mantra."

It could be...you equate morse code with amateur radio so strongly
that you can't separate them, even in your imagination.



Those who do not believe that, that is to say that a Morse code test is

a desirable thing, or those who want the writtens to be reflective of a
fair degree of competence, have an uphill battle, and at the moment are
regarded as the losers.

Not by everyone.

The VEC Question Pool Committee is open to input. They are the ones
who ORIGINATE questions and answers.


Looking back on the history, however, shows that license requirements
are only one factor - and probably not as major a factor as some would
have us believe. What really matters is the interest and drive of the
person involved. Some people will learn just enough to pass the test
and then shut down, forgetting most of what they "learned" in a short
time. Others will go far beyond the test levels. It's all a choice.

"Interest and drive." :-)

That equates to "laziness" and other negative moral/ethical things?


"Radio" and "electronics" are such wide-ranging subjects that nobody
can be an expert at all of it.

You aren't an "expert" in radio-electronics?

Gosh, and you "DO electrical engineering." With a Masters degree, too!


... And even the most knowledgeable "radio
professionals" can be utterly clueless about the practical aspects of
amateur radio.

HARF!!! :-)


Here are some others I've seen, by various others:

- Institute an age requirement of 14 years as the minimum for any
class of amateur license

Yeah...let's hear it for all those "mature" 6-year-olds on the air
wiith the "big gun contesters."

Wow, that 14-year-old arbitrary limit sure must have stung you!

- Eliminate all subbands-by-mode

Blasphemy! Morsemen DESERVE elitism and their own private
spectral playpen!

- Reduce the number of license classes to one all-privs license.

Horrors! Remove the STATUS-TITLE-RANK-PRIVELEGE?!?!?

Can't have that!

- Reduce the number of license classes to two - entry and all-privs.

The OLD system - the one in which you triumphed - is ALWAYS
the BEST!!!

You get the idea.

Absolutely. Keep your elite morseman status and titles...after all
you are in the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service!



The PCTA's, because of their being so negative, and scaring the new
people away?

"Negative"? We're not "negative" - we're FOR something!

What you are FOR is to keep your rank-title-status-privilege and you
don't want that "contaminated" by large-scale changes.



Meanwhile, the real challenges don't get the spotlight. Like CC&Rs -
what good are licenses if we cannot put up effective antennas?

What good are you that can't give in to new ideas, progressive ideas,
that intefere with your standards and practices of the 1930s?

LHA

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo

writes:

N2EY wrote:

My point is that I see a close relationship between that ending and the

situation we have here. No real thought has been given to the aftermath
of the ending of the Morse code test.

Some of us have given it real thought, and have posted ideas. But the
mantra has always been that eliminating the code test would solve
everything.

YOU ARE MISTAKEN.

About real thought? posting ideas? the mantra? eliminating the code test
solving everything?

Unless that was YOUR twisted "mantra."

That couldn't be correct, Len. Why would someone who supports continued
morse testing have a mantra about the removal of morse testing solving
everything?

It could be...you equate morse code with amateur radio so strongly
that you can't separate them, even in your imagination.

How would you be in a position to know that?


"Radio" and "electronics" are such wide-ranging subjects that nobody
can be an expert at all of it.

You aren't an "expert" in radio-electronics?

He has answered the same question from you a couple of times.

Gosh, and you "DO electrical engineering." With a Masters degree, too!

Does that irk you?

... And even the most knowledgeable "radio
professionals" can be utterly clueless about the practical aspects of
amateur radio.

HARF!!! :-)

Okay, HARF clueless.

Here are some others I've seen, by various others:

- Institute an age requirement of 14 years as the minimum for any
class of amateur license

Yeah...let's hear it for all those "mature" 6-year-olds on the air
wiith the "big gun contesters."

I really appreciate your confirming what I wrote about your minimum age
requirement just a couple of days ago.

Wow, that 14-year-old arbitrary limit sure must have stung you!

Apparently not nearly as much as the blanket rejection of your idea for
instituting a minimum age requirement.


Blasphemy! Morsemen DESERVE elitism and their own private
spectral playpen!

Horrors! Remove the STATUS-TITLE-RANK-PRIVELEGE?!?!?

Can't have that!

The OLD system - the one in which you triumphed - is ALWAYS
the BEST!!!

Absolutely. Keep your elite morseman status and titles...after all
you are in the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service!

What you are FOR is to keep your rank-title-status-privilege and you don't want that "contaminated" by large-scale changes.

What good are you that can't give in to new ideas, progressive ideas, that intefere with your standards and practices of the 1930s?

Maybe Schuler will give you a guest preaching shot at the Chrystal
Cathedral. If so, you can introduce your Improbability Thinking to the
world.

Remember, Len, none of this need concern you. You aren't remotely
involved in amateur radio.

Dave K8MN

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

Mike Coslo wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo

writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

What WILL be the end of ham radio is a lack of significant
growth ...

Let's get it straight - is dropping Element 1 going to give us lots
more
growth or not?

I don't understand a few of the things Carl says here. That we will
dissapear unless we get "significant growth".

There are more US hams today than at any time in the past.

What exactly is that? a 100 percent increase in a day? increase at 1
percent over population increase?

That's what I've been asking.

I'd like to know the advances they will bring.

Similar to what newcomers have always brought.

I want to hear how those who oppose the ending of the Morse code
requirement are keeping ham radio from marching forward.

Time for the roadmap to the future to be laid out.

Don't hold yer breath waiting;-)

Or is this like the last scene in "The Candidate"?

Refresh my memory on that one, Mike.

The Candidate is a pretty good film about an idealistic fellow, (Robert

Redford) the son of a former Governor, who gets caught up in running for
office after being prodded by the local political machinery. Along the
way, he compromises most all of his values (all that is not relevant to
the case at hand. But in the end, after being elected to office, amongst
the victory celebration, he looks to his campaign manager (Peter Boyle -
Haw) completely confused, and asks "What do we do now?" He was
completely lost and didn't know what to do.

Sounds pretty familiar.....

My point is that I see a close relationship between that ending and the

situation we have here. No real thought has been given to the aftermath
of the ending of the Morse code test.

Some of us have given it real thought, and have posted ideas. But the
mantra has always been that eliminating the code test would solve
everything.

YOU ARE MISTAKEN.

About what?

Unless that was YOUR twisted "mantra."

Nope. Not mine.

It could be...you equate morse code with amateur radio so strongly
that you can't separate them, even in your imagination.

My main interest in amateur radio is HF Morse/CW operation, and designing,
building, aligning, maintaining and restoring equipment to do so. I have other
interests in amateur radio, too.

Others have different interests in amateur radio than I. They do their thing, I
do mine.

But we are all radio amateurs.

You, Len, are not a radio amateur. Nor have you ever been one. Your sole
interests seem to be in a few newsgroups.

Those who do not believe that, that is to say that a Morse code test is
a desirable thing, or those who want the writtens to be reflective of a
fair degree of competence, have an uphill battle, and at the moment are
regarded as the losers.

Not by everyone.

The VEC Question Pool Committee is open to input. They are the ones
who ORIGINATE questions and answers.

Anyone can originate questions and answers for the pools, and submit them to
the QPC.

However, changes the syllabus, testing methods, or other requirements require
FCC rules changes that are beyond QPC authority.

Looking back on the history, however, shows that license requirements
are only one factor - and probably not as major a factor as some would
have us believe. What really matters is the interest and drive of the
person involved. Some people will learn just enough to pass the test
and then shut down, forgetting most of what they "learned" in a short
time. Others will go far beyond the test levels. It's all a choice.

"Interest and drive." :-)

Yes, interest and drive. Those are good things, Len.

That equates to "laziness" and other negative moral/ethical things?

Nope. Laziness is the opposite. Laziness is not a good thing.

"Radio" and "electronics" are such wide-ranging subjects that nobody
can be an expert at all of it.

You aren't an "expert" in radio-electronics?

Nope. I don't claim to be an expert at anything. I challenge you to find a post
where I have called myself an expert.

Gosh, and you "DO electrical engineering."

Yep. For a living. Since at least 1976.

With a Masters degree, too!

That's right. BSEE from the University of Pennsylvania, MaSEE from Drexel
University.

Where is our degree from, Len?

... And even the most knowledgeable "radio
professionals" can be utterly clueless about the practical aspects of
amateur radio.

HARF!!! :-)

Do try to control yourself.

Here are some others I've seen, by various others:

- Institute an age requirement of 14 years as the minimum for any
class of amateur license

Yeah...let's hear it for all those "mature" 6-year-olds on the air
wiith the "big gun contesters."

Your behavior here is often less mature than that of a typical six-year-old,
Len ;-)

Can you name any problems caused by the licensing of young children in the ARS?
Violations by them?

Wow, that 14-year-old arbitrary limit sure must have stung you!

Not me. I'm 49.

Did you know that the 1996 READEX survey commissioned by the ARRL showed that
the age group that was most procodetest was the 24-and-younger group? 85%
procodetest, 15% nocodetest. The hams of the future...

- Eliminate all subbands-by-mode

Blasphemy! Morsemen DESERVE elitism and their own private
spectral playpen!

Sounds good to me. I say the FCC should make at least the lower 15% of each HF
amateur band CW-only.

Right now, the only amateur CW-only subbands are on VHF.

Would you rather eliminate the CW/data subbands, Len?

- Reduce the number of license classes to one all-privs license.

Horrors! Remove the STATUS-TITLE-RANK-PRIVELEGE?!?!?

Can't have that!

- Reduce the number of license classes to two - entry and all-privs.

The OLD system - the one in which you triumphed - is ALWAYS
the BEST!!!

Where do you get that idea?

You get the idea.

Absolutely. Keep your elite morseman status and titles...after all
you are in the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service!

No, I'm in the Amateur Radio Service. Since 1967.

You are not. You never have been.

The PCTA's, because of their being so negative, and scaring the new
people away?

"Negative"? We're not "negative" - we're FOR something!

What you are FOR is to keep your rank-title-status-privilege and you
don't want that "contaminated" by large-scale changes.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Meanwhile, the real challenges don't get the spotlight. Like CC&Rs -
what good are licenses if we cannot put up effective antennas?

What good are you that can't give in to new ideas, progressive ideas,
that intefere with your standards and practices of the 1930s?

I don't give in to bad ideas. And my standards and practices are those of
today.

You live too much in the past, Len.

N2EY