N2EY wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
some snippage


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?

Okay. Carl's (NCI's?) approach sounds reasonable and should work okay -
even though I disagree with it.

On the other end of the spectrum, the proposal to turn everyone into HF
weenies is just plain stupid in my book.


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.

The times do change, no doubt. It all comes back to my thinking we can
be as adroit as we want to be. On that spectrum, it varies from no test
whatsoever - proven by the many CB'ers who run power amps, to those who
think that a person needs to be an EE to get on the air.

What do WE want? I want the ham to have enough knowledge to get on the
air safely, to realize that he or she can do some nasty things to
themselves and others if they aren't careful. I want the ham to be able
to read instructions and comprehend them. I want them to know at at
least a superficial level just what their rigs are doing. I want the ham
to know where to look up things like band edges and allowable powers on
a band. I want the ham to know that they are expected to act like they
learned manners at some point. I want the ham to know basic theory such
as Ohms law, and very simple antenna design.

Oh, and BTW, I want the ham to know how to communicate at what I
consider the base mode - CW.


This is just my opinion.


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?

Personally, just you.


some snippage



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.

True. That is one of the reasons that I like the idea of having a bit
of challenge to the tests. I'd wager that those who are willing to put
forth extra effort are more likely to be an asset to the ARS than those
who aren't. All this is on average, and does not apply to the individual
ham.


"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.

And how! The idea that we are going to get EE's in here is essentially
meaningless. It should be changed to RF engineers.... and of course the
ones who want to have their hobby also be their vocation. It takes a
special person indeed.



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)

Booooring! And I know why too. Well, I oculd be wrong too. Was W1MAN
transmitting back then?

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

It's good to see he "retired" as a VEC. He really wanted that job to be
easy.


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.

And howaboddit! they don't like whatever I come up with.


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.

Haw! I wonder how many hams use that mode, any stats? It sounds like
some of the EME frequencies noted in QST where they name off all six of
the people who use it!


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 sure think so.

- Mike KB3EIA -

(N2EY) wrote in message om...

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.

No-code isn't a religion. No Mantra.

The Mantra has always been that:

1. The Code always gets thru
2. The Code will keep out the riff-raff
3. The Code requires just the right amount of suffering to prove ones devotions

Aaron Jones keeps the other 47 Mantras.

(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message om...

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.

No-code isn't a religion. No Mantra.




What??? No "Hoops"??? No "unnecessary requirements"?? No
"Unjustified bogus BOHICA thingies"?? No "Morsedits" holding
back the intelligentsia?? No "If it wasn't for that dastardly
Morris code test I'd take my rightful place on HF??

No Mantra???? Get back to your village!

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

Had the no-code-test Technician never been created, US ham
radio would have been short by 200K ham licenses by the time of
"Reconstruction."

Prove it.

Show proof that 200,000 people would not have gotten US amateur radio
licenses between February 14, 1991 and April 15, 2000 if the Technician
class license had never lost its code test.

I don't think you have any proof. Or even any evidence. Just bluster.

that was an OLD argument in here and you LOST it.

How did I "lose" it, Len? Show us some proof of your assertion.

You did.

No, I did not.

It's all in Google.

Then show us. I don't think you can.

You just flat-out REFUSED to consider
the FCC's own database information (as compiled by a PCTA) and
wanted to hide 9 years worth of New Licensees.

Where? How?

You are simply repeating untruths. That's not rational behavior.

Getting all puffed up and antagonistic won't prove any case for
you on the morse code test. It won't prove any case for your
false interpretation of statistics that was on the AH0A website.

The only person I see getting puffed up and antagonistic is you, Len.

Nah.

Yeah.

I'm just poking an old morseman who is blinded to the truth. :-)

You're missing the mark by a mile.

You would not accept statistics of a noted PCTA taken from the
FCC public database then and you refuse to accept it now.

What are you talking about?

Go back a few years in Google, extract several hundred posts on
the subject in there.

You do it.

You will see it.

Show me.

Anyone would if they wanted
to endlessly rehash past arguments.

If anyone can see it, why don't you show us?

In 1991, all Technicians were code tested.

In 2000, most Technicians were not code tested.

200,000 Technicians who were not code tested in 2000 is somewhere in the
ball
park. Nobody denies that in 2000 there were a lot of Technicians who had not
passed code tests.

However, you claimed:

"Had the no-code-test Technician never been created, US ham radio would have
been short by 200K ham licenses by the time of "Reconstruction.""

Reconstruction?

Carpet baggers and all. :-)

Then go back where you came from.

The only way we'd be "short" 200,000 is if none of the 200,000 got licenses.
Did your crystal ball tell you that none of them would have learned the
code?

There's no point in rehashing an old argument where you LOST.

Ah, I see. You're using the Big Lie technique, where you simply claim to
have
"won" without presenting any proof or even any evidence.

Did it all years ago.

Yes, you used the Big Lie technique before.

You refused to believe any of it then, still do.

What did I refuse to believe? That there were 200,000 Technicians? That's
simply not true.

You need your brain washed. It's too full of dits and dahs.

Are you a Communist, Len? You speak of brainwashing.

You won't make any valid "points" in here by repeating "you're
mistaken" and continual refusal to accept FCC database
information.

I'm not after "points". Just the facts. But you don't have any facts to back
up your claims.

I did, but trying to present FACTS back then was useless when you
refused to accept them. You still refuse to accept such facts.

I refuse to accept mistakes. You have presented mistakes, not facts.

Not
worth the trouble to go back through the past over and over and over
again.

Then why do you do it? You keep repeating your experiences in Japan, which were
way back in the past, over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
again.

You can repeat the same mistakes over and over but they'll still be
mistakes,
Len.

See? There you go once more. You won't accept any truth that is
against your viewpoint. You call all of such things "mistakes." :-)

Because they are not the truth.

N2EY