Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message

This sounds like one of the principled people that Carl speaks of who
won't go beyond technician because they don't believe in the Morse test.
Is this typical of Carl's new people?

- Mike KB3EIA



Possibly, Mike. I know you didn't ask me, but I can't help but make the
statement that if even so, it would be nice for you to be astute enough not
to roll everyone into your neat little package.

For the purposes of the group, I don't think it's too bad an idea to
try to find out a few things about this one.

Here is a person that claims to know Morse code, but has refused to
test for it for nine years. This would appear to be the mythical person
that avoids Ham radio because of the evil Morse code (emphasis mine)
that The prez of NCI speaks of.

I say appears to be, because we have a person that comes in here like
gangbusters, manages to annoy a lot of us, and uses argument techniques
mostly designed to p**s us off, not to make a point.

I personally think this person is just a troll, and not a very good
troll either.


Bob may be the kind of
person you allude to, I don't know; he will have to speak to that with you.

Hehe, won't happen now.

But, damned few people who don't like CW have avoided/boycotted higher class
licensure until CW went away. In fact, I know no one like that.

Correct, and that is a big part of my decision that this is just a
third rate troll.

I like to come in here and have a good disagreement with people, but
his posts do not constitute a good disagreement. You've seen it yourself
- the odd leading questions, the asking of all sorts of quewstions,
followed by a refusal to answer any, and outrageous little things such
as assigning numerical value to non-numerical statements.

All things calculated to get an indignant response.

- Mike KB3EIA -

On 5 Sep 2003 10:57:03 -0700, (N2EY) wrote:

Bob Brock wrote in message . ..
On 05 Sep 2003 11:19:23 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Bob Brock
writes:

On 05 Sep 2003 03:41:16 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

Snipped much agreement only to save badwidth...

We could have all better written exams and different performance tests
without it costing FCC anything. But it goes against the fashion. And
the "Smith chart effect" opposition would kick in, guaranteed.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Gosh, I didn't think I'd find anyone here that I was pretty close to
agreement with. You seem to be the exception instead of the rule.

My feeling is that, unless this endless code debate ends sometime, ham
radio cannot move on in the testing area. I'd like to see a person
actually have to operate a radio in the band they are being licensed
for before they can take off by themselves. It could even be their
own radio. I think that they should know what all those nifty buttons
actually do. They should know how to enter into a conversation. A
list of "critical tasks" and "non-critical tasks" should be developed
and a person not be licensed until they can actually show competence
in those tasks. Those are the types of issues that I'd like to see
the ham community discussing rather than the endless code/no-code
debate that detracts from everything else.

All of the name calling and false accusations from both sides makes us
look silly to those who read it. I'm really glad that it will be
ending soon. Perhaps then, we can move on to more important issues.

I'm sure that not everyone will agree with performance based testing
in addition to a written test. However, perhaps a consensus could be
reached.

On 05 Sep 2003 13:03:07 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

How do you think that they figure out how to fill in the
correct answer then?


Its called memorizing, no knowledge. If question about the material most
wouldnt have a Clue.

You weren't provided with an answer sheet where you only had to
memorize the correct sequence were you?

No I wasnt, I knew the Info.



Perhaps it's you contention that getting a license to
operate a radio is somehow more complex than the nuclear environment,

No not really, anymore its a waste of time the way the present written is
setup.

If that's the way that you feel, it's a issue that needs to be
addressed. The only issues I've seen talked about in this ng during
the many times that I've subscribed to it is this petty code/no-code
bs that detracts from any real discussion about code testing.

Don't misconsture this as agreement that "no learning" takes place.
However, I will agree that the learning is inadequate in that a
written test or even classroom training adequately prepares a person
to perform tasks without an additional step of hands on experienced
based training and/or testing.

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 20:30:30 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
igy.com...

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On 05 Sep 2003 03:41:16 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

Then what do you think that they test for?

Oh I know what they Test for, and it is not knowledge,it is nothing
then
Memozizing some Q&As that have no meaning to the test taker. The
writtens
are
nothing more than jumping thru hoops

In other words, since they provide the question pool, you don't think
that people have to learn the answers in order to correctly answer the
questions? How do you think that they figure out how to fill in the
correct answer then?


Both the pool AND answers are published.

Let's take a typical question:

What is the length of a dipole for 14.240Mhz?

Now since the questions AND answers are published, the prospective test
taker can simply memorize the numerical answer instead of having to learn
the appropriate equation and how to use that equation. Using the memorize
the numerical answer approach, the new ham has passed the test but is
unable
to calculate the dipole that he/she may actually want to build for
operating

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


You're right, Dee. That's the point I try to make...I rote memorized for
the test. Now, the argument for the above scenario could also be made that
the instrukshions can be looked up. I've built quite a few antennas. All
of them I used instrukshions for; and they all worked great.

Kim W5TIT


What would be wrong with requiring them to build a quarter wave dipole
that is resonate at a specified frequency as part of the test? That
is, if the test were changed to be written and performance based.

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 19:41:34 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 06:58:06 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
On 05 Sep 2003 02:58:33 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

No, the writen exams have a basis in the real world.

And what Value is that? The present writtens dont test for knowledge

Then what do you think that they test for?

Whether someone can remember correct answers to known questions.

Provided that the questions cover the things that you want the person
to know, this isn't an issue.


I think it is because retention of the material is minimal when rote
memorizing for a test. I couldn't tell you anything that was on the tests I
took--because the material was not learned, it was memorized. No examples
of application, no scenarios for cause and affect, etc.

Kim W5TIT

So, instead of the continual code/no-code debate, why aren't these
issues discussed here? If the test pool questions are such that the
requred areas of knowledge aren't addressed, changing those questions
(or perhaps the testing itself) would be an outstanding subject to be
discussed here. However, it's not usually discussed because all
threads lead to the code thing.

I have my own view on the code issue and it's not going to change
anymore than anyone else is going to change theirs. Our minds are
made up. However, I think that people on both sides of that
particular issue see areas where they would agree that the actual
testing needs change.

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 23:11:19 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
On 4 Sep 2003 05:25:03 -0700, (Brian) wrote:

Bob Brock wrote in message
...

On a related question, is it pro coders intention to boycott QSO's
with countries that have already dropped the code requirement for HF
work? Do you guys refuse to talk to Australians now?

In the event they have that country confirmed for DXCC, they will
boycott.

I was asking about you guys, not what they will do. Afterall, I've
boycotted General and above for about 9 years now because of
antiquated requirements.

This is called cutting off your nose to spite your face. That's a
ridiculous approach as your boycott does absolutely nothing to change the
situation.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Call it what you like. I weighed the benefit of HF against conforming
with a requirement that I didn't agree with. I felt that by
participating I was helping it to continue. There are a lot of hoops
that I would be willing to jump through to get HF privileges. Code
isn't one of them.

Call it a matter of personal ethics. Upgrading would have been the
easy way out.

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 19:46:51 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:


OK Kim, show me where I said that I would boycott someone because of
their code status and I'll get back with you. If you can't quote me
saying that, who made the jump in logic will be apparent.

The ball is in your court.


Hold up there, Bob Brock. SHOW ME where anyone has said you would "boycott
someone because of their code status." No one has said a word about you
doing that. YOU copped the attitude with the return of Jim's answer to you
and my remarks. No where in the above material has Jim or I said a word
about you boycotting anything. HOWEVER, in your earnest desire to be the
victim, you missed that all Jim or I have done is answer your question, with
nothing but sideline remarks back and forth to each other on the topic.

I don't know what ball you've served to my court--I am not playing on a
court, I am submitting remarks to a discussion.

Kim W5TIT


From elsewhere in the thread...

[I said]

Show me where I said that anyone proposed it and I'll consider
documenting it. I'm not in the habit of trying to document things
that I never said and I won't start with you.

[Dick Carroll said]

Yep. Another one of "them". He proposed it but he didn't propose it.

--------------------------------------
I admit that you may not agree with the above accusation. If so, say
so now and I'll apologize.

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 20:21:53 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .

I'll tell you guys why I'm here shortly, but conversing with twits
like you sure isn't it.


Oh!! Hold me back!! Now he's getting suspenseful!

Kim W5TIT

OK Kim, I'll keep you in suspense no more. Whether some like to admit
it or not, the senseless Morse Code debate will soon be history. I'm
here to see if the ham community will then move on to something really
important like revising the written tests and the test pools so that
when someone passes the test, they actually know how to use a radio,
set up or build an antenna, the protocols on the frequencies they are
authouized to use, how to minimize RF exposure and stay within safe
levels. If someone doesn't know what all those buttons do on their
radio, they shouldn't be licensed to use it. If they don't know
enough not to use repeater imputs for simplex operation, they
shouldn't be licensed to use the frequency.

It's my hope that when it is all over with Morse, that the ham
community will address the real important issues and Morse ain't it.
It is at best a scapegoat that hams can argue about while the more
important issues of licensing inept operators is ignored. IMO, the
ham community has some really screwed up priorities and hopefully,
with the endgame for code in sight, they may....just may come to grips
with some real issues.

I'm hopeful, but not expectant.

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 10:36:57 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Bob Brock wrote:

I didn't say that I boycotted any ham. I said that I boycotted a
licensing structure that I disagreed with. I'll QSO with any ham on
any band that we are both licensed to operate on. I even learned
code, but I won't upgrade until the requirement that I disagree with
is removed.

Not very interested in Ham radio eh?

Where did I say that Mike. Do you always have this much trouble with
facts?

However refusing to upgrade shows that your hate for code exceeds your love
of ham radio. While it's your choice, it seems pretty silly to me.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
BTW, here is why I learned Morse. Ironic isn't it?


http://www.google.com/groups?q=code+...icy+autho r:b
ob+author:brock&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&a
s_miny=1981&as_maxd=5&as_maxm=9&as_maxy=2001&selm= 34c35790.2985325%40news.hi
s.com&rnum=2

Over the last couple of years, I have made a few posts about my
feelings that code should not be a requirement for access to HF
frequencies. While I have not changed my mind on that position, I do
have a question/request from the pro-coders in the NG.

Recently an amature radio operator in my area was operated on for a
growth in his throat. The operation left him without a voice and he
has been using Morse Code on one of the local repeaters at about 5
WPM. Because of this, I now want to learn code so that I can
understand what he is saying.

So, would any of you pro-coders like to help a no-code tech upgrade?
I have to warn you in advance that, even after I learn the code, I
will still not support code testing as a requirement for HF access.
This is a personal decison that I am making because I want to do all
that I can to accomadate another person who wants to use amature radio
and this is the only way that he can do it.

Ok, here you've said you already know code but now want to learn code. This
is very confusing.

I would be more than happy to help anyone upgrade but no one has ever taken
me up on the offer.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE