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.

In article , Bob Brock
writes:

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.

The test pools are under constant revision. Anyone can submit proposed Q&A to
the QPC for consideration.

If someone doesn't know what all those buttons do on their
radio, they shouldn't be licensed to use it.

Then we'd need rig-specific licenses.

And what would you do about homebrew rigs like mine?

If they don't know
enough not to use repeater imputs for simplex operation, they
shouldn't be licensed to use the frequency.

Now that makes sense! But such things are already addressed in the question
pools.

The problem is that what needs to change is the test methodology. By lumping
all of the subjects into a one-size-fits-all written test, prospective hams can
have huge holes in their knowledge and still pass because of strenghts in other
areas. One answer to that is subelements.

The big problem is convincing FCC that testing at such a level is needed. For
more than 25 years, FCC's view towards amateur radio testing is to reduce the
license requirements and make the licenses easier to get, not harder. That's
one of the reasons some folks defend the code test so diligently - they know
that if it goes, it will not be replaced by any other test, nor will the test
methods used for the written be improved.

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.

Morse will continue to be a major part of amateur radio with or without a test.
The test, however, is symbolic of the changes that have been ongoing for a long
time.

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.

I think you will find that the exact same problems will arise in connection
with any move to increase license requirements. The "Smith chart solution" post
in another thread is only half in jest.

There are already folks like W5YI campaigning for less WRITTEN testing, saying
the Tech test is too hard.

73 de Jim, N2EY

There are already folks like W5YI campaigning for less WRITTEN testing,
saying
the Tech test is too hard.

73 de Jim, N2EY

The whole plan is rather simple, there main goal is to turn it into the license
in the Box Concept. Once Cw Testing is gone, the rest is easy.

(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , Bob Brock
writes:

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.

The test pools are under constant revision. Anyone can submit proposed Q&A to
the QPC for consideration.

Smith Charts, again?

If someone doesn't know what all those buttons do on their
radio, they shouldn't be licensed to use it.

Then we'd need rig-specific licenses.

Bad idea.

And what would you do about homebrew rigs like mine?

Lets not get all superior. Elecraft manuals are on-line.

If they don't know
enough not to use repeater imputs for simplex operation, they
shouldn't be licensed to use the frequency.

Now that makes sense! But such things are already addressed in the question
pools.

The problem is that what needs to change is the test methodology. By lumping
all of the subjects into a one-size-fits-all written test, prospective hams can
have huge holes in their knowledge and still pass because of strenghts in other
areas. One answer to that is subelements.

The big problem is convincing FCC that testing at such a level is needed. For
more than 25 years, FCC's view towards amateur radio testing is to reduce the
license requirements and make the licenses easier to get, not harder. That's
one of the reasons some folks defend the code test so diligently - they know
that if it goes, it will not be replaced by any other test, nor will the test
methods used for the written be improved.

But Jim, the Morse Exam was supposed to be a Morse Exam, not a "Lets
make it harder for people to get into amateur radio" Exam.

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.

Morse will continue to be a major part of amateur radio with or without a test.
The test, however, is symbolic of the changes that have been ongoing for a long
time.

The Morse Exam is symbolic of only the Morse Code. The VECs threw
that out the window when they subbed a Farnsworth Exam at 13-15WPM for
Morse at 5WPM as specified by the FCC in PArt 97.

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.

I think you will find that the exact same problems will arise in connection
with any move to increase license requirements. The "Smith chart solution" post
in another thread is only half in jest.

There are already folks like W5YI campaigning for less WRITTEN testing, saying
the Tech test is too hard.

The Tech test And privs are insane for an entry level license.

"Brian" wrote in message
m...
(N2EY) wrote in message
...
There are already folks like W5YI campaigning for less WRITTEN testing,
saying
the Tech test is too hard.

The Tech test And privs are insane for an entry level license.

I do hope you mean the test is insanely simple and the privileges insanely
high for the level of testing done.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
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.


This newsgroup is not the place to find intellectual, even-handed debate,
Bob. You're way off base with your concept if you think it is. It just
isn't. QRZ, eHam.net, or others maybe, but not this one...

And, lose the idea that the CW thing is going to die--it's not. If you are
that serious about wanting to change the wheel, then get involved heavily in
the ARRL and W5YI. Use those venues to affect change; but you'd better be
willing to take giant baby steps at a time--and I don't think you're that
serious. That's not an insult--few people have the fortitude, time, and
stamina it takes to turn a wheel. I tried for four years--and most of my
free time. Didn't work. Giant baby steps=hugely small steps at a time.

Kim W5TIT

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:52:07 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
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.


This newsgroup is not the place to find intellectual, even-handed debate,
Bob. You're way off base with your concept if you think it is. It just
isn't. QRZ, eHam.net, or others maybe, but not this one...

And, lose the idea that the CW thing is going to die--it's not. If you are
that serious about wanting to change the wheel, then get involved heavily in
the ARRL and W5YI. Use those venues to affect change; but you'd better be
willing to take giant baby steps at a time--and I don't think you're that
serious. That's not an insult--few people have the fortitude, time, and
stamina it takes to turn a wheel. I tried for four years--and most of my
free time. Didn't work. Giant baby steps=hugely small steps at a time.

Kim W5TIT

Kim, within a year the only debate in here about CW will be about the
consequences of it no longer being required. The whining will be
terrible for awhile, but like the no-code tech discussions, they will
eventually disappear.

However, you are right about one thing. This is not the place to look
without heavy filtering of those who are incapable of logical
discussion. I think I'll hang around for a while just to watch the
endgame.

Bob Brock wrote in message . ..

Kim, within a year the only debate in here about CW will be about the
consequences of it no longer being required. The whining will be
terrible for awhile, but like the no-code tech discussions, they will
eventually disappear.

Ooooh, huge, huge miscalcualtion, Brock. You give these guys way too
much credit. These guys have memories like an elephant, and they will
carrry the debate to their graves. Which is why I say that the only
cure are the actuarial tables. They are as unyielding as the PCTA,
till the bitter end.