In article , "Clint"
rattlehead@computronDOTnet writes:

Not "sour" at all.

But 8 countries (so far) is hardly "world wide".


hm, I see.... um, and you know the one and only
acceptable definition of "world wide" huh?

Nope.

However, I find it hard to believe that anyone would reasonably call 9
countries (*so far*) would constitute "world wide" when there are many more
countries yet to make a change.

I guess
i've missed where it's written that "world wide"
is composed of no less than 9 countries.

I guess i've missed where it's written that "world wide"
is composed of no more than 9 countries - out of how many?

The fact is, it would only take two seperate nations
to call something "multinational" or "international".. so,
would it comfort you a little more if I were to have said
"internationally, code testing is being dropped"?

Better yet - just say "So far, it's been removed in 9 countries".

you'd also do well to make a case study of how many hams
are represented by the nations that are dropping it. Many
nations that aren't are composed of nations with fewer than
a dozen hams.... and a few that are run by dicators
(lybia) have 1 and only 1 ham operator.... guess who.....

Then tell us - how many hams are represented by the 8 nations that are removing
code testing? How many hams are there in Singapore, Switzerland, the UK,
Belgium, Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Norway, and Ireland...?

Here's the country to watch: Japan. They've had an HF license with no code test
for decades. (It's their 4th class license). And they used to have the world's
largest amateur population.

But about 1995 their numbers started dropping and they continue to fall. Why?

Some say it's the Japanese economy
Some say it's the Internet
Some say it's cheap cell phones
And some say it's the code test for the other licenses.

But Japan still has code testing. Maybe that will change.

(Note that Japan issues separate operator and station licenses. *Operator*
licenses are free and never expire, so the operator license totals never
decline. *Station* licenses have to be renewed and cost money (120 yen).
Station licenses are declining rapidly.

However, I find it hard to believe that anyone would reasonably call 9
countries (*so far*) would constitute "world wide"

oh, okay. So I guess you'll be the standard to which "reasonable" will
be defined. Got ya.

If that's what you think it sez...dream on.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


Just like the 13 and 20wpm test... I myself said "if not this
time, then next time around" but it happened that time.

sooner or later, it's gone. THEN what will the coders
whine about?

Clint
KB5ZHT

Dick Carroll wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:


"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:


"IARU policy is to support the removal of Morse code testing as a
requirement
for an amateur license to operate on frequencies below 30 MHz," the IARU
Administrative Council resolved.

So read it Bill-- that means they support *an* amateur radio license

allowing HF

operation without code, NOT the removal of all code testing.

If that's what you think it sez...dream on.


It sez what it sez, Bill. And that's what it sez!

Oh yeah? Who sez it sez what it sez? 8^) - Mike KB3EIA -

Dee,

There are a few excellent articles which support your theory of code
learning at:

http://www.cq2k.com/articles.htm

73, Leo

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:26:02 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:

snip

Using a method that encourages people to count the dots and dashes erects a
barrier to going on to higher speeds. Why use a method that creates
hardships that will cause a person to have to start over with a new learning
process if they should want to use it? The teaching and learning of any
subject should be approached from the point of view that the person may
someday want to use the material taught not from the viewpoint of passing a
test on it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Leo" wrote in message
...
Dee,

There are a few excellent articles which support your theory of code
learning at:

http://www.cq2k.com/articles.htm

73, Leo

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:26:02 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:

snip

Using a method that encourages people to count the dots and dashes erects
a
barrier to going on to higher speeds. Why use a method that creates
hardships that will cause a person to have to start over with a new
learning
process if they should want to use it? The teaching and learning of any
subject should be approached from the point of view that the person may
someday want to use the material taught not from the viewpoint of passing
a
test on it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


No that page does not really support me. It advocates the "sounds-like"
method which is also poor and creates another barrier. The "sounds-like"
approach will get you past the 5wpm easily but then blocks you at about
15wpm more or less. As discussed in "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy,"
I advocate learning by direct association of the letter to the sound to
build a reflex. Any method that requires additional associations, will
create a plateau at some point. To get past that point, you've got to ditch
the association.

Also the page says nothing about how often and how long to practice. I note
that they talk about taking a year to get to 5wpm. That's way too long and
will discourage people. With proper methods and the proper frequency of
practice, it should only take about 30 hours to get to 5wpm (see "Morse
Code, The Essential Language").

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Leo,

It looks like you are one of the lucky ones who shake the word associations
easily and move on. Other people do hit a barrier as they find it hard to
get rid of the word associations. So in my opinion (and I freely admit it
is an opinion) that it is better not to risk the word association approach
even though it may take a little longer that way.

By the way the 30 hours is an average so that is what I quote to people so
they don't get prematurely discouraged. Some will take less (like you) and
some will take longer (like me). The good thing is that once a person gets
to 30 hours they can see visible progress even if they are one of the people
who needs a little more time. So once they are at a point they see
progress, they are willing to take the time to finish as they know they can
do it.

And I like to teaching things from the point of view that the real goal is
to provide the basis for future advancement and use rather than setting the
goal as passing a test. Tests are merely a tool to check the effectiveness
of the teaching and to check the effectiveness of the learning. Although
there are other ways to do this checking, tests are the most efficient.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Leo" wrote in message
...
Dee,

Well, it does support your point on not trying to learn the code a a
series of dots and dashes - but agreed, it may not be as good as
method as straight letter association for high speed operation.

Guess it depends on the end goal - if you intend to go above 15 WPM,
then this may not be the best method. If you want to pass a 5 WPM
test and get on the air, it can be done using this method in well
under 30 hours. (that's how I did it - 1/2 hour a day for three
weeks).

With practice, I no longer find myself using the word associations as
much as I did initially - I'm just writing down the letter received,
and hearing words like "the" as words, not letters. So, is there
really a disadvantage to learning by this method? Perceived, perhaps,
but I haven't hit a wall yet. Passed the test, though - that was the
goal! :)

73, Leo


On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 14:48:49 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"Leo" wrote in message
.. .
Dee,

There are a few excellent articles which support your theory of code
learning at:

http://www.cq2k.com/articles.htm

73, Leo

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:26:02 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:

snip

Using a method that encourages people to count the dots and dashes
erects
a
barrier to going on to higher speeds. Why use a method that creates
hardships that will cause a person to have to start over with a new
learning
process if they should want to use it? The teaching and learning of
any
subject should be approached from the point of view that the person
may
someday want to use the material taught not from the viewpoint of
passing
a
test on it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


No that page does not really support me. It advocates the "sounds-like"
method which is also poor and creates another barrier. The "sounds-like"
approach will get you past the 5wpm easily but then blocks you at about
15wpm more or less. As discussed in "The Art and Skill of
Radiotelegraphy,"
I advocate learning by direct association of the letter to the sound to
build a reflex. Any method that requires additional associations, will
create a plateau at some point. To get past that point, you've got to
ditch
the association.

Also the page says nothing about how often and how long to practice. I
note
that they talk about taking a year to get to 5wpm. That's way too long
and
will discourage people. With proper methods and the proper frequency of
practice, it should only take about 30 hours to get to 5wpm (see "Morse
Code, The Essential Language").

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee,

That makes perfect sense - I wasn't aware that word associations could
cause a problem later on.

I guess that we belong to different schools of thought regarding the
CW testing for HF band access - you see the goal as continual
development of CW skills, with the test being a measurement of
progress towards that goal. I viewed it more as a hurdle to be
overcome so that I could gain full access to HF - and do not plan on
becoming proficient in CW past that goal (may change, however - I'm
getting rather fond of CW, especially when working DX in marginal band
conditions....).

I think that your approach is actually the right way to go - in
retrospect, it would have been better for me to 'aim high and miss,
than aim low and make it", if I do decide to go on and build speed.

Enjoyed the dialogue on this - thanks, Dee!

73, Leo

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:20:10 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:

Leo,

It looks like you are one of the lucky ones who shake the word associations
easily and move on. Other people do hit a barrier as they find it hard to
get rid of the word associations. So in my opinion (and I freely admit it
is an opinion) that it is better not to risk the word association approach
even though it may take a little longer that way.

By the way the 30 hours is an average so that is what I quote to people so
they don't get prematurely discouraged. Some will take less (like you) and
some will take longer (like me). The good thing is that once a person gets
to 30 hours they can see visible progress even if they are one of the people
who needs a little more time. So once they are at a point they see
progress, they are willing to take the time to finish as they know they can
do it.

And I like to teaching things from the point of view that the real goal is
to provide the basis for future advancement and use rather than setting the
goal as passing a test. Tests are merely a tool to check the effectiveness
of the teaching and to check the effectiveness of the learning. Although
there are other ways to do this checking, tests are the most efficient.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Leo" wrote in message
.. .
Dee,

Well, it does support your point on not trying to learn the code a a
series of dots and dashes - but agreed, it may not be as good as
method as straight letter association for high speed operation.

Guess it depends on the end goal - if you intend to go above 15 WPM,
then this may not be the best method. If you want to pass a 5 WPM
test and get on the air, it can be done using this method in well
under 30 hours. (that's how I did it - 1/2 hour a day for three
weeks).

With practice, I no longer find myself using the word associations as
much as I did initially - I'm just writing down the letter received,
and hearing words like "the" as words, not letters. So, is there
really a disadvantage to learning by this method? Perceived, perhaps,
but I haven't hit a wall yet. Passed the test, though - that was the
goal! :)

73, Leo


On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 14:48:49 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"Leo" wrote in message
.. .
Dee,

There are a few excellent articles which support your theory of code
learning at:

http://www.cq2k.com/articles.htm

73, Leo

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:26:02 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:

snip

Using a method that encourages people to count the dots and dashes
erects
a
barrier to going on to higher speeds. Why use a method that creates
hardships that will cause a person to have to start over with a new
learning
process if they should want to use it? The teaching and learning of
any
subject should be approached from the point of view that the person
may
someday want to use the material taught not from the viewpoint of
passing
a
test on it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


No that page does not really support me. It advocates the "sounds-like"
method which is also poor and creates another barrier. The "sounds-like"
approach will get you past the 5wpm easily but then blocks you at about
15wpm more or less. As discussed in "The Art and Skill of
Radiotelegraphy,"
I advocate learning by direct association of the letter to the sound to
build a reflex. Any method that requires additional associations, will
create a plateau at some point. To get past that point, you've got to
ditch
the association.

Also the page says nothing about how often and how long to practice. I
note
that they talk about taking a year to get to 5wpm. That's way too long
and
will discourage people. With proper methods and the proper frequency of
practice, it should only take about 30 hours to get to 5wpm (see "Morse
Code, The Essential Language").

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Leo" wrote in message
...


Dee,

That makes perfect sense - I wasn't aware that word associations could
cause a problem later on.

I guess that we belong to different schools of thought regarding the
CW testing for HF band access - you see the goal as continual
development of CW skills, with the test being a measurement of
progress towards that goal. I viewed it more as a hurdle to be
overcome so that I could gain full access to HF - and do not plan on
becoming proficient in CW past that goal (may change, however - I'm
getting rather fond of CW, especially when working DX in marginal band
conditions....).


This is not an unusual phenomena by the way. People who thought they would
never use it end up falling in love with it. The next five years or so are
going to have those marginal band conditions on a regular basis. Plus if
the QRP (very low power) bug bites you, code goes hand in hand with it. Low
band work (80 and 160 meters) can also draw a person into code for similar
reasons.

I think that your approach is actually the right way to go - in
retrospect, it would have been better for me to 'aim high and miss,
than aim low and make it", if I do decide to go on and build speed.

Enjoyed the dialogue on this - thanks, Dee!

73, Leo


Me too. I wish more dialogues could be like this. Look forward to hearing
you on HF.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Hello, gang.

I just read through the tread and would offer this - I had learned dots and
dashes back in 1962. I passed my novice, but couldn't pass 13. In 1964,
due to a long time friend of mine, I purchased a code record, got to 18
words per minute, and obtained my general. Then I discovered I enjoyed
code. I passed the extra in 1966 along with my commercial radiotelegraph
and 1st radiotelephone license and in 1967 handed in a perfect copy on a
typewriter at 40 words per minute in the Navy. There is a problem with the
dot/dash/mental table which will really hurt when one tries to get past 10
words per minute. Been there, done that LOL

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/03