|
Cw Contest, NCI members pse ignore.
As a member of NCI, I have used land-line Morse as well as international
Morse. You wouldn't understand. It's a ham radio thing. :) 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "shephed" wrote in message ... If your not a retarded mouth breeding NCI member, there is a CW contest going one right now. If you are a retarded mouth breeding NCI member, then never mind, it's a Ham Radio thing. You would not understand. 10-73's! --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/03 |
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
... As a member of NCI 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA Say it ain't so, Jim. ;-) -- 73 de Bert WA2SI |
"shephed" wrote in message . ..
If your not a retarded mouth breeding NCI member, there is a CW contest going one right now. If you are a retarded mouth breeding NCI member, then never mind, it's a Ham Radio thing. You would not understand. 10-73's! Rev. Jim is going to chastise you for your dirty mouth. Oh, never mind, it's a PCTA thing. |
"Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote in message ... When I took my drivers test years ago to get a license to drive an automobile, the never required me to prove that I could hitch a horse team to a wagon. The youngsters today, likewise, tell me that the departments of motor vehicles around the country do not ask them to prove they are proficient with buggy whips. Enough said. Clint The youngsters today still tell me that they must learn to use a pencil and learn to write script. Typing and word processing are taught AFTER they have learned to write manually. Enough said. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote in message ... He's trying to blanket the topic anyway.... NCI isn't trying to stop or ban the use of morse code on the airwaves, they simply understand that the testing of morse code no longer falls within the scope and original intent of ham radio.. which is to keep the art of radio alive and expand it's use, etc., and, well, logic there says that if morse code is being abandoned left and right in the radio world in favor of new means of communication, than you you are no longer adhereing or supporting this doctrine of ham radio. Plus, the real reason the old buzzards want to keep it around is simple but non well-founded.. "I did it, so YOU should have to!" Clint KB5ZHT Great job Clint! You spoke the words exactly as written by Cpt. Carl. You would make a good Liberal, you follow orders so well. You might want to call the DNC and see if they could use your during the next election. Good luck! 10-73's! |
"Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote in message ... When I took my drivers test years ago to get a license to drive an automobile, the never required me to prove that I could hitch a horse team to a wagon. The youngsters today, likewise, tell me that the departments of motor vehicles around the country do not ask them to prove they are proficient with buggy whips. Enough said. Clint Clint my man, you scored again! You must be Cpt. Carls right hand job man. You quote their Bible so well. Don't look now, but Ted Kennedy likes the way you don't think for yourself..... 10-73's! |
|
The youngsters today still tell me that they must learn to use a pencil and learn to write script. Typing and word processing are taught AFTER they have learned to write manually. Enough said. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE yes, if we were talking about a degree in literature from a school or college, which we are not. Clint KB5ZHT |
"Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote in message ... LOL! A good liberal? you have NO idea..... I'm as right wing and conservative as they come... evidently you don't read my other posts or in other NG's either, where i'm referred to as the "jim birch devil" Clint KB5ZHT They just don't get it (the PCTAs that is). Ending morse testing should happen because there is NO logical/rational reason for government to continue mandating morse knowledge of all HF licensed hams. Getting the government out of a "morse code affirmative action program" by ending mandated morse is far more a conservative concept than a liberal one. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Clint wrote: He's trying to blanket the topic anyway.... NCI isn't trying to stop or ban the use of morse code on the airwaves, they simply understand that the testing of morse code no longer falls within the scope and original intent of ham radio.. which is to keep the art of radio alive and expand it's use, The operative phrase here is "expand its use", not diminish it by refusing to learn the Most Basic Radiocommunications Mode. It is NOT refusing to learn...it is simply allowing the choice to be made by each individual. There is no reason for everyone on HF to know morse as was well shown by the lack of any credible reasons given to the FCC in 98-143. etc., and, well, logic there says that if morse code is being abandoned left and right in the radio world in favor of new means of communication, When you finally get around to getting a radio that will actually work on HF, take a listen to the lower end of any band and report back what you find. Then you might want to 'accurize' that statemtent. Let's see...a mix of morse and data. Your point? The choice then, depending on what one wants to do, is to learn and use morse IF they want to make those contacts. If not, who cares? So what? than you you are no longer adhereing or supporting this doctrine of ham radio. And of course YOU and NCI are, to hear your story. How is he or NCI not adhereing to the doctrine of ham radio? WRONG story, full of total inaccuracies which you have no interest in correcting. Who do you suppose is involved in 'advancing late digital modes'? CLUE: It's not Carl Stevenson, Chief Executive of NCI, you see he's too busy ratchetjawing on SSB now that he's finally found a license that allows it! Even if true, so what? Plus, the real reason the old buzzards want to keep it around is simple but non well-founded.. "I did it, so YOU should have to!" There is an unintended element of truth in what you say. At least you admit it. that's some progress. WE had to learn radio's most basic mode, and there exists no good reason why you shouldn't have to learn it also if you aspire to a full-privileges ham raduio license. BZZZT - WRONG!! The burden of proof was on you and other PCTA's to justify exactly WHY hams should learn it. You failed to do so during the 98-143 comment phase as is well documented in the FCC's R&O for 98-143. Even if I take your challenge at face value, the simple answer is that the reason every HF shouldn't have to learn morse is because there's no justifiable reason, rational or need for it. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote in message ... LOL! A good liberal? you have NO idea..... I'm as right wing and conservative as they come... evidently you don't read my other posts or in other NG's either, where i'm referred to as the "jim birch devil" Clint KB5ZHT You can't be a conservative, we believe in earning your way in life, not having "things" given to you because you are to lazy to EARN them. Sound familiar Liberal boy? Conservative my ass! 10-73's! |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message link.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message . com... "Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote in message ... When I took my drivers test years ago to get a license to drive an automobile, the never required me to prove that I could hitch a horse team to a wagon. The youngsters today, likewise, tell me that the departments of motor vehicles around the country do not ask them to prove they are proficient with buggy whips. Enough said. Clint The youngsters today still tell me that they must learn to use a pencil and learn to write script. Typing and word processing are taught AFTER they have learned to write manually. Enough said. Bad anology since morse isn't a foundation to any other body of radio knowledge and/or language skills or writing skills. Manual printing and cursive aren't a foundation for any other skills either. All notes can now be take by digital recorders or entered into a PDA. Bills can be paid on line eliminating the need to sign checks. Debit cards can be used in stores and you enter your PIN number. Credit cards could be converted to that system too. Manual printing and cursive can be totally eliminated as they are not needed as a foundation for any language skills since one can learn to read without writing. Composition doesn't need manual skills either. It can all be done on the typewriter or word processor. Let's have a go at "No Handwriting International". Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
In article , "Steve Stone"
writes: I think anyone who is a train engineer should pass a test for operating a coal fired steam locomotive The term usually used is "locomotive engineer" If the railroad they intend to work for uses coal fired steam locomotives, learning how to run them would be a good idea. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , "Clint"
rattlehead@computronDOTnet writes: sending and receiving CW isn't a building block to anything else..... Yes, it is. First, it's a building block to the use of the mode on the air. Although other services have pretty much stopped using Morse Code, hams use it extensivley, and an amateur license is permission to operate an amateur station, not a station in another service. Note that the Morse Code tests are at a very basic level. They're entry-level, nothing more. Second, if someone wants to actually design and build radio equipment, having skill in Morse Code permits them to use almost anything from very simple to very sophisticated equipment to good advantage. Would you expect a newcomer to radio to build an SSB transceiver as a first project? now, the electrical principals of what a CW transmission is, and a knowledge test of that is a good idea, but that's comparing apples and oranges. Why should there be *any* written test on theory if all a person wants to do is operate manufactured radios? If someone doesn't want to build a rig, why should they have to memorize all those symbols, diagrams and formulas? I think most of the PCTA is being disingenuous when they come up with "good reasons" to keep CW testing alive; Why? I think the true deeper reason lies somewhere in the "I had to do it so everybody should" relm, as i've stated before. You can think what you want, but you're mistaken on that account. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: "Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote in message ... The youngsters today still tell me that they must learn to use a pencil and learn to write script. Typing and word processing are taught AFTER they have learned to write manually. Enough said. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE yes, if we were talking about a degree in literature from a school or college, which we are not. Clint KB5ZHT This is elementary school, middle school, and high school. Perhaps I should have used the word cursive instead of script as you seem to have totally misinterpreted my statement to mean something else. Students must learn printing and writing in cursive before they are taught typing and word processing. Yep. And they must learn to do basic arithmetic *by hand* even though calculators and computers are inexpensive and widely available. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
sending and receiving CW isn't a building block to anything else..... Yes, it is. okay, time to fish or cut bait... in what way is CW a building block to the operation of a ham radio that you can't say about so many other more modern, up to date and applicable modes? I mean, ORIGINALLY, the first communication that was EVER sent was a spark with a spark generator. The do not require you to show profeciency in building a spark generator and using it; if you say "well, we just SKIP that step and go to CW", then you can say that about EVERY step along the way of learning ham radio. Clint KB5ZHT |
Let's have a go at "No Handwriting International". Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Exaggeration to the ridiculous. spurious analogies are in the PCTA handbook, bill. Clint KB5ZHT |
If the railroad they intend to work for uses coal fired steam locomotives, learning how to run them would be a good idea. yes, exactly. I guess it's too bad that there aren't that many coal fired steam locomotives being used anymore. Clint KB5ZHT |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
link.net... "shephed" wrote in message ... "Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote in message ... LOL! A good liberal? you have NO idea..... I'm as right wing and conservative as they come... evidently you don't read my other posts or in other NG's either, where i'm referred to as the "jim birch devil" Clint KB5ZHT You can't be a conservative, we believe in earning your way in life, not having "things" given to you because you are to lazy to EARN them. Sound familiar Liberal boy? Conservative my ass! Earning your way is fine...as long as the requirement(s) is relevent...that's were you lose your argument. Well Bill, I'm on the bottom of 40 right now listening to a band FULL of irrelevance. hihi -- 73 de Bert WA2SI |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Clint wrote: I'm sorry but that is YOUR oppinion. What counts is the decision of those in authority, namely the FCC. Son, you might want to learn somewhere along the way that opinion is sometimes congruent with fact, sometimes not. I. you're not my father, do not call me son. II. the second part of your remark has not the slightest shred of relavance to anything. No matter what the FCC says or does, it can't alter facts. You are so correct. However, what it DOES is make rules and laws. Therefore, if they make a rule that code practical tests are no longer valid nor necissary to aquire a ham radio license, then the bottom line is that there will not be any further code tests. It is YOUR oppinion that somebody is not a fully qualified ham without code testing. It is FACT that they are a fully qualified ham in the eyes of the FCC if they meet all the requirements the FCC sets forth; now, THAT is a fact. And nowhere have they ever said that a no-code license is a fully qualified ham. excuse me? then what is the little piece of paper your issued with a callsign when you meet all the requirements set forth by the FCC to acquire one? In fact, the retired Chief of the Amateur and Citizen's Division of FCC (now called something else) stated in his comments on the NCVEC pettion (which BTW he helped write) that it was an oxymoron to expect an Extra class ham to be a expert on ham radio if he doesn't know Morse code. and that is the RETIRED chief's oppinion. the oppinions of the current members of the FCC are what counts. Not his. Thus he supports a code test for Extras. and he's retired, and no longer a voting member of the FCC. Which can't change facts. Facts are immutable. yes, like it is a fact that the FCC makes the laws regarding the use of ham radio bands and the requirements to do so. NOT retired members. Live with it. Any ham not able to operate CW is simply and factually not fully qualified. that is your oppinion. I tell you what; next time you're operating a motor vehicle, drive as fast as you can... I mean pedal to the medal; do over 100mph if you can. when a policeman pulls you over and hands you a ticket, then tell him "I am driving at a perfectly safe speed for my skills. Your oppinion and that of the judge that I am about to have to go in front of are not relavant. It is an immutable fact that a driver is not a good driver unless he can do 100 without wrecking, which I did. That's a fact, and you can't do anything about it." and just see what happens. Clint KB5ZHT a code-tested ham who, regardless of the fact, does not believe in code testing. |
NOTHING has changed about the USE of Morse code, from spark to today's rigs-which aren't simple CW generators, BTW, then why not test the use of spark generators, thier constructions, etc? it's a "basic", right? since you seem to have missed that (at least in the case of most modern rigs). It's the MODE, the requirement to selftrain to learn to use it, that remains just as valid today as ever. just what century do you live in? haven't you heard that even in the military they are pulling away from morse code use? Of course technical improvements in equipement have enhanced the use of Morse as they have other modes, but the simple requirement to learn to use it remains, as always. FACT! Nope. your oppinion. MAN you need to learn the difference between a fact of life and your oppinion on a topic. Nobody will buy your circular thinking of "I said it, so it MUST be so!" thinking. Clint KB5ZHT |
Ham radio isn't about engineering, then why is there a knowledge test on circuits? Ham radio isn't about metalurgy pr plastics technology, Clint, it's about OPERATING . and if you choose NOT to operate CW, then why test it if it's soley about OPERATING???? you're mad because YOU had to do it, bottom line. |
I guess it's too bad that there aren't that many coal fired steam locomotives being used anymore. On the othe hand, there IS very MUCH Morse code being used on ham radio! and a LOT more FM, ssb, AM, packet, etc too. Clint KB5ZHT |
"Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote in message ...
many people that are in or supports the doctrines of PCTA keeps spouting "basics", and draws an anology to either handwriting... and I say this; does this mean you could NEVER write cursive if you were never taught print? could you NOT be taught cursive directly without first being taught print? No. OK, fine. But why should any sort of manual writing skill be mandatory in a world full of keyboards? However, it's simply another skill that can be taught, and they do, and that's fine. Why? Why not teach keyboarding from Day One? Our children will spend far more time at keyboards than writing. However, they do not look at CW the same way; it's pass/fail, not merely a percentage of test that needs to be passed. If it were up to me, there would be several written tests (or the written would be split up into separately-graded parts) as well as a code test. Do you think they would support a system where you had to be tested on CW, if an only if you wanted to use CW on the CW part of the bands? Heh, of COURSE not. There are no CW-only parts of the HF/MF bands. None at all. That is where thier anology fails. The art of CW needs to be tested with a practical test if you are to use and learn CW, but not necissarily ham radio. I would have supported a system like that, where if you wanted to operate CW on the lower half of the band you had to be tested on if first, but of course, that was out of the question. Your opinion noted. Others have a different opinion. They do not, however, likewise, first test people on knowing how to build a double sideband carrier transmission if they want to operate AM; they do not require you to show how to get a microphone, talk on it, and recieve the response on a speaker if you want to use frequency modulated radiotelephone, or single sideband carrier suppressed radiotelephone. Perhaps they should. But they DO want to force CW on people that don't necissarily have any interest in operating it. "basics" arguments fail; "selftrained skill" fails because everything is a selftrained skill, why put the emphasis on an outdated mode instead of testing selftrained skills on new, modern modes of communication? Then answer this question: Why should people who are not interested in building or fixing their radios have to learn all that theory stuff for the written tests? Why are all hams tested on all sorts of stuff they are not interested in? When I first started out in ham radio, all I wanted to do was join the folks I heard on 75 meter AM. Yet in order to get the license, I had to learn not only Morse Code, but all sorts of theory and regulatory stuff that had absolutely nothing to do with 75 meter AM. Why was I forced to learn all that? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
There are no CW-only parts of the HF/MF bands. None at all. You'd better check your frequency priviledge/allocation charts. The lower half of the HF bands except for 160 meters is "cw/fsk only".... Your opinion noted. Others have a different opinion. yes, agreed. However, it would seem that MOST oppinions worldwide are on the side of removing code tests. They do not, however, likewise, first test people on knowing how to build a double sideband carrier transmission if they want to operate AM; they do not require you to show how to get a microphone, talk on it, and recieve the response on a speaker if you want to use frequency modulated radiotelephone, or single sideband carrier suppressed radiotelephone. Perhaps they should. but they don't. When I first started out in ham radio, all I wanted to do was join the folks I heard on 75 meter AM. Yet in order to get the license, I had to learn not only Morse Code, but all sorts of theory and regulatory stuff that had absolutely nothing to do with 75 meter AM. Why was I forced to learn all that? I really don't know. Thank heaven they've gone a long way to fix the problem, and may make the final move here soon to remove the scourge of CW tests all together. Clint KB5ZHT |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Clint wrote: If you refuse to learn how to handle radio's most basic mode you can never be able to regard yourself as fully qualified in ham radio communciations. That's just the Way it Is. Live with it. I'm sorry but that is YOUR oppinion. What counts is the decision of those in authority, namely the FCC. Son, you might want to learn somewhere along the way that opinion is sometimes congruent with fact, sometimes not. No matter what the FCC says or does, it can't alter facts. And nowhere have they ever said that a no-code license is a fully qualified ham. So far the UK, Netherlands and several other countries have done exactly that. Once all code testing is ended by the FCC will you accept that action as supporting the FCC position that morse isn't needed to be a "fully qualified ham?" Additionally, I don't recall anywhere seeing any FCC reference to the concept of a "fully qualified ham". Is that a new license class? In fact, the retired Chief of the Amateur and Citizen's Division of FCC (now called something else) stated in his comments on the NCVEC pettion (which BTW he helped write) that it was an oxymoron to expect an Extra class ham to be a expert on ham radio if he doesn't know Morse code. Thus he supports a code test for Extras. Does he speak for the FCC today? And it should be obvious, to anyone who actually owns and uses a thought process - when Morse code is a widely-used mode within ham radio, *anyone* who can't use it simply and factually *cannot* be a fully qualified ham - No matter what license or privileges the FCC gives them. What a crock. On that basis, if you can't speak Spanish, Chineese, and several other languages commonly used by hams around the globe, then you shouldn't be considered "qualified" either. And YOU will have to live with the decisions THEY make. Which can't change facts. Facts are immutable. Live with it. Any ham not able to operate CW is simply and factually not fully qualified. Your Opinion yes, a fact? Not at all. And that's an opinion I'm entitled to. Cheers as always, Bill K2UNK |
|
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Clint wrote: IF morse (i.e. radiotelegraphy) had any basis as a foundation for higher learning of radio concepts, principles or theory then it would be a requirement of engineering students...which it has never been to my knowledge anywhere. And that's where your argument falls flat on its face. The point is operational, on the air *communications *. It's called OPERATING. snip you just employed the "diversion" tactic. he was totally correct; if the basic fundamentals of radio, which you have been totally parroting until now, required it, then it would be a necissary requirement for all basic electrical engineering, and it is not. It's the BASICS, Bill. As YOU see it. Why aren't new hams required to show they now how to forge/smelt copper wire, produce polyethelene insulation, make aluminum out of scratch for antennas, etc., if BASICS were the name of everything? Clint your ignorance is showing again. Ham radio isn't about engineering, its about operating ham radio. Sure, one CAN use engineering if one wishes, and someone surely had to do some engineering to produce the gear we all use. But if Bill's comment holds any water at all then the tests would have been becoming harder instead of becominig giveaways. Ham radio isn't about metalurgy pr plastics technology, Clint, it's about OPERATING . But you amd Bill already knew that, it's jsut your NCI/CB attitudes showing through, again. You can always tell when Dick runs out of arguments...resort to cheap namecalling. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
In article , "Clint"
rattlehead@computronDOTnet writes: If the railroad they intend to work for uses coal fired steam locomotives, learning how to run them would be a good idea. yes, exactly. Then you agree that the skills tested for should be those actually used. I guess it's too bad that there aren't that many coal fired steam locomotives being used anymore. They had their good and bad features. The main reason most US railroads stopped using them in the 1950s was simple economics, nothing more. The total operating cost of diesel electric locomotives, in terms of ton-miles per locomotive operating dollar, was simply better. The diesels themselves were more expensive to buy, and so was their fuel. Parts were also more expensive. But the diesel-electrics did not require water, did not generate ashes or cinders, and could be left idling in cold weather without much attention. US railroads then were (and most still are) private companies whose purpose is to make a profit. Ham radio is completely different. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Wonderfl, then you'll learn code if you want to participate there. If not, nothing lost. More to the point, is there any minimum code speed that should be banned from the CW/data segments at the bottom of the bands? Cheers, Bill K2UNK Excellent point.... yet another reason why specific code speed testing is irrelavent. AND, for that matter, it leads to the next argument... what of those people that have true disabilities and cannot pass a CW test, and have a physician's written excuse, when they had faster than 5 wmp testing? they were NOT required to take a 13 or 20 wpm test... yet, somehow, they were accepted into the world of ham radio as legal operators. How is it POSSIBLE that they did this without having ever passed a profeciency test @ high speed CW? Oh, that's right. Because it's not really that necessary in the first place. Clint KB5ZHT -- -- Top nations that fund UN treasury, in descending order... United States: 22% Japan: 19.6% Germany: 9.8% France: 6.5% UK: 5.6% Italy 5.1% Canada: 2.6% Spain: 2.5% Russia isn't even in this top 8 list. France, Russia and Germany, COMBINED, do not contribute as much to the UN as does the United States...... -- |
So far the UK, Netherlands and several other countries have done exactly that. Once all code testing is ended by the FCC will you accept that action as supporting the FCC position that morse isn't needed to be a "fully qualified ham?" I hear belgium just got rid of it's last CW testing, in another newsgroup. Additionally, I don't recall anywhere seeing any FCC reference to the concept of a "fully qualified ham". Is that a new license class? Neither have I... I already posted a remark to that effect, too... ....that is, has the FCC been "lieing" when it passed out many test certificates giving an operator his licence class and thus frequency priviledges? have they been saying "um, you can talk on the radio, but you're really not qualified to do it"? In fact, the retired Chief of the Amateur and Citizen's Division of FCC (now called something else) stated in his comments on the NCVEC pettion snip PCTA dribble Does he speak for the FCC today? BINGO! And it should be obvious, to anyone who actually owns and uses a thought process - when Morse code is a widely-used mode within ham radio, *anyone* who can't use it simply and factually *cannot* be a fully qualified ham - No matter what license or privileges the FCC gives them. What a crock. EXACTLY.... he's inserting his "oppinion" for "fact". And YOU will have to live with the decisions THEY make. Which can't change facts. Facts are immutable. Live with it. Any ham not able to operate CW is simply and factually not fully qualified. Your Opinion yes, a fact? Not at all. And that's an opinion I'm entitled to. Cheers as always, Bill K2UNK Yet another voice of reason. And there are more of them out there on this side of the argument than the PCTA's. Clint KB5ZHT |
You can always tell when Dick runs out of arguments...resort to cheap namecalling. Cheers, Bill K2UNK I'm use to it.... it's the same thing I run into in other newsgroups during political debates. As soon as "the other side" runs out of arguments, I start getting the following remarks, and in no certain order... s__thead hatemonger shut the f__k up fascist moron why don't you take a _____ and shove it _____ until you _____.... ....plus a few other directives instructing me to take objects and do things with them with certain parts of my body, most of which aren't physically possible but are quite colorful. Clint KB5ZHT |
Dick Carroll wrote:
Clint wrote: some snippage I mean, ORIGINALLY, the first communication that was EVER sent was a spark with a spark generator. The do not require you to show profeciency in building a spark generator and using it; if you say "well, we just SKIP that step and go to CW", then you can say that about EVERY step along the way of learning ham radio. Aw Clint, surely you're better informed than that...arent you? And Clint says Dee was spurious? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Bill Sohl wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet writes: sending and receiving CW isn't a building block to anything else..... Yes, it is. First, it's a building block to the use of the mode on the air. Come on Jim. that's a self fullfilling argument. My point, and I know you know this, is that morse knowledge is not needed in any manner as a foundation, stepping stone, or whatever to any body or radio knowledge or concepts. Come on Bill! NO knowledge of much of anything is needed as a foundation. Thousands of CB ops say otherwise! - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote in message ...
Ham radio isn't about engineering, then why is there a knowledge test on circuits? Ham radio isn't about metalurgy pr plastics technology, Clint, it's about OPERATING . and if you choose NOT to operate CW, then why test it if it's soley about OPERATING???? you're mad because YOU had to do it, bottom line. Yep, in a nutshell. When the gubmn't said, "Jump!" DICK replied, "How High?" Now he feels foolish. |
In article , Dick Carroll
writes: Clint wrote: IF morse (i.e. radiotelegraphy) had any basis as a foundation for higher learning of radio concepts, principles or theory then it would be a requirement of engineering students...which it has never been to my knowledge anywhere. And that's where your argument falls flat on its face. The point is operational, on the air *communications *. It's called OPERATING. snip you just employed the "diversion" tactic. he was totally correct; if the basic fundamentals of radio, which you have been totally parroting until now, required it, then it would be a necissary requirement for all basic electrical engineering, and it is not. It's the BASICS, Bill. As YOU see it. Why aren't new hams required to show they now how to forge/smelt copper wire, produce polyethelene insulation, make aluminum out of scratch for antennas, etc., if BASICS were the name of everything? Clint your ignorance is showing again. Ham radio isn't about engineering, its about operating ham radio. Sure, one CAN use engineering if one wishes, and someone surely had to do some engineering to produce the gear we all use. But if Bill's comment holds any water at all then the tests would have been becoming harder instead of becominig giveaways. Ham radio isn't about metalurgy pr plastics technology, Clint, it's about OPERATING . But you amd Bill already knew that, it's jsut your NCI/CB attitudes showing through, again. CB radio is all about OPERATING, senior. No morsemanship needed in CB radio... you're mad because YOU had to do it. Tattoo is just mad. He can't get many to pop-to and salute his mighty macho morsemanship skills which were very useful in the 1930s. Poor guy. :-) LHA |
In article , "Clint"
rattlehead@computronDOTnet writes: Let's have a go at "No Handwriting International". Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Exaggeration to the ridiculous. spurious analogies are in the PCTA handbook, bill. Clint KB5ZHT Heh heh heh...too bad that "spark" is outlawed. PCTA types would demand that ALL hams know "spark" theory and operating skills if it was still legal... :-) LHA |
In article , Dick Carroll
writes: Clint wrote: If you refuse to learn how to handle radio's most basic mode you can never be able to regard yourself as fully qualified in ham radio communciations. That's just the Way it Is. Live with it. I'm sorry but that is YOUR oppinion. What counts is the decision of those in authority, namely the FCC. Son, you might want to learn somewhere along the way that opinion is sometimes congruent with fact, sometimes not. "Congruent?" :-) No matter what the FCC says or does, it can't alter facts. And nowhere have they ever said that a no-code license is a fully qualified ham. The FDA qualifies ham, senior. The FCC does NOT use the term "ham" in Part 97. That's the LAW. For NEW amateur radio licensees, the FCC "qualifies" radio amateurs in three license classes. One of those is the "no-code-test" Technician. In fact, the retired Chief of the Amateur and Citizen's Division of FCC (now called something else) stated in his comments on the NCVEC pettion (which BTW he helped write) that it was an oxymoron to expect an Extra class ham to be a expert on ham radio if he doesn't know Morse code. Thus he supports a code test for Extras. That is a RETIREE's OPINION, senior. And it should be obvious, to anyone who actually owns and uses a thought process - when Morse code is a widely-used mode within ham radio, *anyone* who can't use it simply and factually *cannot* be a fully qualified ham - No matter what license or privileges the FCC gives them. The FCC does NOT agree with you, senior. ANYONE granted a US amateur radio license, ANY CLASS, is a licensed radio amateur. That's just the way it is. Live with it. And YOU will have to live with the decisions THEY make. Which can't change facts. Facts are immutable. Live with it. Any ham not able to operate CW is simply and factually not fully qualified. For the 1930s or on Fantasy Island where you seem to live... ? LHA |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:15 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com