My point was that in all activities, the already experienced people set
the
standards.

No WONDER you are so frustrated. Do you REALLY believe that,
in society today, that those who are the most veteran with the most
experience in a field REALLY set the standards? Colleges and
instutitions of higher learning are filled to the BRIN with
tenured professors that have little or no experience in the world outside
of the campus they teach on; politicians often hold thier offices for
decades without ever having had a real job (bill clinton).

It's a good concept in utopia, but in the real world, such is rarely
ever the case. Especially in a democracy where people are
elected into office (representatives) or appointed to offices
by those elected (supreme court justices).

I doubt very seriously anybody outside of the half-dozen
PCTA's that are herding together with you in this debate
see this line of thinking as anything more than condescending
and in fact makes you appear quite elitist. A word to the wise;
elitists are very rarely ever given the respect that they feel
they deserve- on the contrary, they usually tend to start
to arouse great levels of contempt and resentment with the
very people they feel they are trying to "help", for a lack
of a better word.

This is why the NCTA underlieing beliefs are catching on
so quickly and gaining steam.


So far polls of hams who have passed
code, i.e. the experienced, have a majority favoring it.


(1) Um, "duh"? I had to do it so everybody should! ? !
(2) I passed a code test and I do NOT favor continueing
code testing.

Clint
KB5ZHT

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

Dwight:

Well, I'm glad I finally got your attention directed toward reality. If the
Morse code isn't relevant to any communications service outside the
ARS, then the fact that the commercial and military services have
stopped using it isn't relevant or responsive to the issue of code testing
withing the ARS.

Sure it is. Part of the basis and purpose of the ARS as specified in
Part 97 is to develop a pool of trained radio operators. Since nobody
else uses CW anymore, it is no longer necessary to develop pools of
Morse-trained radio operators.

Did you see that everybody? "...nobody uses CW anymore." Yup,
he REALLY said that!

Do me a favor, John, and tell that to K2RSK next time you see him!

The Morse/CW mode remains as a valuable, basic communications
tool within the ARS, and the code testing requirement is current and
essential to the continued use of this mode. End of story.

Hmmm...

Valuable? In some respects, perhaps. It does have its advantages,
although it also has its disadvantages.

Whaaaaat? I thought you just said "...nobody uses CW anymore."
Well, anyway, please enumerate all the "disadvantages" of the
Morse/CW mode.

Basic? I'm not too sure of that. It was once upon a time. I'm inclined
to think that time is either passed, or very close to it. I don't know
what percentage of hams is sufficiently skilled with the mode to
actually use it for on-air contacts, but surely the percentage must be
shrinking daily.

And just exactly what do you think is causing that, John?

As for the code testing requirement being essential to the continued
use of the mode - if that's the case, then the patient is already
brain dead and being kept alive through purely artificial means, and
will expire anyway as soon as somebody pulls the plug, either
accidentally or deliberately. The question then becomes, for how long
do we prolong the inevitable, and for what purpose?

I'm not suggesting that we pull the plug. I'm suggesting that we use
a well-known cure and allow the patient to recover.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

Don't look now, Clint, but welfare programs are "handouts" that give
away valuable assets as if the recipient were entitled to them simply
by virtue of being there with his/her hand out.

Correct. Therefore, code testing isn't a welfare program, it's a
government-subsidized life-support system for an anachronism.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

Well, that's YOUR opinion, John. Thanks for sharing it with us.
You have a right to be wrong.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Dick Carroll;" wrote:

Gotta hand it to you, Dwight. Not everyone
can take few wild statements, mold them into
assumptions, then in the same paragraph,
change it all into "facts". But you manage that
with the ease of someone who writes bafflegab
for the Guv'mint.


What do you expect, Dick? After all, I worked for the government for
several decades. :)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Regardless of one's stance on the code, reviewing
the history of the FCC shows that they are NOT
necessarily concerned with what's best for the ARS.
If they were, BPL would never have gotten as far
as it has.


Let me put it another way. I think the FCC is concerned about the best
interests of the ARS, within the confines of reality. We have to remember
the ARS is not the only pot on the stove - the FCC deals with many other
services and has to balance the needs of each service against the others
(and that includes the ARS). That means we're not always going to exactly
what we want, exactly when and how we want it. But that certainly doesn't
mean the FCC is not concerned with the best interests of the ARS or, as some
have suggested, has an agenda against it. We have a massive amount of
frequencies to play with. We have more modes to play with than most radio
services. We have more freedoms (to build or modify out own equipment and so
on) than most radio services. When you look at the whole picture, it's
fairly hard to complain too much.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

I hate to sound like a scratched CD, but that reply
is unresponsive. (snip)


Well, Larry, that reply is all you're going to get because that reply is
the only truthful response to the issues you raised.


It most certainly is, if the ARS wishes to continue to
develop radio operators capable of exploiting the
many benefits and advantages of the Morse/CW
mode. (snip)


And why would the ARS wish to continue to specifically develop radio
operators capable of using code? What benefit does it offer? Not what it
offers you, but what benefit does it offer to the ARS (here is your
opportunity to show your position is not just self-serving)? How are the
goals and purposes of the ARS served by continued skill testing of this one
operating mode? How will this (code skill testing) help to keep the ARS
abreast of modern technology, insuring our continued value to others? How
will this help move the ARS into the future (where we should be mainly
focused)?


(snip) As already stated by N2EY, this particular logic
could then be applied to (snip)


Already addressed in my response to N2EY.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
Radio Amateur KC2HMZ writes:
Sure it is. Part of the basis and purpose of the ARS
as specified in Part 97 is to develop a pool of trained
radio operators. Since nobody else uses CW anymore,
it is no longer necessary to develop pools of Morse-
trained radio operators.

Did you see that everybody? "...nobody uses CW anymore."
Yup, he REALLY said that!


No, Larry, he didn't say that. You misquoted him. He said, "...nobody ELSE
uses CW..."


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

OIC. So, you can't answer the question, then.


No, I've already answered the question and don't intend to waste time
doing so again. If your memory is really that bad, do a Google search for
our past discussion about this.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net...

And why would the ARS wish to continue to specifically develop radio
operators capable of using code?

Because the mode offers lots of advantages to radio amateurs.

What benefit does it offer?

- Narrow bandwidth required
- Can be used with a wide variety of technologies
- Capable of both manual and machine generation and recognition
- excellent weak-signal performance
- QSK (near-duplex operation possible on a simplex channel)
- only popular non-voice "audio" mode (can you work PSK-31 while
driving?)
- usable by many disabled persons

Not what it
offers you, but what benefit does it offer to the ARS (here is your
opportunity to show your position is not just self-serving)?

See above. That's the short list.

How are the
goals and purposes of the ARS served by continued skill testing of this one
operating mode?

Introduces new hams to a mode with the advantages cited, just as
theory testing introduces new hams to radio technology.

How will this (code skill testing) help to keep the ARS
abreast of modern technology, insuring our continued value to others?

The mode can be successfully used with equipment of almost any level
of complexity, so that beginners can start off with simple equipment
and work their way up to advanced technologies. And have good
performance all along the path.

How
will this help move the ARS into the future (where we should be mainly
focused)?

By empowering more hams to design and build their own radios.

Dwight, how many hams do you know who have designed and built (from
scratch) entire amateur radio stations? And who use them on a regular
basis - in 2003? (Besides me, that is). I'm not talking kits, either,
(my K2 doesn't count) nor accessories, but actual transceivers and
such.

Do you think a kid with a sodder arn is gonna build an a 2 meter HT or
a PSK-31 station as a first project?

73 de Jim, N2EY