There is no defeat to admit to, Larry. I presented the facts. You were
unable to respond without twisting the truth. That pretty much ended the
discussion. However, I'm more than willing to continue if you have
something
worthwhile to say. Of course, you don't really have to say anything
intellegent, just something worthy of even a passing reply.


you'll get dodges or a variation of "I did it to, so shut up and do it
yourself!"

Clint
KB5ZHT

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:


"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

(snip) In fact, I would dare say that if there is any
"mental anguish" in this forum, it would seem to have
been expressed almost exclusively by the NCTA's,
who, after all, started all this (snip)


Too bad Google doesn't go back that far. It would be interesting to see
who really "started all this" in these newsgroups. Of course, I suspect it
was a member of the pro-code crowd - since the FCC started dropping code
years ago, the no-code crowd would have had little reason to even bring the
subject up. The pro-code crowd, on the other hand, started complaining
before the FCC even changed the rules (the rumor of a rule change was
enough).

Dwight:

It was definitely the NCTA's who originated the code/no-code (testing)
debate on Fidonet, then Usenet. At least, it was they who threw the
first slings and arrows at the pro-coders (PCTA's) and making all the
now famous accusations of us being politically-incorrect in every
possible way, contributing to everything that is wrong in this world,
and seeking to keep the ARS technically archaic. I was there from the
beginning, so if you weren't, you'll just have to accept the word of
those of us who were.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:


"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

(snip) Sooo, you, like Kim, are going to admit defeat
as well? (snip)


There is no defeat to admit to, Larry. I presented the facts.

Dwight:

Which facts would those be? I haven't seen Fact #1 come out of you yet!

You were
unable to respond without twisting the truth.

What truth? You never spoke any "truth." You only presented typical,
boiler-plate NCTA strawman arguments.

That pretty much ended the discussion.

Due to your lack of ability to offer anything of value to the discussion.

However, I'm more than willing to continue if you have something
worthwhile to say.

Fine. Propose a topic, and we'll give it a try. However, I believe you've
pretty much used up your quota of boilerplate NCTA red herring strawmen,
so you'll now have to actually make an attempt to dredge up something
original. Good luck.

Of course, you don't really have to say anything
intellegent, just something worthy of even a passing reply.

Now you're starting to imitate Kim's whine. You should consider watching
that, it's a very bad habit to get into, if you're concerned about your
future credibility.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:


"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

I've already answered that question many times, but the
short form is that without code testing, there is no incentive
for radio amateurs to learn the code at all. (snip)


But, again, why should there be "incentive" for hams to learn code? Notice
that I'm not asking why a person would want to learn code on their own.
Instead, I'm asking why there should be an effort on the part of the ARS or
FCC to promote (boost, encourage, or push) this single operating mode (it's
the only mode specifically skill tested)? You have yet to answer this
question, and almost seem determined to avoid it.

Dwight:

I've also answered that question numerous times, but here it comes again:

The Morse/CW mode is the only mode which requires the operator to
acquire a physical psychomotor skill in order to utilize that mode. Therefore,
it makes sense to test for a prospective operator's ability to receive Morse
code at some level, in order to ensure that this mode can continue to be
effectively employed and it's benefits and advantages conferred upon the
user. It's a fairly simple concept to understand, which makes one wonder
why the NCTA's fail to grasp it.

Retaining continued skill in Morse/CW has no negative
effect on the development of technology in the future.
That's an NCTA red herring.

I didn't say it had a negative effect, Larry. Instead, I asked you how
this (code skill testing) will help to keep the ARS abreast of modern
technology, insuring our continued value to others?

The above is a non-sequitur, since there is no need for use of the Morse/CW
mode to "help keep the ARS abreast of modern technology...". Your
statement is illogical and assumes facts not in evidence the negative
effect of Morse/CW use on the development of other communications
technologies within the ARS.

I also asked how this
(code skill testing) will help move the ARS into the future (where we should
be mainly focused)?

Again, non-sequitur. This is a strawman argument offered in place of
something more logical, well-reasoned, and relevant. There is no connection
between Morse/CW testing or use and any possible deleterious effect on
the development of other communications modes. This is merely, as
previously stated, one of the NCTA's more famous but totally worthless
"red herring" arguments.

If you don't have an answer those questions, fine. Just
don't attempt to twist what I said.

No need, you're doing that quite nicely yourself.

73 de Larry, K3LT

--

--

If you sympathize with terrorists and middle
eastern tyrants, vote for liberals...


--

I've also answered that question numerous times, but here it comes again:

The Morse/CW mode is the only mode which requires the operator to
acquire a physical psychomotor skill in order to utilize that mode.
Therefore,
it makes sense to test for a prospective operator's ability to receive
Morse
code at some level, in order to ensure that this mode can continue to be
effectively employed and it's benefits and advantages conferred upon the
user. It's a fairly simple concept to understand, which makes one wonder
why the NCTA's fail to grasp it.

They don't "fail to grasp" what you're saying... they only point out the
fact
that the one has nothing to do with the other anymore. Yes, testing morse
code ensures that "it's benefits and advantages [are] conferred upon
the user", just like a contest of shuffleboard proves whether or not
the knowledge and sychomotor skills to play shuffleboard are inherint
within a person to play shuffleboard. The line of reasoning at this point
breaks down with all you PCTA people because you then try to make
the erroneous leap to the conclusion "therefore, it's necessary to continue
testing it for ham radio licenses."

Not many of your crowd seemed to have had a problem all through
the years for disabled people to have an exemption for high speed morse
code testing (if you had a physician's endorsement you didn't have to
prove you could send & receive morse code over 5wpm)... why did
none of you guys have the guts to stand up and say "well, the only
conclusion you can draw is that disabled & crippled people are not
real qualified hams" or "if you are disabled, you cannot ever be anything
more than a fake ham"? or how about "since the testing of morse code
is so necessary for ham radio, there should be NO exemptions for
people with hearing disorders because they can't possibly EVER show
the correct skills for being ham radio operators?"

You didn't, showing yet another error in PCTA logic. The only conclusion
a person can draw from this is that you subjectively and selectively apply
the requirements necessary for showing you have "the right stuff" to be a
ham,
and by doing show outright admit that it's more just a simple case of
personal choice and bias more than true, ground level basic needs.

Clint
KB5ZHT


Retaining continued skill in Morse/CW has no negative
effect on the development of technology in the future.
That's an NCTA red herring.

I didn't say it had a negative effect, Larry. Instead, I asked you how
this (code skill testing) will help to keep the ARS abreast of modern
technology, insuring our continued value to others?

The above is a non-sequitur, since there is no need for use of the
Morse/CW
mode to "help keep the ARS abreast of modern technology...". Your
statement is illogical and assumes facts not in evidence the negative
effect of Morse/CW use on the development of other communications
technologies within the ARS.

I also asked how this
(code skill testing) will help move the ARS into the future (where we
should
be mainly focused)?

Again, non-sequitur. This is a strawman argument offered in place of
something more logical, well-reasoned, and relevant. There is no
connection
between Morse/CW testing or use and any possible deleterious effect on
the development of other communications modes. This is merely, as
previously stated, one of the NCTA's more famous but totally worthless
"red herring" arguments.

If you don't have an answer those questions, fine. Just
don't attempt to twist what I said.

No need, you're doing that quite nicely yourself.

73 de Larry, K3LT

It was definitely the NCTA's who originated the code/no-code (testing)
debate on Fidonet, then Usenet. At least, it was they who threw the
first slings and arrows at the pro-coders (PCTA's) and making all the
now famous accusations of us being politically-incorrect in every
possible way, contributing to everything that is wrong in this world,
and seeking to keep the ARS technically archaic. I was there from the
beginning, so if you weren't, you'll just have to accept the word of
those of us who were.

73 de Larry, K3LT


AH, self fullfilling argument... by simply you saying so, it must be true.

Well, it just doesn't stand the light of reason to say that those opposing
the code testing were the first to raise hell when it was quite obvious that
the tide of events were going thier way. It just doesn't make sense. It
would
be that group of people who felt thier interests were being attacked that
naturally would want to raise debate about it and therefore, the law of
averages
says that some of those would be rather sharp, offensive and a little on the
dark side.

Which facts would those be? I haven't seen Fact #1 come out of you yet!

He did, you ignore them conveniently.


You were
unable to respond without twisting the truth.

What truth? You never spoke any "truth." You only presented typical,
boiler-plate NCTA strawman arguments.

He did. you ignored it conveniently.. and by the way,
you just dodged the fact that he was commenting about
the (non)logic of PCTA people, not those wanting to
advance ham radio into the modern age.


That pretty much ended the discussion.

Due to your lack of ability to offer anything of value to the discussion.

He did. You ignored it conveniently and asked for facts when there
was plenty of substantial reasoning for his side of the view.


However, I'm more than willing to continue if you have something
worthwhile to say.

Fine. Propose a topic, and we'll give it a try. However, I believe
you've
pretty much used up your quota of boilerplate NCTA red herring strawmen,
so you'll now have to actually make an attempt to dredge up something
original. Good luck.

why bother? you, just like the rest of the PCTA crowd will just overlook and
ignore it and say "where are your facts?" and then continue to not only not
produce any yourself but just rehash the old "boo hoo, my precious morse
code testing system is about to be dumped...."

Clint
KB5ZHT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

(snip) I was there from the beginning, so if you weren't,
you'll just have to accept the word of those of us who
were.


Right, Larry. You were there for the very first no-code/pro-code debate.
Actually, I wouldn't be overly surprised if you were. With your attitude, I
could easily see you starting that first debate.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

Which facts would those be? I haven't seen Fact #1
come out of you yet!

(snip)

What truth? You never spoke any "truth." (snip)


Larry, as much as you want to claim victory in this debate, you haven't
shown anything I've said to be untruthful or shown any facts I've presented
to be inaccurate. You've tried to wiggle out from responding to those facts
by offering irrelevant arguments and attempting to twist what I've said, but
you've had no success with either tactic. At the same time, you've presented
nothing solid to support code testing. In the end, you were not able to
support your position or undermine my position. This is consistent with the
overall code testing debate, which is exactly why code testing will
eventually be eliminated in this country.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

The Morse/CW mode is the only mode which requires
the operator to acquire a physical psychomotor skill
in order to utilize that mode. Therefore, it makes sense
to test for a prospective operator's ability to receive
Morse code at some level, (snip)


You didn't answer the question, Larry. I asked why why there should be an
effort on the part of the ARS or FCC to promote (boost, encourage, or push)
this single operating mode (CW) and you responded with garbage about
"physical psychomotor skill." One has absolutely nothing to do with the
other. There are skills needed to operate every mode, but those skills are
self-taught. That is not the case with Morse code. When I pointed that out,
you talked about an incentive to use CW (incentive by the ARS and FCC). At
that point, I asked you why there should be an effort on the part of the ARS
or FCC to promote this single operating mode. You brought this subject up,
so please do answer the question - why should there be an effort on the part
of the ARS or FCC to promote (boost, encourage, or push) this single
operating mode (CW)?


The above is a non-sequitur, since there is no need for use
of the Morse/CW mode to "help keep the ARS abreast of
modern technology...". Your statement is illogical and
assumes facts not in evidence the negative effect of
Morse/CW use on the development of other communications
technologies within the ARS.


If you're going to argue that Morse/CW has no negative effect on the
efforts to help keep the ARS abreast of modern technology ("one of the
NCTA's more famous but totally worthless "red herring" arguments," you
said), it was not unreasonable for me to ask if CW has a positive effect on
the efforts to help keep the ARS abreast of modern technology. You've
answered my question (CW is irrelevant in that regard), so we can now move
on.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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