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


Actually, once code testing is gone, the pro-testing crowd is not going
to
have much to say.

Do you honestly think so? I disagree.... at least for a stretch of time,
anyway.
It IS human nature, depending on each man's capacity and staying power,
that is, outright fortitude, to eventually back off when they see that they
have
lost or are paddling up stream... and the time this takes, as I said,
depends
on the nature of each person's character... So, in the long run, I agree
with you;
they'll drop off in staggered two's and three's and dozens.. but for a while
it'll be pretty nasty and, quite frankly, since the issue will be over I
wouldn't see
much point in continueing to debate them. You only think they're getting
vicious and nasty NOW, just wait until they find thier security blanket has
been taken from them in the name of "grow up, you're not a child anymore".

Sadly, the pro-coders don't even seem to realize that all this is their
own doing - their own behavior is responsible for their declining numbers
(and perhaps, to some extent, even the removal of code testing). After
talking to some of the pro-coders in this newsgroup, very few new
operators
are exactly inspired to continue talking to them (on the CW frequencies or
elsewhere). By driving new operators away, they have insured their own
decreasing numbers. And those decreasing numbers have seriously undermined
support for code testing.

And on that point i'll agree with you totally, 100%. Within this newsgroup,
as you
said, they not only do NOT inspire any sort of good will feeling or give
forth
the same warm fuzzy glow feeling that the new hams found or thought to have
found when they entered the community. One even posted "i'm appalled",
saying
he/she felt that what was SUPPOSE to have been a community of "friendly and
cooperative hams" had quite it's fair share of conflicting personalities and
ideology. It's very sad. If the old gaurd hasn't understood or seen by now
that
the mentality of "you're a child and stupid, you need to do what we say"
(and,
in so many words, this is exactly what the collective thinking of the PCTA
has
been) isn't going to attract new hams, then they also don't realize the
fundamental
error that is resident within them, and that is THIS... a continued agenda
such
that they uphold will do far more to destroy ham radio than any change in
testing requirements OR indirect problems (such as the current BPL
controversy)
will EVER do. If you don't believe me, just look at grey haired old white
men's
clubs and what is happening to them, the ones that ARE left that is.

I have tried my darndest do continue to post, for the benifit of the
undecideds
and the new hams that don't quite know where thier ideological compass
points
to in this hobby yet that the problem isn't the mode of operation itself. I
have
even stated that my first many QSL cards were covering contacts made in
CW. The newbies and undecides see now that the problem resides in the
PCTA, for the PCTA will not argue the true debate but attempt to spin
and twist it into something different... like many who support an erroneous
idea, they attemp at ever turn in the road to turn the argument on it's
axis and aim the very people instead of the issue. My honest feeling,
due to my personal beliefs about human beings and thier psychology,
is that the newbies will react (and have been doing so) toward this in a
negative way (as far as the PCTA crowd's interests) and, in so many
bloated but passionate words I have repeated just what you have.

The PCTA have themselves to blame.

My $.02 worth

Clint
KB5ZHT

--

Get in touch with your soul: www.glennbeck.com
OR, if you're a liberal, maybe you can FIND one


--

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
You know, Dwight, I've noticed something about your writings.
Everything you say is couch in such terms that it can be easily
denied and you can always say "I never said it" when that becomes
the attractive out. Of course what you meant is......

Dick,

Stop twisting his words. hihi

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

This, on top of Roll's admissions, couldn't make the PCTA's
position
and attitude any plainer, to even a casual observer.



exactly what i've been saying.

Clint
KB5ZHT

--

--

Get in touch with your soul: www.glennbeck.com
OR, if you're a liberal, maybe you can FIND one


--

"Dick Carroll" wrote:

You know, Dwight, I've noticed something about your
writings. Everything you say is couch in such terms that it
can be easily denied and you can always say "I never said
it" when that becomes the attractive out. Of course what
you meant is......


No, I'm just very cautious about what I say, Dick. After years of writing
in these newsgroups, I know any word, no matter how minor, can be blown out
of proportion or even twisted to suggest something I never intended. Because
of that, I'm very careful about the words I choose and the way those words
are placed in a sentence. Of course, there is a benefit to the readers
also - they can be assured I often mean exactly what I write.

For example, in that last sentence, the word "often" was added. With that,
I'm suggesting the sentence above is not always the case. Of course, like
others here, I do occasionally write things that are provocative or intended
to pull someone's leg. However, that is usually obvious (out of character or
not in my normal writing style) and rare (even more so if the topic is
serious).

I suspect most others here, including you, do the same thing to some
extent. However, because it is so consistent, perhaps my effort to do so is
a little more obvious. Or perhaps it is obvious because I do it so poorly.
Whatever the case, it serves me well.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Dick Carroll" wrote:

You know, Dwight, I've noticed something about your
writings. Everything you say is couch in such terms that it
can be easily denied and you can always say "I never said
it" when that becomes the attractive out. Of course what
you meant is......


No, I'm just very cautious about what I say, Dick. After years of
writing
in these newsgroups, I know any word, no matter how minor, can be blown
out
of proportion or even twisted to suggest something I never intended.
Because
of that, I'm very careful about the words I choose and the way those words
are placed in a sentence. Of course, there is a benefit to the readers
also - they can be assured I often mean exactly what I write.

For example, in that last sentence, the word "often" was added. With
that,
I'm suggesting the sentence above is not always the case. Of course, like
others here, I do occasionally write things that are provocative or
intended
to pull someone's leg. However, that is usually obvious (out of character
or
not in my normal writing style) and rare (even more so if the topic is
serious).

I suspect most others here, including you, do the same thing to some
extent. However, because it is so consistent, perhaps my effort to do so
is
a little more obvious. Or perhaps it is obvious because I do it so
poorly.
Whatever the case, it serves me well.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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



Y'know what? Speaking of words. The whole CW issue is defended (by many)
as being the defense of some premier communication mode and that is usually
enhanced by some submission of why the mode should be revered. However,
aside from that--when the meat and potatoes of the argument (not debate)
comes into play--the only defensible reasoning that is issued from there is
that it "dumbs down" the ARS not to have the CW test, or that "lids" will
come into the ARS, or that....well, you know them all.

I submit, again, that the hidden among the fervor for the appreciation of CW
is the main idea that CW is a filter (no pun intended) to keep people out of
the ARS. There's two reasons that's bunk. One: no one should be kept out
of the ARS--let them get their license and stand or fail on their merit.
Two: it's quite obvious that just because someone's passed a CW test--indeed
beyond that: that someone operates CW at high speed even--it does nothing
for proof of being a good ham, more technical ham, or intelligent ham.

Basically, when the "dumbed down" rhetoric is puked back up--we all know
what the real reason is for the desire of CW testing to stay around: these
folks believe in its power to filter out folks who act just like them.

Kim W5TIT

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


No, I'm just very cautious about what I say, Dick. After years of
writing
in these newsgroups, I know any word, no matter how minor, can be blown
out
of proportion or even twisted to suggest something I never intended.

That's because they generally have a very weak arguement without any real
pillars of facts to build on, so at every possible chance they get they
dodge and divert the topic of the conversation. I've had them go as far
as simply attack my spelling and grammer, for lack of anything better
to reply with.

Clint
KB5ZHT



--

Get in touch with your soul: www.glennbeck.com
OR, if you're a liberal, maybe you can FIND one


--

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
Basically, when the "dumbed down" rhetoric is puked back up--we all know
what the real reason is for the desire of CW testing to stay around: these
folks believe in its power to filter out folks who act just like them.

Kim W5TIT



BRAVO, well articulated.

I couldn't agree more; with each line of reasoning they use a very good
fact is brought up to disprove it and yet THEY devolve down to "go ahead,
present some facts and we'll discuss it"..and, well, this HAS been done,
they just ignore it.

Clint
KB5ZHT

--

--

Get in touch with your soul: www.glennbeck.com
OR, if you're a liberal, maybe you can FIND one


--

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

And that post made my case.


.... to the only rare few that will believe it; you and your dwindling group
of
supporters.

Clint
KB5ZHT

--

--

Get in touch with your soul: www.glennbeck.com
OR, if you're a liberal, maybe you can FIND one


--

"Clint" wrote ...

I couldn't agree more; with each line of reasoning they use a very good
fact is brought up to disprove it and yet THEY devolve down to "go ahead,
present some facts and we'll discuss it"..and, well, this HAS been done,
they just ignore it.
__________________________________________________ _________

Oh Really? I brought up a very factual survey along with two other facts
concerning CW and you refused to respond (other than to say you wouldn't
respond) I asked you in another thread to explain a little bit about some
of the new technology that you say you know so well (and we CW'ers don't)
I'm *still* waiting for an answer on that one. It seems to me that when
facts are presented, *you* are the very first one to run away and hide, not
the other way around.
__________________________________________________ _________

Here is a copy of the other thread -- I'll give you one more chance to
answer:

"Clint" wrote in part ...

I only take the facts as they are and deduce a conclusion, rather than take
a passion-filled idea intermixed with rage against opposition and launch a
scathing attack devoid of everything necessary to warrant a good debate and
argument to back up one's claims.
__________________________________________________ __________

Excellent position, Clint. With that in mind, let's do some fact vs fiction
debate.

On September 5, 2003 the Dakota Division Director released these survey
results:

"Division members are divided on the Entry level license with slightly more
of those replying saying that Morse Code should not be required for access
to HF. That changes as we move to General and Extra. Nearly 70% say
there should be a Morse requirement for Extra Class licensees."
__________________________________________________ ____________

This is very close to my position on Morse testing. I believe that some HF
privileges on all bands should be granted to amateurs upon entry into the
ARS, and that CW testing should be required for the higher licenses, General
and Extra. It would seem that this survey in the Dakota Division indicates
(as I have stated many times) that a majority of hams are not strictly
against code testing -- 70% seem to think that there should be some testing
for the highest class of license.

Add to this the fact that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS and
that groups like "FISTS" have nearly doubled in size *since* restructuring,
and I think the picture becomes clear. The support for the NCTA is not as
strong as their advocates would have us believe.

Arnie -
KT4ST

"Kim W5TIT" wrote

One: no one should be kept out of the ARS--let
them get their license and stand or fail on their merit.

You can't really mean that! I do not support continuation of
the Morse test, but to suggest that we should just hand out
licenses to anyone regardless of demonstrated qualification
and let them "stand or fail on their merit" is the silliest
notion I have seen here yet.

That's like saying "let anyone get their drivers license
and stand or fail on their driving record" without having
passed a test.

73, de Hans, K0HB