Len Over 21 wrote:

In article k.net,
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

Absolutely correct Larry. Bottom line is its too tough to actually try to
learn something for these whiners. It really is pathetic.

Yes, it's "pathetic" that so many long-timers jumped through all the
hoops and now they demand that all others do the same as they did.

Nobody can now meet the requirements most of us met, Leonardo as current
requirements are not as stringent.

Jump, jump, Danny.

....and you, of course, don't seem to be able to meet even the current
requirements. Don't bother jumping, Len. Just stand there on the
sidelines and watch the game.

Dave K8MN

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

Tell you what Dwight....when you get some
knowledge of the subject, I'll pay attention. Just
quit trying to put on a spin on a subject you know
NOTHING about.


First of all, the subject was you and Larry (and your attitudes about
code), which I do know something about. Second, one does not need to know
code itself to see the amount of code used in this country or elsewhere.
Perhaps if you looked up from you code key occasionally, and stopped looking
down your nose at everyone else when you do, you would see the same decline
of code use and therefore recognize how useless it is as a testing
requirement. Of course, to acknowledge that reality would force you to drop
your false pride and I truly wonder whether you're man enough to do that
(the same with Larry).

Dwight:

You just locked, loaded, took careful aim, and shot yourself in the foot!
If you had ANY experience with Morse/CW at all, you'd realize that the
mode which is in "decline" lately on HF is SSB -- due to poor operating
conditions. The CW segments continue to jump with activity. You
are hopelessly out of the loop due to your own operational inexperience.

I'm gonna give you some free advice here, Dwight. You're getting almost
Kim-like in your shrill but specious arguments. You are truly not
equipped for this debate whatsoever, and are making a bigger fool of
yourself with each and every posting. You're out of your depth when
discussing code testing, so I would suggest, for the sake of your own
credibility, that you chose a topic you know something about.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

Sorry, but that is a judgment that you are not
qualified to make. I'm not even going to bother
to mention how wrong this judgment is, because
it comes from someone who is incapable of
rendering a credible judgment of the Morse/CW
mode because of his lack of experience therein.


Of course, it is indeed a judgement I'm qualified to make. I certainly
know as much about overall code USE in this country and elsewhere as you do.

Dwight:

How many CW contacts have you made in your ham "career?" I'm into
the multiple thousands. If you have less than 500, then you're not even
close to being qualified to render a judgment against code testing.

I also know just as much as you do about its NECESSITY to meet the goals and
purpose of Amateur Radio.

Except, of course, when it comes to the issue of retaining a testing
requirement for a valuable basic communications skill. However, this type
of selectivity is certainly nothing new in the human condition.

And those are the only things required to make a
judgement on its value as a testing requirement.

Incorrect, but the above is probably the main reason why we're losing
our culture here in the United States.

Incorrect. Dan and I are just speaking the truth
based on practical experience.something you
don't have when it comes to Morse/CW.

What experience is that, Larry? What experience do you have that makes you
uniquely qualified to judge the value of a specific testing requirement?

Twenty-two plus years of OTA HF experience as a radio amateur, which has
been about 80 percent CW, 19 percent RTTY and other digital modes,
and 1 percent phone. What's your breakdown?

The
answer is, of course, absolutely nothing - you're not uniquely qualified to
make value judgements about testing requirements.

I can see why you'd think that way, Dwight, especially when my own
objective evaluation of those requirements does not advance your own
agenda to gain full HF privileges without any necessity to make the
effort to learn the valuable communications skill of Morse code.

(snip) but I'm eminently qualified to judge the value
and currency of the Morse/CW mode based on my
experience. (snip)

The issue isn't about the value of Morse Code itself, Larry. Instead, it's
about the value of Morse Code as a testing requirement (read the subject
line at the top of these messages).

I have consistently directed my comments toward the testing requirement
as opposed to the mode itself. The confusion there is primarily an NCTA
problem.

And you're no more "eminently qualified"
to make judgements about that than any other ham radio operator.

Unless, of course, that "other" ham radio operator has OTA HF/CW
experience at least equal to my own. And, unfortunately for the NCTA,
most hams who do have CW experience similar to mine are usually
PCTA's.

In fact,
your inability to keep track of the overall subject from one message to the
next makes me doubt you're even as qualified as other operators. Most people
can keep up with the subject without constant reminders.

Now you're grasping at straws, Dwight. Trying to find some way to
discredit me any way you can. This is always the indication that you've
run out of logical, reasonable arguments. I'll give you partial credit for
not having resorted to name calling -- yet.

73 de Larry, K3LT

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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

This may be so, but it is an imperfect system being
directed by people with imperfect wisdom and
questionable motives. I say questionable because
their motives, for the most part, are entirely
self-serving.


Can you can show me one law in this country that wasn't advocated by
people with self-serving motives? Laws, by their very nature, tend to serve
the interests of at least someone. In reality, the only reason you're
pointing to this is because people are now advocating the change of a law
you happen to like (the code test requirement). And, of course, you would
like everyone to believe your position in all this is not at all
self-serving.

Dwight:

Which it isn't. The only outcome I desire is to preserve Morse code testing
in order to preserve the continued growth in the numbers of new hams who
have been exposed to training in this mode, in the interest of getting some
percentage of them to get to the point where they can effectively use it
OTA.

And it is my right as an American Citizen to make an
attempt to preserve this requirement. I am not
challenging your right to do the opposite, even though
you seem interesting in squelching my own efforts. What
are you afraid of?


I'm afraid of your motives in all this, Larry. I don't like the words I
hear from many advocating the continuation of the code testing requirement.
Those words often reek of bigotry, elitism, and discrimination against other
Americans.

One of the classic NCTA whines. Us horrible old PCTA's want to keep
Morse code going so that we can continue to demonstrate the dominance
of the white, middle-class, American male, who represents 5% of the
world's population yet consumes 25% of the planet's resources, and is
responsible for racism, bigotry, famine, disease, poverty, ethnic cleansing,
global warming, destruction of the environment, homophobia, halitosis,
and every other bad thing you can think of. Yawn! However, I guess that
works for you NCTA's, in the absence of any truly valid reason for the
further dumbing-down of licensing requirements in the ARS.

Are you comfortable with some of the things said by those with
your position? Are you comfortable with some of the things you've said (the
garbage about a dumb downed America, your superiority, and so on)?

Don't look now, Dwight, but America *is* dumbed-down. It has been made
that way by a liberal, socialist media that continuously mocks traditional
values of morality, integrity, ingenuity and hard work, and makes it a virtue
to be dependent on government for cradle-to-grave life support. It is truly
an international conspiracy to deprive America of it's greatness.

(snip) HF access is different, and it is here that the
Morse/CW mode offers benefits and advantages
which can be exploited to the benefit of all radio
amateurs -- but only if they know how to do so.
Therefore, the testing requirement remains current
and valid -- forever.

Since it appears only a small minority of hams use Morse/CW on a regular
or routine basis,

And it is my desire that the ARS continues to have at least that "small number"
of CW-using hams among it's ranks. I don't think that's too much to ask.

a testing requirement obviously does not benefit "all
radio amateurs."

Well, it certainly doesn't benefit those hams who can't be bothered to
learn a useful communications skill. However, considering the nature of
the ARS in today's electronic communications reality, where the typical
teenager with a computer and a cell phone has truly global communications
capability in his pocket, ham radio still serves as the ultimate backup
system which can effectively employ numerous modes of communication,
including the most basic form -- Morse/CW. I don't want to see that
valuable capability become obsolete merely because of the indifference
of those who don't wish to make the effort to learn the Morse code.

In addition, the testing requirements are not there to
exclusively benefit Amateur Radio operators - they also exist to facilitate
the goals and purposes of Amateur Radio.

And it is my belief that unless we preserve code testing, those goals cannot
be fully achieved.

Therefore, any testing requirement
must be judged within the context of each of these. The code testing
requirement fails in each regard.

Just the opposite is true. However, as previously stated, you are not
qualified to make any judgment against the code testing requirement,
since you have not gained practical operational experience in this mode.
You have not had that mode's unique benefits and advantages proved
to you over and over again through years of daily OTA use. I have.
And I didn't go into ham radio as a CW "lover" by any means -- in fact,
I was a dedicated NCTA at the time. I came across to the other side
due to my own experience with Morse/CW, and thus became a True
Believer. Moreover, while I now consider myself to be primarily a
digital mode operator in my OTA experience, I still continue to be
convinced of the value of CW when I use that mode after using
PSK-31, RTTY, or any other digital mode. It's all good, and I believe
that we hams need all of these resources at our fingertips. However,
the only way we'll "have" CW is to know the code, and that's the rub
for you NCTA's.

I'm reasonably sure you'll ultimately get your way, since that's the
direction this country is going in general -- down the tubes.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
om...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

But does the NCVEC petition, or the NCI petition address the writtens?
Not
at
all.

No, why should it? I have ALWAYS said the code was a
separate issue from writtens. I'm not opposed to revisiting
the writtens, but there's no need to wait for that before ending all
code testing.


Yes it should address writtens because by eliminating the code test
without
addressing the writtens, you are reducing the overall level of knowledge
required to earn the various levels of ham licenses. Until the
replacement
exams are ready, the old exams, including the code should remain intact.

Gee, when the states stopped requiring manual transmission knowledge
and/or use of hand signals while driving, what'd they replace
those elements with to keep the driving test at the same level of knowledge?

The point is that licensing should be about rational requirement
consistent with license privileges. It has NOTHING to do with maintaining
any set level of difficulty...as if that can even be measured in some
way.

Personally if the code is dropped, I would like to see the exams
restructured as follows:

A) Regulations element: One must pass this before being allowed to take
any
of the other elements.
A lengthy and separate exam covering the FCC rules and regulations in
depth.
Based on what I hear on the air and the statements on the internet from
any
hams, there's a real problem in this area. This one should require at
least
a score of 85% to pass.

B) Technician element:
Rewritten to move the regulations questions to A). Additional technical
material and operating procedures material to keep the test pool about the
same size.

C) General element:
Rewritten to move the regulations questions to A). Additional technical
material, operating procedures, and basic VE requirements material to keep
the test pool about the same size.

D) Extra element
Rewritten to move the regulations questions to A). Additional technical
material, operating procedures, and extensive VE requirements material to
keep the test pool about the same size.

I'd really like to see a rules test as a stand alone test that one must
pass
before even taking any of the other elements.

Not a bad approach... but not sure 85% should be expected passing
rate for A. In any case, such a change in approach would involve
considerable comment and discussion which should NOT stop
the immediate removal of Element 1 (code).

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

You just locked, loaded, took careful aim, and shot
yourself in the foot! If you had ANY experience with
Morse/CW at all, you'd realize that the mode which
is in "decline" lately on HF is SSB -- due to poor
operating conditions. The CW segments continue to
jump with activity. (snip)


So you're saying code use "in this country" is jumping with activity? If
so, where? I've looked in the commercial bands, shortwave broadcast bands,
military bands, and so on, and found very little code use (certainly far
less than just a few decades ago, just as I said).


I'm gonna give you some free advice here, Dwight.
(snip) You're out of your depth when discussing code
testing, so I would suggest, for the sake of your own
credibility, that you chose a topic you know something
about.


Now, let me give you some advice, Larry. You're too narrow-minded to even
understand the concepts behind code testing. Code testing is not, and has
never been, solely to benefit Amateur Radio. Therefore, you can't focus
solely on Amateur Radio when discussing the code testing issue. So, for the
sake of your own credibility on this subject, look outside your own narrowly
defined little world at the much larger picture elsewhere (the view from the
FCC's perspective). Only then will you be aware enough to seriously discuss
this issue.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

How many CW contacts have you made in your
ham "career?" I'm into the multiple thousands. If
you have less than 500, then you're not even close
to being qualified to render a judgment against
code testing.


And exactly how does the number of CW contacts made qualify one to make a
judgement about the value of code testing as a license requirement? Again,
code testing is not, and never has been, solely for the benefit of Amateur
Radio (or solely to benefit CW operations on those bands). Code use is
declining here and around the world. Looking solely at Amateur Radio, even
the majority of those operators don't use code/cw on any routine or regular
basis. Because of these facts, the need for a code testing requirement has
vanished.


Twenty-two plus years of OTA HF experience as a
radio amateur, which has been about 80 percent CW,
19 percent RTTY and other digital modes, and 1
percent phone. What's your breakdown?


I believe the question was what experience you have that makes you
UNIQUELY qualified to judge the value of a specific TESTING REQUIREMENT. I
don't see anything above that would make you uniquely qualified in this
subject. Again, code testing is not, and never has been, solely for the
benefit of Amateur Radio (or operations in those bands). Therefore, the FCC
is not going to judge the value of code testing based solely on Amateur
Radio. You have to look at the larger picture, Larry. At this point, you're
still too narrowly focused.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

(snip) However, as previously stated, you are not qualified
to make any judgment against the code testing requirement,
since you have not gained practical operational experience
in this mode. (snip)


Larry, one does not need to survive a house fire to make judgements about
fire safety. Or be attacked by a foreign government to make a judgement
about certain defense planning. Or live under a dictator to make judgements
about laws affecting our freedoms. Or experience a business failure to make
wise business judgements. Or experience anything else firsthand to make
value judgements about it.


(snip) You have not had that mode's unique benefits
and advantages proved to you over and over again through
years of daily OTA use. I have. (snip)


Again, this is not about Morse Code/CW use - it's about the code test
requirement. I can have that operational experience without a test
requirement and you can continue to enjoy the "mode's unique benefits and
advantages" long after the testing requirement is gone.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

(snip) However, as previously stated, you are not qualified
to make any judgment against the code testing requirement,
since you have not gained practical operational experience
in this mode. (snip)


Larry, one does not need to survive a house fire to make judgements
about
fire safety. Or be attacked by a foreign government to make a judgement
about certain defense planning. Or live under a dictator to make
judgements
about laws affecting our freedoms. Or experience a business failure to
make
wise business judgements. Or experience anything else firsthand to make
value judgements about it.


One does have to eat a pizza to evaluate its taste and whether they will
like it or not. I love pizza but hate tomatoes, cheese, and garlic. Yet
combine them into a pizza and the result is entirely different. No one can
tell how a cake will taste simply from reading the ingredients on a box.
You can evaluate its nutritional content but not its taste. So while there
are some things that do not need to be experienced to evaluate them, there
are other things that do.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

(snip) However, as previously stated, you are not qualified
to make any judgment against the code testing requirement,
since you have not gained practical operational experience
in this mode. (snip)


Larry, one does not need to survive a house fire to make judgements
about
fire safety. Or be attacked by a foreign government to make a judgement
about certain defense planning. Or live under a dictator to make
judgements
about laws affecting our freedoms. Or experience a business failure to
make
wise business judgements. Or experience anything else firsthand to make
value judgements about it.


But, but, but!!!! Larry's obviously got or had large boobs, and has
obviously worn a bra. Right?! He *has* hasn't he? Surely, for if not he
would not be making value judgements on my callsign.

Kim W5TIT