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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

(snip) 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.


I quoted this part because I wanted to make sure everyone read it. When
it
comes to at least a few of those on the pro-code side, I think you hit the
nail right on the head with this, Kim.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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



Absolutely. I know I did and I know there's enough sense in this newsgroup
and across the ARS to see this, know it, and understand it for what it
really is. And, I think it probably applies to at least 1/2 of the pro-code
side.

Kim W5TIT

"Clint" wrote ...

I believe that making references and using analogies that you guys are the
adults and new, entry level hams are children pretty much describes a
superior if not condescending attitude.
__________________________________________________ ______________

That's a pretty big brush you've got there, Clint. Please reference *any*
post I've made where I said, or implied that I consider no-code hams as
children. I'll wait here.

Arnie -
KT4ST

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote ...

I'll tell you this Arnie. CW is far from dead. I played on CW ALL
weekend. Some in the Alabama and Texas Qso parties. And then most of the
day today on the Classic Exchange. It was, as they say, wall to wall. I
guess what Im saying, and trying to be polite to the detractors (dummies to
lazy to learn Morse code) is don't confuse them with the facts, the are to
stupid to learn....and like I always like to say. Ya just cain't fix
stupid.
__________________________________________________ ______________

I find it interesting, that when I present a set of facts that is contrary
to the NCTA position, Clint decides that I'm not worth responding to. This
after he says that he bases all of his decisions on the facts. You and I
(and a lot of NCTA folks) know that CW is far from dead -- the numbers say
just the opposite. But, I guess once you've dug yourself a hole, it can be
hard to get out of sometimes.

Arnie -
KT4ST

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Arnie Macy" wrote:

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. (snip)



Let's turn that around at little, Arnie. I haven't seen Clint going around
claiming to be superior.

No, he isn't. But that's about all the positive things I can say about
him. But I don't think he is exactly a shining example of a NCTA -
unless you agree with the pejoratives he like to call us.

Unless you happen to agree with them, of course. You don't think we're
N***'s do you???

So in the end, he bears a striking resemblance to some of the more
passionate CW'philes. Just a different side

Instead, it is those in your circle claiming to be
the superior hams. Other than code, what skills or knowledge of technology
can be found in the pro-code crowd that cannot be found among the no-code
crowd? From what I've seen, there are just as many highly skilled
individuals in the no-code crowd as there are in the pro-code crowd, working
in just as many professional careers. So, if there is no real difference
between the two, why do those like yourself continue to support, or at least
nor object to, the superior ham position of some in this newsgroup and
elsewhere? The only possible answer I can see is that you also consider
those like yourself to be superior hams.

Do you really think so, Dwight? I would have to say that in principle
that the more knowledge a ham has, the more likely he or she will be a
superoir ham, but that goes for the whole spectrum of what we want a ham
to know, not just the Morse/CW part.

I have in the past objected to some of the more vitriolic posts by some
pro-coders.

I think you paint with too broad a brush.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
"Clint" wrote ...

I believe that making references and using analogies that you guys are
the
adults and new, entry level hams are children pretty much describes a
superior if not condescending attitude.
__________________________________________________ ______________

That's a pretty big brush you've got there, Clint. Please reference *any*
post I've made where I said, or implied that I consider no-code hams as
children. I'll wait here.

Arnie -
KT4ST


I suspect that Clint was actually referring indirectly to some of my posts
as I have used the parent/child analogy and student/teacher analogy.
However he likes to take this as meaning a superior and/or condescending
attitude. He fails to be willing to admit that the less experienced should
take the advice of the more experienced while they develop sufficient
background to make informed choices. He has obviously missed my posts where
I have clearly said that if I were interested in satellite work, I would go
consult the most experienced satellite operator in our local club, who
happens in this case to be a Technician. I am more than willing to respect
his expertise. I would willingly, in this area, be the "child" or "student"
in learning this activity. If I doubted what he told me about satellite
work, I would first wait until I had equal experience before challenging his
experience.

However, Clint wants to challenge the issue from a point of inexperience and
feels that he should be taken seriously.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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


"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.

Dwight:

Bingo. You finally stumbled on the truth. To be able to effectively employ
the Morse/CW mode, prospective amateurs need to learn and gain
reasonable proficiency in what is, for most, an unintuitive communications
skill which requires a fairly challenging learning experience. The simple
fact is that most prospective hams, like myself at one time, can't be
bothered to undergo this learning experience, and find it easier to attempt
to do away with the requirement instead.

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)?

In order to retain the ability of radio amateurs to USE this single operating
mode, as already (repeatedly) explained.

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.

It is a well-known fact that some of the simplest homebuilding/kitbuilding
projects available to radio amateurs are CW transmitters. As I can relate
from personal experience, building something that actually works and
gives one the ability to communicate on-the-air is a very motivating
learning experience, which usually leads to more advanced technical
involvement. Moreover, in a lot of the more uncommon modes used
by radio amateurs (EME, for instance), the Morse/CW mode is usually
the only type of modulation that works with any kind of useful reliability.
The value of Morse/CW is well-known to QRP enthusiasts, of course.

You've
answered my question (CW is irrelevant in that regard), so we can now move
on.

I never said that, Dwight -- that's just your own self-serving "spin." And,
in the usual Usenet pattern, you lie, you lose.

Feel free to try again if and when you can get it right.

73 de Larry, K3LT

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

You've spent the last couple of weeks attempting to re-
attach some kind of significance to the fact that "other"
radio services no longer "use code" (snip)

I did that in the very message you replied to (quoted above). You're
point is? As you see, I talked about both the past and present code use by
other radio services and any relevance of that to the ARS. You tried to
twist the focus only to the present, ignoring anything about the past .

Dwight:

This is quite entertaining. Here we have a card-carrying member of the
NCTA, a group which has spent the last dozen years or so blaming us
ever so politically incorrect PCTA's of keeping the ARS securely locked
up in the "past," and now you're trying to make the "past" code use of
non-amateur radio services somehow relevant to the present-day issue
of continued code testing. Having memory problems?

Of
course, since both are relevant, it would be inaccurate to talk about one
(present code use) without the other (past code use).

One of the leading arguments *against* code testing throughout this
debate has always been that the use of (Morse) code has been deemed
to be irrelevant in non-amateur radio services. Now, all of a sudden,
Dwight Stewart ups and declares that just the opposite is true. Talk
about your neck-snapping turns of events…

Not willing to
participate in such a discussion, I asked to to widen your focus to include
all of the relevant facts.

I have given the "relevant facts" ad nauseum. I suggest you stop wasting
my time and start Google-ing.

You refused to do so, repeating your question
solely about the present. It was at that point, and only at that point, the
discussion fell apart.

The discussion fell apart because YOU had nothing new to offer; now
you're trying to place the blame on me. Classic NCTA pattern.

Again, I'm more than willing to continue the
discussion, but only if it is an honest discussion with all facts
considered. However, if you want to twist facts, you can do so on your own.

I haven't twisted a damn thing, Dwight, and you know it.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

To be able to effectively employ the Morse/CW mode,
prospective amateurs need to learn and gain reasonable
proficiency in what is, for most, an unintuitive
communications skill which requires a fairly challenging
learning experience. (snip)


A learning experience that can be accomplished without a license exam (Boy
Scouts routinely did it), therefore not an argument supporting a code
testing requirement.


In order to retain the ability of radio amateurs to USE this
single operating mode, as already (repeatedly) explained.


You still haven't answered the question, Larry. I asked why there should
be an effort on the part of the ARS or FCC to encourage (boost, promote, or
push) this single operating mode (CW)? Or, to put it another way (and use
your own words), why should the ARS or FCC make an attempt to "retain the
ability of radio amateurs to USE this single operating mode?" Again, this
operating mode offers nothing today beyond simple recreation. So I guess
another point might be to ask why the ARS or FCC would require testing of
all for a primarily recreational operating mode?


It is a well-known fact that some of the simplest homebuilding/
kitbuilding projects available to radio amateurs are CW
transmitters. As I can relate from personal experience, (snip)


And I can relate from personal experience that electronics can be learned
easily without building a CW transmitter. Ramsey alone has more than a dozen
radio-related kits worthy of consideration by those seeking electronics
skills. So, while building a CW transmitter is certainly worthwhile for
those interested in CW, there are other avenues for those not interested in
CW (a fact that undermines any association this may appear to have with a
code testing requirement).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get wrote:

Perhaps you think those that know/use Morse are superior
to you. I don't ever recall seeing anyone that advocates
Morse saying they felt superior.

I know I don't feel that way. However I do feel those that
don't play on CW are missing a major part of the enjoyment
they could get from having a amateur license. But thats their
loss not mine.

If you thank that is imparting a superior attitude, I say Dwight
that you have the problem, not us.


Larry posted this claim of superiority well more than twenty times in this
newsgroup alone. He specifically and repeatedly claimed that those with code
skills are "superior" to those without. He even used the word "inferior" to
describe those without code skills. Throughout it all, none of the pro-code
crowd raised a single objection to his position and several openly agreed
with it.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

No, he isn't. But that's about all the positive things I
can say about him. But I don't think he is exactly a
shining example of a NCTA - unless you agree with
the pejoratives he like to call us.

Unless you happen to agree with them, of course.
You don't think we're N***'s do you???


Actually, I didn't even noticed Clint before four or five days ago. If he
posted to this newsgroup prior to that, he was just another one of the many
doing so. To be honest, I don't read most of the messages here. Unless the
subject line catches my eye, I routinely highlight large groups of messages
and mark them as read in my newsreader. Once that happens, I rarely see
those messages again since my newsreader is set to not list messages I've
read (or marked as read). The only way to see them again would be as a
result in a newgroup search.

But, to answer your question, I don't agree with the use of pejoratives or
uncomplimentary terms to describe anybody. Well, I might make an exception
with Larry, but that would be a very rare exception. I strongly believe we
have to get past this code debate and move on to more productive matters.
Throwing around nasty remarks isn't going to help do that.


(snip) I would have to say that in principle that the more
knowledge a ham has, the more likely he or she will be
a superoir ham, (snip)


Perhaps I'm too liberal for this discussion. I don't agree with the very
concept of a superior ham. We're all individuals with unique skills,
knowledge, and experience, to bring to the table, none of those superior or
inferior to that offered by others.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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