"WA8ULX" wrote:

Thats because Birds of a Feather stick together, and
you dont have a CLUE what a REAL HAM is. And
thats another reason you will always be a CBPLUSSER.


We had this discussion before, Bruce. Remember? We decided in that
discussion you had no clue what a real civilized human is.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote:

And THEN you come in here and read some PCTA'ers
downing, and I quote, "CBplussers", talking about "cobra
HF radios" and using deragotory remarks using the old
11 meter 10 codes, talking about no code hf'ers, and
one fellow even going so far as to recommend a new
license type call for those who advance after the morse
code testing is removed, so they can all be recognized
by the old gaurd and "not talk to them".. how childish
can you get!


You can't take this stuff too seriously, Clint. Most of it is just the
wail of ill-mannered malcontents. These fools are convinced others agree
with them, when, in reality, they are a pitiful minority in a community
filled with fine, outstanding, people. Their own words condemn them to
isolation. All you have to do is point those words out to others and explain
why they're wrong. The rest of the community will make their own judgments.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Bert Craig" wrote:

Then I'll answer it, Dwight. Because preparing for
and passing Element 1 requires one to demonstrate
a tad more effort and dedication than passing written
exams for which the Q & A pools are published. The
5-wpm is sufficient enough of a challenge to require
some serious studying effort over approx two or three
weeks, but not enough to discourage any individual
serious about earning HF privileges. For those who
are not, the no-code Technician license is available.
It's really quite simple.


Okay, now all you have to do is show where all that (demonstrated effort,
challenge, earning privileges, a two to three week study effort, and so on)
is listed in the FCC rules, or furthers the goals and purposes of the ARS.
These are exams for a recreational activity with some serious underpinnings.
You seem to want to turn those exams into a litmus test form of torture
focused mainly on CW.

By the way, didn't you openly oppose the across the board 5 wpm code exam?
If so, then why now is it suddenly "sufficient enough of a challenge?"


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

I certainly think that by now newbies reading the various posts
on either side of the issue have at least some good starting points from
which to start making thier own conclusion. I wonder if, in retrospect,
the PCTA is proud of the way they've behaved and wonder if they
should not have taken a different tactic?

Neither side is a monolithic group. There are some very well behaved folks on
each side. For example, my friend Bill Sohl, K2UNK, manages to get his points
across without being insulting or denigrating to anyone.

I'm proud of the way I've behaved here.

Are you proud of the way you've behaved, Clint?

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?

Because it's not a skill that most people will have learned elsewhere.

Most prospective hams already know how to read, write, talk and type. Most dod
not know any Morse 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)?

See above.

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

Some claim that Morse Code testing is at odds with the purpose of the amateur
radio service as a fundamentally technical service. But in the practical
experience of thousands of amateurs, the opposite is true.

Skill in Morse Code, even at a very basic level, permits amateurs to use radio
equipment ranging from very simple to highly advanced designs, and technologies
of almost any vintage. Morse Code skill encourages amateurs to actually build
their own radio equipment by offering an easy first step, and a growth path
that leads to almost any usable technology. It must be remembered that most
radio amateurs are self-trained and do not have access to professional level
resources. Few amateurs today would consider a single-sideband transceiver as a
first project, but the home construction of Morse Code equipment is possible
for almost all amateurs.

I speak from direct experience in amateur radio home construction, having built
my first amateur station at age 13. Since then I have built many more projects
of increasing complexity, and much of my current amateur radio station is
entirely homemade. The construction of my early stations led me to an
electrical engineering degree and career. A major factor in that path was being
able to start out with very simple but highly effective projects such as a
simple Morse Code receiver and transmitter.

The removal of the Morse Code test from the Technician class license has not
resulted in a technical revolution in amateur radio from newly-licensed
"technically qualified" amateurs. Instead, the continued progress in amateur
technical efforts continues to be mostly the result of work done by experienced
amateurs, even though the Technician class license has not had a code test for
more than 12 years.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

Code makes a person more experienced?

Using the mode sure does.

If that is true, then a person who
passed a code test yesterday is more experienced than a person who got his
license ten years ago without knowing code, and more experienced than all
those in the other radio services where code is not used.

No, that's not what is being said.

More rounded in what?

In the communications methods actually used by radio amateurs. A ham license is
a license to operate an amateur station in the amateur radio bands, not to
particiapte in other radio services.

Emergency communications?

To a very small degree. Ask KT4ST - he's been there, done that.

Moonbounce? Satellites?

A lot of amateur moonbounce and satellite work has been done with Morse code.

And if a person with
code was truly more able to provide communications under adverse conditions,
all radio services would still be relying on code.

No, that's not true.

Other radio services use radio as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Most
of them have the complete elimination of radio operators and radio operating
skill as a goal. That's why the maritime service phased out Morse code on the
high seas - they wanted to save the cost of having radio officers on their
ships.

They aren't. In the end, these are all code myths.

No, they are misunderstandings by those who don't like the code test.

Here, try this one:

"All else being equal, a radio amateur who has Morse Code skills is more
experienced, more qualified, and has more radio communications options
available than a radio amateur with no Morse Code skills."

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Clint" rattlehead at computron
dot net writes:

WHO is doing the name calling?

Both sides.

it's not the NCTA group calling
the PCTA "lazy", "stupid", and an assortment of complex insults
using spurious comparisons.

it's not the PCTA group calling the NCTA "elitist", "arrogant", "luddite",
"stuck in the past", "jackbooted thugs", "stoked on morsemanship", and an
assortment of complex insults using spurious comparisons. Like "nazis".

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

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?

Dwight,

Good question!

Here's one answer:

How many hams do you know who have designed, built and operate homebrew
stations? Not kits, not partly home-made, not with homebrew accessories, but
100% built-from-scratch amateur radio receivers, transmitters, transceivers,
antennas, power supplies, etc.?

One of the oft-repeated claims has been that the code tests kept out
"technically inclined" individuals. At least one NCTA (Vshah101) has claimed
that "no self-respecting EE would use CW". Etc.

Yet what kind of equipment are these "technically inclined" individuals
actually using on the air? If/when FCC dumps Element 1, will we see a lot more
homebrew HF stations?

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

"Kim" 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.

I am reminded of an old line usually credited to Groucho Marx: "I wouldn't join
a club that would have me as a member"....

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

What about thier constant use of the term "CBplusser" and
so forth...

There is only one person who uses that term. He also claims to be 305 years
old.

I don't know if THEY have kept up to date on ham
radio violation records, but the vast majority of code & rule violaters are
hams who've been in the hobby for many many years, have advanced licenses
(advanced, extra) and thus have passed morse code testing.

Your source, please? I read the "FCC enforcement letters", and there seems to
be a wide distribution of experience, license classes, etc.

One thing is quite obvious, though: the vast majority of enforcement actions
are against hams using voice modes. When's the last time a ham using CW in the
CW/data subbands was the target of an FCC enforcement action?

The hams I
have met personally that came out of 11 meters were the best hams I ever
met. WHY? Because they KNEW where they came from, how nice it is
up here, and have thus a respect for the advancement into a more
serious hobby.

Some of the best and the worst hams I have known came from 11 meters.

The foulest mouths i've ever heard were on 75 meters ssb, and one ham
who's call I won't mention was denied advancement by hollingsworth HIMSELF
(you can look it up on ARRL records).. he lived at the time in conroe,
texas....
he use to get just slobbering drunk on the radio and really raise hell;
cussing,
insulting, playing music, everything.

And what mode was he using?

He passed the code requirements and
written exam to advance to an even higher license, but recieved a letter
from Hollingworth saying "you are not being given your upgrade, and
furthermore, never will until I recieve a written letter from you explaining
why you feel you DESERVE one."

Was he using CW to do all that?

THAT ham was a long time veteran ham who had already passed a
CW test. Therefore, any argument brought up that CW testing is
a "yahoo filter" as they call it is wrong. It doesn't stop any such thing.

He'd also passed several *written* tests on regulations and operating
practices. Those written tests didn't stop his behavior either. Shall we dump
the writtens because they are not a "yahoo filter" either?

No test can be a perfect "filter".