"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message
...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
t...


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.


that's true until the rules are changed and CW testing is taken out.

Clint

Sadly correct, Clint.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

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

Ok, Dwight. Very easy. It's not. While the FCC is the regulatory body to
whom we answer, they are definitely NOT the sum total of who or what defines
OUR hobby/service. We, as amateurs radio operators, are a big part in
retaining those element that define our rules, tradition, and culture. This
is why the NCTA's battle cry is "well, the FCC doesn't think so" and/or "it
serves no regulatory purpose." Sure, the FCC defines the rules and regs to
which we're beholden, but as rar as basis and purpose goes...we ourselves
have more say in that than you or some other NCI folks appear willing to
acknowledge. Calling the 5-wpm exam a barrier is just plain silly and in the
end, this crusade to eliminate the test will have a negative effect on the
overall quality (NOT quantity) of AR. Frankly, I have much more respect for
someone with the stones to just admit that they're too lazy or
insufficiently motivated to bother meeting the requirements than all this
"regulatory" mumbo jumbo.

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.

The 5-wpm exam..."a form of toture," Dwight? Surely you jest.

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?"

Because it beats a blank. BTW, were you one of those who said that the VHF
and up privies of your license were sufficient for your needs? How long
after Element 1 is dropped can I address you as W5NET/AE, hmm?

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Vry 73 de Bert
WA2SI

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
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

BINGO! It only filters out those who are unwilling to TRY.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

N2EY wrote:
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".


I think you'll be told "That's different". Somehow, some way, some
people are convinced that since they are "right" that civil behavior is
not necessary.

Problem is not one of our positions is right or wrong. Its all opinions.


But then it is easier to just lump everyone together into two groups.
Then dehumanize them, so that whatever you do is okay, and ends justify
means.

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:
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.

What is it with the application of one person's pejorative to everyone?
I've never called anyone a name here, and yet you and I are assigned the
infamous "they" and "their".



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?

I did a little research project on this a year or so ago. No vast
majority of any license class as far as perps go. There were a bit more
of the higher classes, but not significantly so. Techs were real close,
and then there were the unlicensed. I'd have to say there was no
significant difference in the license class as far as rule violations go.


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".

And never will be. There are incompetent and even evil doctors. And yet
they have one of the most rigorous entry requirements there are.

No requirements are needed to operate a transciever on HF. We have to
decide how much knowledge is needed. My only wish is that the
requirements are enough that I know that the person is highly interested
in the service.

- Mike KB3EIA -

On 28 Sep 2003 04:19:07 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

There is no need for use of the Morse/CW
mode to "help keep the ARS abreast of modern technology...".

And later in the same post...

There is no connection
between Morse/CW testing or use and any possible deleterious effect on
the development of other communications modes.


73 de Larry, K3LT

I agree with both statements, Larry. And although I admittedly took
them out of context in the above quotes, the two statements are
perfectly capable of standing on their own - as two perfectly good
reasons why there is no longer any need for code testing.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 09:21:07 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

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 happen to think it's a case of turf defending...the PCTAs feel they
must defend their exclusive little slices of the RF spectrum at all
costs, regardless of what harm is done to the ARS in the process.
They'll kill the mother to save the baby.

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.

While this may be true, FCC didn't buy that argument from the PCTAs
with respect to lowering the code test speed to 5WPM during the last
restructuring, and I highly doubt that FCC will buy it this time
around, either.

Now...try asking the PCTAs about refarming the Novice subbands once
there aren't any more Novices around to use them, and make sure you've
got your asbestos pantyhose on when you do it. :-)

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.

I think there are definitely people who should be kept out of the ARS,
including some who are already licensed. However, I also think that
the proper way to keep them out is through the self-policing that the
ARS is well known for, along with appropriate enforcement efforts on
the part of FCC - rather than through the use of a testing requirement
that also causes many potentially excellent operators to turn away
from amateur radio.

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.

Again, FCC did not buy this particular PCTA argument the last time
around. The Commission's response to this, in its Report & Order on
Docket WT 98-143, read as follows:

" We do not concur with the comments alleging that the passing of a
telegraphy examination is an indication of the examinee's good
caracter, high intelligence, cooperative demeanor, or willingness to
cmply with our rules. These traits are also found in individuals who
have not passed a telegraphy examination rather that being exclusive
to those who have passed such a test."

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.

Or to filter out folks who don't act like them, and thus do not
contribute to the task of holding on to their "turf" in the RF
spectrum. What really sticks in their collective craw is that if you
go back and re-read the comments in the Report & Order that I quoted
from above, the writing is already on the wall for the elimination of
code testing pursuant to the petitions for rulemaking that have
already been filed with FCC - or should I say, the writing is already
on the FCC website:

"We are persuaded that because the amateur service is fundamentally a
tchnical service, the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a
licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of
the service."

The same document also cites the international requirements as the
basis for retaining code testing in Part 97:

"When considering the issue of telegraphy as an examination
requirement to obtain an amateur radio operator license, we begin with
a number of general principles. First, the Radio Regulations contain
certain requirements that an applicant for an amateur radio license
must satisfy. With regard to the telegraphy requirement specifically,
the Radio Regulations require that persons seeking a license to
operate an amateur radio station must prove that they have the ability
to send correctly by hand and to receive correctly by ear texts in
Morse code telegraphy signals. The Radio Regulations also provide
that this requirement may be waived only for an operator of a station
transmitting exclusively on frequencies above 30 MHz. In order to
comply with the Radio Regulations, our rules require that every class
of amateur radio operator license that authorizes privileges below 30
MHz has, as one of the examination elements that an applicant is
required to pass or otherwise receive credit for, a telegraphy
examination element. The other principles that we consider relevant
to examination requirements are that those requirements pertain
to the privileges the operator license authorizes and that they
constitute the minimum requirements necessary to demonstrate that the
control operator of a station can ensure the proper operation of that
station."

The Radio Regulations referred to no longer contain this requirement.
As for the other two principles that FCC states it considers relevant,
Technicians are already authorized full amateur privileges on all the
bands above 30 MHz, with no code test required - so apparently the
code test is not necessary to demonstrate that the control operator of
a station can ensure the proper operation of that station - and to the
extent that the requirements pertain to the privileges the license
authorizes, FCC already authorizes Technicians to operate in CW mode
on the bands above 30 MHz sans any code testing.

I'd find this mighty discouraging if I were on the PCTA side of this
particular discussion, but since I'm not, I'll leave the whining and
crying and gnashing of teeth to the PCTAs. :-)

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:45:17 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this
mindspring.com 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.

Perhaps you have a short memory, then, Dan. A search of Google or some
other UseNet archive would, I'm sure, turn up at least one thread from
circa July of this year where at least three of the PCTAs in this NG
were claiming exactly that. In fairness, I'll admit that I don't
recall you being one of them. Nevertheless, the attitude does exist
among some of the PCTAs who regularly post here.

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.

I feel that those who don't participate in public service work are
missing a major part of the enjoyment they could get from having an
amateur license. However, I don't go around advocating that hams be
required to do so, or that they be tested on their ability to do so as
a requirement of obtaining a license.

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

As this pertains to yourself, perhaps. As it pertains to several
others in this NG? Hmmm...not quite, sir.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 19:29:05 -0500, "Clint" rattlehead at computron
dot net wrote:

No he didn't, it only found agreement with the a few other PCTA
members such as yourself, but he didn't prove anything more than
what I said was true.

Clint
KB5ZHT

Ummm...Clint...the person you are referring to as "he" happens to be
female. Not that this has any bearing on the discussion, but it just
looks funny calling Dee "he" rather than "she" which is the
appropriate pronoun until such time as Dee decides to have a gender
change operation (probably a highly unlikely event).

Just thought I'd try to set the record straight...

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York