There is no defeat to admit to, Larry. I presented the facts. You were
unable to respond without twisting the truth. That pretty much ended the
discussion. However, I'm more than willing to continue if you have
something
worthwhile to say. Of course, you don't really have to say anything
intellegent, just something worthy of even a passing reply.


you'll get dodges or a variation of "I did it to, so shut up and do it
yourself!"

Clint
KB5ZHT

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


"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

(snip) In fact, I would dare say that if there is any
"mental anguish" in this forum, it would seem to have
been expressed almost exclusively by the NCTA's,
who, after all, started all this (snip)


Too bad Google doesn't go back that far. It would be interesting to see
who really "started all this" in these newsgroups. Of course, I suspect it
was a member of the pro-code crowd - since the FCC started dropping code
years ago, the no-code crowd would have had little reason to even bring the
subject up. The pro-code crowd, on the other hand, started complaining
before the FCC even changed the rules (the rumor of a rule change was
enough).

Dwight:

It was definitely the NCTA's who originated the code/no-code (testing)
debate on Fidonet, then Usenet. At least, it was they who threw the
first slings and arrows at the pro-coders (PCTA's) and making all the
now famous accusations of us being politically-incorrect in every
possible way, contributing to everything that is wrong in this world,
and seeking to keep the ARS technically archaic. I was there from the
beginning, so if you weren't, you'll just have to accept the word of
those of us who were.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:


"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

(snip) Sooo, you, like Kim, are going to admit defeat
as well? (snip)


There is no defeat to admit to, Larry. I presented the facts.

Dwight:

Which facts would those be? I haven't seen Fact #1 come out of you yet!

You were
unable to respond without twisting the truth.

What truth? You never spoke any "truth." You only presented typical,
boiler-plate NCTA strawman arguments.

That pretty much ended the discussion.

Due to your lack of ability to offer anything of value to the discussion.

However, I'm more than willing to continue if you have something
worthwhile to say.

Fine. Propose a topic, and we'll give it a try. However, I believe you've
pretty much used up your quota of boilerplate NCTA red herring strawmen,
so you'll now have to actually make an attempt to dredge up something
original. Good luck.

Of course, you don't really have to say anything
intellegent, just something worthy of even a passing reply.

Now you're starting to imitate Kim's whine. You should consider watching
that, it's a very bad habit to get into, if you're concerned about your
future credibility.

73 de Larry, K3LT

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? 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)? You have yet to answer this
question, and almost seem determined to avoid it.

Dwight:

I've also answered that question numerous times, but here it comes again:

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, in order to ensure that this mode can continue to be
effectively employed and it's benefits and advantages conferred upon the
user. It's a fairly simple concept to understand, which makes one wonder
why the NCTA's fail to grasp it.

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?

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.

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

Again, non-sequitur. This is a strawman argument offered in place of
something more logical, well-reasoned, and relevant. There is no connection
between Morse/CW testing or use and any possible deleterious effect on
the development of other communications modes. This is merely, as
previously stated, one of the NCTA's more famous but totally worthless
"red herring" arguments.

If you don't have an answer those questions, fine. Just
don't attempt to twist what I said.

No need, you're doing that quite nicely yourself.

73 de Larry, K3LT

--

--

If you sympathize with terrorists and middle
eastern tyrants, vote for liberals...


--

I've also answered that question numerous times, but here it comes again:

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, in order to ensure that this mode can continue to be
effectively employed and it's benefits and advantages conferred upon the
user. It's a fairly simple concept to understand, which makes one wonder
why the NCTA's fail to grasp it.

They don't "fail to grasp" what you're saying... they only point out the
fact
that the one has nothing to do with the other anymore. Yes, testing morse
code ensures that "it's benefits and advantages [are] conferred upon
the user", just like a contest of shuffleboard proves whether or not
the knowledge and sychomotor skills to play shuffleboard are inherint
within a person to play shuffleboard. The line of reasoning at this point
breaks down with all you PCTA people because you then try to make
the erroneous leap to the conclusion "therefore, it's necessary to continue
testing it for ham radio licenses."

Not many of your crowd seemed to have had a problem all through
the years for disabled people to have an exemption for high speed morse
code testing (if you had a physician's endorsement you didn't have to
prove you could send & receive morse code over 5wpm)... why did
none of you guys have the guts to stand up and say "well, the only
conclusion you can draw is that disabled & crippled people are not
real qualified hams" or "if you are disabled, you cannot ever be anything
more than a fake ham"? or how about "since the testing of morse code
is so necessary for ham radio, there should be NO exemptions for
people with hearing disorders because they can't possibly EVER show
the correct skills for being ham radio operators?"

You didn't, showing yet another error in PCTA logic. The only conclusion
a person can draw from this is that you subjectively and selectively apply
the requirements necessary for showing you have "the right stuff" to be a
ham,
and by doing show outright admit that it's more just a simple case of
personal choice and bias more than true, ground level basic needs.

Clint
KB5ZHT


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?

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.

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

Again, non-sequitur. This is a strawman argument offered in place of
something more logical, well-reasoned, and relevant. There is no
connection
between Morse/CW testing or use and any possible deleterious effect on
the development of other communications modes. This is merely, as
previously stated, one of the NCTA's more famous but totally worthless
"red herring" arguments.

If you don't have an answer those questions, fine. Just
don't attempt to twist what I said.

No need, you're doing that quite nicely yourself.

73 de Larry, K3LT

It was definitely the NCTA's who originated the code/no-code (testing)
debate on Fidonet, then Usenet. At least, it was they who threw the
first slings and arrows at the pro-coders (PCTA's) and making all the
now famous accusations of us being politically-incorrect in every
possible way, contributing to everything that is wrong in this world,
and seeking to keep the ARS technically archaic. I was there from the
beginning, so if you weren't, you'll just have to accept the word of
those of us who were.

73 de Larry, K3LT


AH, self fullfilling argument... by simply you saying so, it must be true.

Well, it just doesn't stand the light of reason to say that those opposing
the code testing were the first to raise hell when it was quite obvious that
the tide of events were going thier way. It just doesn't make sense. It
would
be that group of people who felt thier interests were being attacked that
naturally would want to raise debate about it and therefore, the law of
averages
says that some of those would be rather sharp, offensive and a little on the
dark side.

Which facts would those be? I haven't seen Fact #1 come out of you yet!

He did, you ignore them conveniently.


You were
unable to respond without twisting the truth.

What truth? You never spoke any "truth." You only presented typical,
boiler-plate NCTA strawman arguments.

He did. you ignored it conveniently.. and by the way,
you just dodged the fact that he was commenting about
the (non)logic of PCTA people, not those wanting to
advance ham radio into the modern age.


That pretty much ended the discussion.

Due to your lack of ability to offer anything of value to the discussion.

He did. You ignored it conveniently and asked for facts when there
was plenty of substantial reasoning for his side of the view.


However, I'm more than willing to continue if you have something
worthwhile to say.

Fine. Propose a topic, and we'll give it a try. However, I believe
you've
pretty much used up your quota of boilerplate NCTA red herring strawmen,
so you'll now have to actually make an attempt to dredge up something
original. Good luck.

why bother? you, just like the rest of the PCTA crowd will just overlook and
ignore it and say "where are your facts?" and then continue to not only not
produce any yourself but just rehash the old "boo hoo, my precious morse
code testing system is about to be dumped...."

Clint
KB5ZHT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

(snip) I was there from the beginning, so if you weren't,
you'll just have to accept the word of those of us who
were.


Right, Larry. You were there for the very first no-code/pro-code debate.
Actually, I wouldn't be overly surprised if you were. With your attitude, I
could easily see you starting that first debate.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

Which facts would those be? I haven't seen Fact #1
come out of you yet!

(snip)

What truth? You never spoke any "truth." (snip)


Larry, as much as you want to claim victory in this debate, you haven't
shown anything I've said to be untruthful or shown any facts I've presented
to be inaccurate. You've tried to wiggle out from responding to those facts
by offering irrelevant arguments and attempting to twist what I've said, but
you've had no success with either tactic. At the same time, you've presented
nothing solid to support code testing. In the end, you were not able to
support your position or undermine my position. This is consistent with the
overall code testing debate, which is exactly why code testing will
eventually be eliminated in this country.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"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. 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)?


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


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"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

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

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

Do you honestly think so?


Hey, I can hope, can't I? No, I don't honestly think the pro-code testing
crowd will have nothing more to say. That's why I wrote the rest of that
paragraph (the part you didn't include in the quote above).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Except that what Larry does is far from debate. Larry whines.


No, Larry nags. Hes' like a nagging mother trying to convince an adult
child to do what she says, just "because I say so."


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"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. 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.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Hans K0HB" wrote:

"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. (snip)


I imagine she said that within the context of this discussion, Hans (the
removal of the code test, with the written tests intact). In that regard,
"let them get their license and stand or fail on their merit." I happen to
agree with her. We shouldn't be trying to exclude anyone just because of who
or what they are (CB'ers or whatever). If they can pass the written tests
and meet the citizenship laws, they should be allowed to participate. If
they screw up later, that is the time to force them out.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dick Carroll" wrote:

And that post made my case.


Your "case" is that I was doing something others don't. Of course, since
that is not really true, you haven't made any case whatsoever. Instead,
you've given me an opportunity to show that I'm more honest about it then
perhaps even you are since you've said nothing about your writing style in
this newsgroup.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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



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.

Dan/W4NTI

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
"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

Now you know why I call her the Texas TWIT.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Hans K0HB" wrote:

"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. (snip)


I imagine she said that within the context of this discussion, Hans (the
removal of the code test, with the written tests intact). In that regard,
"let them get their license and stand or fail on their merit." I happen to
agree with her. We shouldn't be trying to exclude anyone just because of
who
or what they are (CB'ers or whatever). If they can pass the written tests
and meet the citizenship laws, they should be allowed to participate. If
they screw up later, that is the time to force them out.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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



You and your ilk 'may have' had a point with the cw set at 20 and possibly
even at 13. But 5 wpm, a multiple guess, given by volunteer examiners
without all the strain and stress of a FCC session, can not be serious now.

All it comes across is as; Im just too lazy to take 2 weeks of ten minutes
a day to memorize the Morse characters. Good grief at 5 wpm you could copy
every third word and guess the test to completion.

Give it a rest.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
hlink.net...

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


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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



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 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.

Clint
KB5ZHT

--

--

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


--

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
"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.


Hans, what part of "let them get their license" did you NOT understand?
And, your rhetorical, "well that's the silliest thing..." is really old and
boring.


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


Yeah. What you suggest would be like saying that. But that was not
suggested and your attempt to stretch it to that is rather unlike you...

Kim W5TIT

"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/