"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

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?


First, other than ARRL, I'm not a card carrying member of any Amateur
Radio group. Second, the opinions expressed by others don't apply to me and
I certainly don't represent the views of others. So please stop trying to
throw me into a group you dislike in an effort to dismiss what I have to
say.


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.


Which debate is that, Larry? The debates with me or the debates you've had
with others. I've never said anything of the sorts in the debates you and I
have had. My position has been consistent throughout those debates.


I have given the "relevant facts" ad nauseum. (snip)


Nonsense.


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


You haven't stop twisting things, Larry - right up to the message where
you posted the sentence above.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Kim W5TIT" 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.
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...

But that's exactly what was suggested. Your words, written in a clear
English declarative statement are unambiguous and say "NO ONE should
be kept out of the ARS" --- that's pretty much the same as saying
"NO ONE should be denied a drivers license".

Personally, I think persons who fail the test (or haven't taken a test)
SHOULD be kept out of the ARS.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message
...
"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


--



Now why did I know you had to make a comment Clint?

Here is one right back to you ...ten four?

If the shoe fits, wear it.

Have a nice day.

Dan/W4NTI

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

"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


Dang Dee D......you are really cutting his crap down to size. You must
have had some courses.

Dan/W4NTI

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

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net 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.


I'm not talking about references or analogies, Clint. I'm talking about
Larry's specific use of the word "superior" to describe those with code
skills and the word "inferior" to describe those without such skills.
Since
none of the pro-code crowd objected to his position, I now trying to see
how
many others share the same opinions.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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



He is intitled to his opinion. Just as you are, even if they are
crackpot....in my opinion...see how it works?

Dan/W4NTI

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
"Dan/W4NTI" 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.
__________________________________________________ ___________________

I feel exactly the same way, Dan. I promote CW, and will continue to do
so,
but have never said or even implied that it made me a superior Ham. I
*do*
think it makes one a more well-rounded ham. But that is not the same
thing.

Arnie -
KT4ST


Exactly, more rounded, more experienced, more able to provide
communications under adverse conditions...etc.

But not suprerior. In fact when I get my Extra back in the 70s. I could
have opted for a 1X2 callsign at various points since then. I have not,
why is that? Im not one to put on airs, nor do I feel superior to others.

However, based on my experience and background, I feel I am qualified to
advise and suggest. The problem is folks now a days seem to think they know
it all, just because they passed a entry level exam. Oh well.

I believe all of us are more than willing to help the newcomers out. But I
refuse to be insulted and because I enjoy a mode they find 'useless'.

Dan/W4NTI

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



I didn't see that post. And I don't agree with it, if that is what was
said.

I don't read all the posts about code/no code. Its just the same over and
over.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:
Exactly, more rounded, more experienced, more
able to provide communications under adverse
conditions...etc.


Code makes a person more experienced? 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. More rounded in
what? Emergency communications? Moonbounce? Satellites? 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. They aren't. In the end,
these are all code myths.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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.

That's where I first learned about the morse code. I had to learn it to get
a badge; upon learning it, I recieved a badge of achievement for haveing
done so. Had I not dont it, I STILL would have been allowed to be a boy
scout, they wouldn't have thrown me out NOR was learning the code
a requirement for joining in the first place. I just wouldn't have gotten
that particular acheivement badge had I not went through the morse
code studies.

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?

Clint

--

--

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


--

"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 licens is available. It's really quite simple.


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

Clint

--

--

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


--

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...



I don't whine or nag.

Yea, you pretty much do.

I have a strong belief in my position code testing,
and I am able to state it with clarity, passion, and conviction.

But simply without any convincing debate points or ideas other
than "do it, we all had to" and "do it because you are told to do
it, you are a insert childish, juvenile personal attack here if you
do not want to.

You, Kim,
and most of the NCTA appear to be limited to name-calling --

boy if that' isn't the pot calling the kettle black.

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

Clint
KB5ZHT

--

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


--

At least I have a conscience to examine. Your examination will have to
be
limited solely to the code license test.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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



I wonder if when they ascend the golden stairway to the pearly gates
and talk to St. Peter, if they will be looking around and asking where
the key is so they can prove thier code profeciency to enter? g

--

--

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


--

YOU personally? or your PCTA buddies?

That was whome I was referring to, and it's been done
by more than one and on more than one occasion...

Want me to cut and paste them, or do you want to
just back off and admit it's been done? Because I
certainly will, if you like for me to.

Clint


--

--

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


--
"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.

And that's the way it is percieved.
Thanks for helping.

Clint
KB5ZHT





--

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


--

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

okay, is there anybody else who doubts the attitude now?




Dang Dee D......you are really cutting his crap down to size.
Dan/W4NTI



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

--

--

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


--

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


Now why did I know you had to make a comment Clint?

Here is one right back to you ...ten four?

If the shoe fits, wear it.

Have a nice day.

Dan/W4NTI



and if you guys need yet ANOTHER bit of evidence
of such an attitude, keep scrolling down and you'll find
more PCTA'er making them....

Clint
KB5ZHT
--

--

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


--

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

I'm not talking about references or analogies, Clint. I'm talking about
Larry's specific use of the word "superior" to describe those with code
skills and the word "inferior" to describe those without such skills.

Oh, okay... well, I figured a reference would be enough, and t hough
I know i've seen the word superior itself used before, it just hasn't been
with as much frequency as that of a mere attitude showing same...
I think one is just as abhorrant as the other; what's more, it simply is
not conducive to an environment that makes the hobby more attractive
to new potential hams (and remarks have been made about that from
newbies in here)... on the one hand, you read things in the ham
radio books and mags about friendly and helpful communities in ham,
peaceful coexistence in the ranks, etc....

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!

Clint
KB5ZHT

--

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


--

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote ...


On the contrary, Dwight. He has claimed in one of my threads that we are
nothing more than knuckledraggers who don't understand modern technology.

BZZZZZT! Wrong...

(1) I have never used the term "knuckledragger" at all, nor have I called
any
of you guys one....

(2) I have never said that you "don't understand modern technology". All
my comments have been to the effect that the PCTA crowd has an agenda
that doesn't reflect the change in times and modernization of
communications,
both of which is suppose to be reflected in the ham radio community... I
never said you didn't UNDERSTAND modern technology, I said you
guys weren't willing to allow the testing to "advance the hobby into the
modern age."

As far as your remarks about me ignoring your questions, I haven't,
I have simply answered the very same questions earlier to the others
in here that share your side of the debate.. and, quite frankly, met
with either diversion & dodging or personal attacks ultimately against
me. Why repeat the same thing over and over, ad naseum? After
the same thing is repeated about 5 times in a NG, it's for no other
purpose than to pump up one's own pride or to flame.

If you're going to quote me, I will forever follow and set the record
straight. Go mischaracterize somebody else, not me.

Clint
KB5ZHT

--

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


--

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. ..


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

You're either a flamer or one who simply doesn't read many posts. I have
repeated over and over and over that I like CW and my first several
QSL cards were from CW contacts. My objections are to the testing
of this mode (short answer, anyway).

It's amazing how very few things get to and reach people on your
side of the argument. I don't know how many times i've had to either
defend my position on that regard, or defend the NCTA's position
that it simply wants to remove CW testing, not CW... But I can't
possibly believe this charge is genuine anyway, I think it's a diversion
or a dodge because it's quite a concept EASY to understand, it
just isn't being *heard*.

Clint
KB5ZHT


--

--

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


--

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



(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)

heh, what was arnie macey saying? LOL



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)

Trust me, being too liberal doesn't have anything to do with it. I am on
your side of this discussion.. and I am anything BUT liberal. By admission
I am very right wing, a very proud conservative politically.

Clint
KB5ZHT

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
m...


But that's exactly what was suggested. Your words, written in a clear
English declarative statement are unambiguous and say "NO ONE should
be kept out of the ARS" --- that's pretty much the same as saying
"NO ONE should be denied a drivers license".

see why the PCTA is accused of slant and spin?
I am pretty sure that the phrase "who passes the tests required by
contemporary
modern society" was implied. If not, the part about "get thier license"
pretty much
removed any remaining "grey area" or misunderstanding.


Personally, I think persons who fail the test (or haven't taken a test)
SHOULD be kept out of the ARS.

73, de Hans, K0HB

that's what kim said.

Clint
KB5ZHT
--

--

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


--

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


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.

She DID.. she articulated one of thier unspoken doctrines exactly.
It was what I meant by overtones of superiority as well (in addition to).

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

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. 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."

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.
Like you and kim, I feel it's a "good old boy club" sydrome, of you will.
They just don't like these "new people"... "we don't like thier kind
here... they're not like us!"

Clint
KB5ZHT

--

--

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


--

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

Because it fits.



The hams I
have met personally that came out of 11 meters were the best hams I ever
met.

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.

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

Well if the shoe fits wear it you CBplusser

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
m...
"Kim W5TIT" 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.
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...

But that's exactly what was suggested. Your words, written in a clear
English declarative statement are unambiguous and say "NO ONE should
be kept out of the ARS" --- that's pretty much the same as saying
"NO ONE should be denied a drivers license".


OK, Hans. I forgot how the pholks like you need such phucking (HansTM)
pictures drawn for them. Here you go:

No one should be kept out of the ARS who is willing to meet the requirements
that are in current use at the time they begin entry into the service/hobby.
And the whole damned comment as a defense against the idea of those who
believe CW testing is a great way to filter out people from the ARS. Quit
being so stupid.


Personally, I think persons who fail the test (or haven't taken a test)
SHOULD be kept out of the ARS.

73, de Hans, K0HB


Me too. I hope you phinally phucking phigured that out. Good phucking
grief.

Kim W5TIT

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

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...


But that's exactly what was suggested. Your words, written in a clear
English declarative statement are unambiguous and say "NO ONE should
be kept out of the ARS" --- that's pretty much the same as saying
"NO ONE should be denied a drivers license".

see why the PCTA is accused of slant and spin?

Nope.

I am pretty sure that the phrase "who passes the tests required by
contemporary
modern society" was implied.

Wasn't clear at all.

If not, the part about "get thier license"
pretty much
removed any remaining "grey area" or misunderstanding.

The word is spelled "THEIR", Clint. Turn on your spellchecker if you can't
remember it.

Personally, I think persons who fail the test (or haven't taken a test)
SHOULD be kept out of the ARS.

73, de Hans, K0HB

that's what kim said.

No, she didn't.

And, btw, what makes you think Hans is "PCTA"?

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"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.

That could be enlightening.

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.

It's not a liberal or a conservative concept. It's just a matter of
what a person inherently likes. In all my pursuits, I like a certain
amount of panache in those around me. I like hard working, reasonably
skilled people on my hockey team, I like my friends to be hard working,
reasonably smart and witty, and I like the idea of the ARS having some
sort of standard. Others obviously disagree.

I'm not going to force my opinions on anyone, but by gum, I'll make
them known.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...


But that's exactly what was suggested. Your words, written in a clear
English declarative statement are unambiguous and say "NO ONE should
be kept out of the ARS" --- that's pretty much the same as saying
"NO ONE should be denied a drivers license".

see why the PCTA is accused of slant and spin?

Nope.

I am pretty sure that the phrase "who passes the tests required by
contemporary
modern society" was implied.

Wasn't clear at all.

If not, the part about "get thier license"
pretty much
removed any remaining "grey area" or misunderstanding.

The word is spelled "THEIR", Clint. Turn on your spellchecker if you can't
remember it.

Personally, I think persons who fail the test (or haven't taken a test)
SHOULD be kept out of the ARS.

73, de Hans, K0HB

that's what kim said.

No, she didn't.

And, btw, what makes you think Hans is "PCTA"?



Jim, I am really, really surprised that you failed to understand that the
part about meeting test requirements was implied. I really am...

Oh well...

Kim W5TIT

Hans K0HB wrote:


Personally, I think persons who fail the test (or haven't taken a test)
SHOULD be kept out of the ARS.

Elitist! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"WA8ULX" wrote:

Well if the shoe fits wear it you CBplusser


Do you follow your own advice, Bruce? If so, you must be wearing some
really foul smelling shoes at this very moment because that would be the
only shoes that fit you.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"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".