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

Sonny, I've probably done MORE in radio already than you've done in
your entire "career" as a hambone...er Ham.


oh, i'm just DIEING to see if he dares say something like "you can't know
everything I know and how far i've come and where i've been"... oh,
that's going to be just TOO juicy... bet he does though!

Why should he? The person who wrote:

"Sonny, I've probably done MORE in radio already than you've done in
your entire "career" as a hambone...er Ham."

already has.

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
"Dwight writes:
Again, code testing is not, and never has been, solely for
the benefit of Amateur Radio (or solely to benefit CW
operations on those bands). (snip)

I see. Then perhaps you can tell us how it "benefits"
photography, cooking, stamp collecting, or any other
activity which isn't Amateur Radio?

(snip)

And, once again, you fail to mention who or what is
benefited by it, if not the ARS. Please provide an answer,
or quite wasting our time with this illogical statement.


Larry, I know you are not so dumb as to not know how Morse Code/CW has fit
into the history of Amateur Radio and how Amateur Radio has fit into the
other radio services throughout that history. Knowing that, your request
above could only be considered factitious. Therefore, I will treat it as
such.


(snip) And, since everything I'm discussing here is related
ONLY to the Amateur Radio Service, that's the only group
of Morse/CW users who are being considered by me in any
of my postings. (snip)


Well, that may be what you're discussing, but I'm discussing Morse Code
testing - a discussion which, by it's very nature, cannot be limited to just
Amateur Radio. However, if the discussion were limited to just Amateur
Radio, your arguments would have no more weight since most ham operators
today don't use code/cw on any routine or regular basis. There is little
reason to maintain testing for a mode that is seldom used by more than a
relatively small minority.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

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

The same applies to students of all ages. When an adult goes to
college,

and wasn't it pointed out in an earlier post in this, or another, thread
that
electrical engineering students aren't required to learn morse code?

hmmmmmm.....

Clint
KB5ZHT

Your incorrect usage of snippage really hurts your comments. My point was
to show that adults are often required to meet standards set by people who
are experienced in their field of choice. This means taking courses in
college for example, that the student may never use. This is similar to
requiring hams to take and pass code tests.

Newsflash: The FCC was NEVER chartered as an educational
organization and the US amateur radio test is NOT an academic
achievement.

Electrical engineering is not ham radio.

Not quite the right wording. Make it: Ham radio is NOT anywhere close
to electrical engineering.

Although they don't study code,
all of them have to take subjects in which they have no interest and will
never use otherwise they don't get the degree.

Mommy DEErest, I was USING engineering knowledge at work well
before I got my electronic engineering degree. It made classes (most
at night) much easier.

I did run into one instructor of the "Prussian General Officer" type
who adamantly insisted, in a class on digital logic, that "there is NO
such thing as an Exclusive-Or gate." I brought in a quad Ex-Or made
by Texas Instruments and showed him. "We will NOT have that in
MY class!" he ordered.

This instructor of Asian ancestry was young and had NOT worked in
the electronics industry on any digital logic design. Yet, we in the
class were not able to use a simple low-level logic device that had
been made for over 15 years at that time. I have other examples
from my personal experience and that of others in just about every
discipline in undergraduate school which do not show a full
awareness of academia to that of industry.

Perhaps one out of two electronic engineering instructors at the
college/university level MIGHT have worked in the electronics industry
at one time. I wouldn't bank on that. One of the excellent ones, whom
I've never met, is Dan McCracken, past president of the ACM (I was a
member courtesy of IEEE membership).

I digress since: 1. You refuse to acknowledge my postings because
I have strong opposite views to yours; 2. You like to play some kind
of Mommie DEErest and think that all newcomers to amateur radio are
at the level of children.

Adults are required to do things they don't want to on a regular basis.

Yes, Mommie, but put aside the Mommie suit and THINK in reality.
Laws and regulations are NOT required to remain long after their
usefulness. That YOU personally like certain regulations is NO
imperative that they should be kept, certainly not to any government
agency making and enforcing those laws.

Try to remember that US amateur radio is NOT an academic exercise
nor is the FCC a college or university administering final exams.

Class dismissed.

LHA

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

(snip) Now, then, how does the advocation of code
testing in any way correlate to bigotry, elitism, and/or
discrimination against other Americans? (snip)


I'm not going to waste time talking in circles with you, Larry. We just
discussed this less than a month ago, so there is little reason to repeat it
again.


Correct, because I don't consider it to be "excessive"
government regulation. I believe the government has
a valid need to regulate certain things, especially
valuable and finite resources such as the RF spectrum.
Therefore, I believe that when license is to be given for
the PRIVILEGE of free use of RF spectrum, which is
worth potentially billions of dollars should it be converted
to commerce in the commercial utility communications
and broadcasting industries, certain government
regulation makes good sense. (snip)


The only thing you didn't explain with that is a government regulation
requiring code testing to gain that privilege. In other words, what does
code testing have to do with anything you said?


(snip) First of all, FCC Commissioners are political
appointees, not necessarily technical experts. They can,
and do, depend on the advice of professional technical
experts, who actually formulate and subsequently make
recommendations on regulatory matters. (snip)


The original premise still stands - there is no code testing requirement
at the FCC, either for the commissioners who regulate Amateur Radio or the
technical experts they rely on.


(snip) However, this discussion is about the AMATEUR
Radio Service. (snip)


No, this discussion is about the code test requirement. How that applies
to Amateur Radio is only one part of that discussion.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dick Carroll; wrote:

Well, I really *don't* like Brussels sprouts!


I remember when I was a kid, the Brussels sprouts were one of the last
things to go in the local gardens in the fall, so us kids would pluck
them and use them for throwing at squirrels, the local girls, and other
places. In that conext, they wer okay.

And of course, every sprout chucked at a squirrel or a girl was one less
we had to eat!

- Mike KB3EIA -

I'm all for NSI (No Squash International) or NBSI (No Brussel Sprouts
International)

Ryan KC8PMX


How about NBI - NO Broccoli International?

- Mike KB3EIA -


I LIKE broccoli. Let's make it NO Peas International.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

Unfortunately, there is more evidence to support
my "feeling" than there is to support yours. With
the exception of hams who were trained in Morse
code by the military or maritime/commercial radio
services, I have yet to meet an avid and active
CW user who got that way except through the
code testing requirement. (snip)


Of course, that's mainly because the code testing requirement has been
there longer than most of us have been alive. With that in mind, obviously
most today would be CW users as a the result of code testing.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

Perhaps, but the accuracy of those judgments are
definitely affected by having had those experiences,
or not. Someone who has never experienced a
house fire, a terrorist attack, life under a tyrannical
dictator, or a business failure is certainly capable
of making the entirely incorrect judgment about any
of the above. (snip)


Gladly, we don't live in a trial and error world today. I would hope the
bridge designer would have enough knowledge to build a safe bridge without
having to watch one (perhaps this one) fall down first. People can learn
about the specifics of a subject without personally experiencing every
aspect of it. We generally trust that system for a great many things in
this
world today (for example, the bridges we routinely drive over).


I do not disagree. However, experience has shown
that people who aren't required to be code tested
usually don't bother to learn and use the Morse
code, so the issue does relate to code use, only to
the extent that the lack of a requirement would tend
to cause a decline in the use of the Morse/CW mode
in the fullness of time.


If that were true, I think a test requirement is the worst way to
accomplish what you're seeking. Instead, a better solution is to find ways
to attract new people to that aspect of ham radio. You're obviously not
going to have much success with that effort today because "no coders" have
made their choice about code while focusing solely on the license
requirement (the license requirement dominates the issue in their minds).
Later, when that license requirement is gone, the mode itself becomes the
focus. At that point, I think many more will be interested in taking a
second look at code. Obviously, there is no way for me to prove that now,
but I just have a feeling about this (perhaps the same way you have a
feeling about the above).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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



Besides which, there is no requirement "that people who aren't required to
be code tested usually don't bother to learn and use the Morse code." So,
it is a non-issue when discussing the topic.

Kim W5TIT

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message
...
Your incorrect usage of snippage really hurts your comments. My point was
to show that adults are often required to meet standards set by people who
are experienced in their field of choice. This means taking courses in
college for example, that the student may never use. This is similar to
requiring hams to take and pass code tests.

Newsflash: The FCC was NEVER chartered as an educational
organization and the US amateur radio test is NOT an academic
achievement.

Even Bigger Newsflash: The FCC EXPECTS a certain degree of "self
training" from the Amateur Service, and hence it's requirement of
Amateur licenses which demonstrate increased knowledge with each
class.

It's right there in Part 97...read it for yourself, Mr.
Anderscum.

Electrical engineering is not ham radio.

Not quite the right wording. Make it: Ham radio is NOT anywhere close
to electrical engineering.

Even "more right" wording, Lennie: Make it: CERTAIN "electrical
engineers" are not able/capable/willing to pass even the most basic of
Amateur licenses despite the fact that even the most basic license
grants access to over 97% of all Amateur allocations.

Although they don't study code,
all of them have to take subjects in which they have no interest and will
never use otherwise they don't get the degree.

Mommy DEErest, I was USING engineering knowledge at work well
before I got my electronic engineering degree. It made classes (most
at night) much easier.

An item that I am sure applies to Amateur Radio POLICY in SOME
regard...Lord knows that LENNIE would never violate his own newsgroup
rules-of-engagement.

I did run into one instructor of the "Prussian General Officer" type
who adamantly insisted, in a class on digital logic, that "there is NO
such thing as an Exclusive-Or gate." I brought in a quad Ex-Or made
by Texas Instruments and showed him. "We will NOT have that in
MY class!" he ordered.

QUICK! A Medal of Night School Honor for Lennie!

This instructor of Asian ancestry...(SNIP)

Of course his "ancestry" was pertinent...To a bigot, that is...

(UNSNIP)...was young and had NOT worked in
the electronics industry on any digital logic design. Yet, we in the
class were not able to use a simple low-level logic device that had
been made for over 15 years at that time. I have other examples
from my personal experience and that of others in just about every
discipline in undergraduate school which do not show a full
awareness of academia to that of industry.

Still waiting for the fade-in to how this is pertinent to Amateur
Radio POLICY.

Perhaps one out of two electronic engineering instructors at the
college/university level MIGHT have worked in the electronics industry
at one time. I wouldn't bank on that. One of the excellent ones, whom
I've never met, is Dan McCracken, past president of the ACM (I was a
member courtesy of IEEE membership).

Nope...Not here either...

I digress...(SNIP)

Of course you do. You have NOTHING of any PERTINENT value of
construct to offer, so we are treated to yet another LenniRiffic
dissertation on how LENNIE saved the radio world through superior
firepower...

...(UNSNIP)since: 1. You refuse to acknowledge my postings because
I have strong opposite views to yours; 2. You like to play some kind
of Mommie DEErest and think that all newcomers to amateur radio are
at the level of children.

Ummmmm...THAT would be YOU, Lennie...Of course you extend that
exact same kind of "treatment" to Amateurs who are not only tenured in
the Amateur Service, but who also share like skills, knowledge or
experiences as you...

But in your LenniRiffic mind, NO ONE can be even remotely as good
as you...It's unthinkable...(thankfully ONLY by you)

Adults are required to do things they don't want to on a regular basis.

Yes, Mommie, but put aside the Mommie suit and THINK in reality.
Laws and regulations are NOT required to remain long after their
usefulness. That YOU personally like certain regulations is NO
imperative that they should be kept, certainly not to any government
agency making and enforcing those laws.

But YOU seem to think certain rules and regulations DON'T apply
to you, Lennie...why is that? Were you granted some sort of
dispensation by the Vatican to ignore them?

Try to remember that US amateur radio is NOT an academic exercise
nor is the FCC a college or university administering final exams.

You are the only one making even a suggestion that it is,
Lennie...

Why is it YOU make the assertion then spend days arguing about
it?

Mrs Lennie still not got that problem fixed? Can't stand to go
upstairs?

Class dismissed.

Not by you, it isn't.

Steve, K4YZ

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

I and other parents that I know have always required our children to eat
foods that are good for them whether they liked them or not. My children
have always been required to eat what was served whether they liked it or
not. Children were not allowed to dictate the menu.

...and so you act like you are the "parent" in here telling us what we
are supposed to like?

Ahhhhhhhhh yes...Here's Lennie trying to dictate to yet another
subset of Americans on a subject which he has very strong opinions yet
of which he has no practical experience...

You've been asked before, Lee-o-nard...Now here it is again...What
is YOUR experience in childrearing?

Steve, K4YZ