In article , "Clint"
rattlehead@computronDOTnet writes:

But they DO want to force CW on people that don't
necissarily have any interest in operating it. "basics"
arguments fail; "selftrained skill" fails because everything
is a selftrained skill, why put the emphasis on an outdated
mode instead of testing selftrained skills on new, modern
modes of communication?

Clint:

Last time I looked, Amateur Radio was a strictly VOLUNTARY
activity. Nobody has ever been "forced" to do anything related to
the hobby/service known as Amateur Radio. If you want to have
privileges within the ARS, you meet the licensing requirements --
as a voluntary act. Only NCTA whiners who are too lazy and
indifferent to the true nature of the ARS to be bothered to learn
a useful communications skill like Morse/CW drag out the "I'm
being forced to learn Morse code" or "I'm having Morse code
shoved down my throat" arguments. This is truly pathetic.

The truth is that a lot of hams, myself included, never imagined
themselves becoming CW operators until they made the effort to
meet the licensing requirement to pass Morse code tests at
various speed levels for increased operator privileges. This is
the genius of the Morse code testing requirement -- it brings out
the best in interested, motivated, and incentive-driven people,
who, for the most part, become the best hams.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

Last time I looked, Amateur Radio was a strictly
VOLUNTARY activity. Nobody has ever been
"forced" to do anything related to the hobby/
service known as Amateur Radio. If you want to
have privileges within the ARS, you meet the
licensing requirements -- as a voluntary act.


Compliance with all laws (or regulations) is a voluntary act. But, in this
country, there is a mechanism for eliminating laws that no longer serve a
purpose. That process is happening now with the regulations concerning Morse
Code testing.


Only NCTA whiners who are too lazy and indifferent
to the true nature of the ARS to be bothered to learn
a useful communications skill like Morse/CW drag out
the "I'm being forced to learn Morse code" or "I'm
having Morse code shoved down my throat" arguments.
This is truly pathetic.


Attempts to prevent the process of ending code testing, with no reason
other than your own preference for that testing, is indeed an attempt to
force interested parties to comply with your wishes instead of complying
with regulations which reflect the true needs of Amateur Radio. The only
reason you've offered for keeping code testing is your desire to limit
access to Amateur Radio (to keep out those who are not "interested,
motivated, or incentive-driven" enough to meet your tastes). Of course,
Amateur Radio was not created to be your own private club with rules
designed to keep out those you don't like. Instead, Amateur Radio is open to
all Americans with ANY interest in this activity, with rules to reasonably
facilitate that safely and orderly. That interest is not limited to just
Morse Code today. It also includes those who just want to hang out on the
repeaters, those who just want to talk with their friends, those who just
want to build their own equipment, and those with many other similar
interests (and soon to include those interested in HF, but with no interest
in Morse Code).


(snip) This is the genius of the Morse code testing
requirement -- it brings out the best in interested, motivated,
and incentive-driven people, who, for the most part,
become the best hams.


Your own ongoing behavior in this regard clearly shows that statement to
be totally false.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Clint"
rattlehead@computronDOTnet writes:

But they DO want to force CW on people that don't
necissarily have any interest in operating it. "basics"
arguments fail; "selftrained skill" fails because everything
is a selftrained skill, why put the emphasis on an outdated
mode instead of testing selftrained skills on new, modern
modes of communication?

Clint:

Last time I looked, Amateur Radio was a strictly VOLUNTARY
activity. Nobody has ever been "forced" to do anything related to
the hobby/service known as Amateur Radio. If you want to have
privileges within the ARS, you meet the licensing requirements --
as a voluntary act. Only NCTA whiners who are too lazy and
indifferent to the true nature of the ARS to be bothered to learn
a useful communications skill like Morse/CW drag out the "I'm
being forced to learn Morse code" or "I'm having Morse code
shoved down my throat" arguments. This is truly pathetic.

The truth is that a lot of hams, myself included, never imagined
themselves becoming CW operators until they made the effort to
meet the licensing requirement to pass Morse code tests at
various speed levels for increased operator privileges. This is
the genius of the Morse code testing requirement -- it brings out
the best in interested, motivated, and incentive-driven people,
who, for the most part, become the best hams.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Absolutely correct Larry. Bottom line is its too tough to actually try to
learn something for these whiners. It really is pathetic.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
(snip) Only NCTA whiners who are too lazy and
indifferent to the true nature of the ARS to be
bothered to learn a useful communications skill like
Morse/CW (snip)

Absolutely correct Larry. Bottom line is its too tough to
actually try to learn something for these whiners. It really
is pathetic.


No, it's pathetic that some judge themselves, and others, based on
something as outdated as Morse Code/CW. This was designed for communications
in the early 1900's. By the late 1900's, it's usefullness as a
communications mode had almost entirely disappeared. Today, it has no
substantial use other than recreation. As such, it has no value as a license
exam requirement. To claim otherwise simply because you've built a
self-identity around that mode is truely pathetic.

In the end, look at yourselves before you start talking about what is
pathetic. The two of you (Dan and Larry) sound like a couple of tired old
CB'ers still arguing that D-104 microphones and tube-type linears were
better as you sit around humming the tune to the movie "Convoy." You're too
old to raise hell in real life anymore, so you instead sit around trying to
raise hell in this newsgroup, patting each other on the backs for the
imagined value of your skill while the rest of the world continues to pass
you by.

Most Code/CW users understand the changing times and simply enjoy Code/CW
for what it is - one more enjoyable operating mode in the rich diversity of
Amateur Radio. Too bad you two can't come to grips with that.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
(snip) Only NCTA whiners who are too lazy and
indifferent to the true nature of the ARS to be
bothered to learn a useful communications skill like
Morse/CW (snip)

Absolutely correct Larry. Bottom line is its too tough to
actually try to learn something for these whiners. It really
is pathetic.


No, it's pathetic that some judge themselves, and others, based on
something as outdated as Morse Code/CW. This was designed for
communications
in the early 1900's. By the late 1900's, it's usefullness as a
communications mode had almost entirely disappeared. Today, it has no
substantial use other than recreation. As such, it has no value as a
license
exam requirement. To claim otherwise simply because you've built a
self-identity around that mode is truely pathetic.

In the end, look at yourselves before you start talking about what is
pathetic. The two of you (Dan and Larry) sound like a couple of tired old
CB'ers still arguing that D-104 microphones and tube-type linears were
better as you sit around humming the tune to the movie "Convoy." You're
too
old to raise hell in real life anymore, so you instead sit around trying
to
raise hell in this newsgroup, patting each other on the backs for the
imagined value of your skill while the rest of the world continues to pass
you by.

Most Code/CW users understand the changing times and simply enjoy
Code/CW
for what it is - one more enjoyable operating mode in the rich diversity
of
Amateur Radio. Too bad you two can't come to grips with that.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Coming from a Technician licensee, who knows NOTHING about how Morse Code
is used, enjoyed, or anything. I'll just consider the source.

Tell you what Dwight....when you get some knowledge of the subject, I'll pay
attention. Just quit trying to put on a spin on a subject you know NOTHING
about.

Have a nice day.

Dan/W4NTI

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

Absolutely correct Larry. Bottom line is its too tough to
actually try to learn something for these whiners. It really
is pathetic.

No, it's pathetic that some judge themselves, and others, based on
something as outdated as Morse Code/CW. This was designed for communications
in the early 1900's. By the late 1900's, it's usefullness as a
communications mode had almost entirely disappeared. Today, it has no
substantial use other than recreation. As such, it has no value as a license
exam requirement. To claim otherwise simply because you've built a
self-identity around that mode is truely pathetic.

Dwight:

Sorry, but that is a judgment that you are not qualified to make. I'm not
even going to bother to mention how wrong this judgment is, because it
comes from someone who is incapable of rendering a credible judgment
of the Morse/CW mode because of his lack of experience therein.

In the end, look at yourselves before you start talking about what is
pathetic. The two of you (Dan and Larry) sound like a couple of tired old
CB'ers still arguing that D-104 microphones and tube-type linears were
better as you sit around humming the tune to the movie "Convoy." You're too
old to raise hell in real life anymore,

Sez who, Dwight? Again, you're speaking out of turn, and making judgments
you are not qualified to make.

so you instead sit around trying to
raise hell in this newsgroup, patting each other on the backs for the
imagined value of your skill while the rest of the world continues to pass
you by.

Incorrect. Dan and I are just speaking the truth based on practical
experience…something you don't have when it comes to Morse/CW.

Most Code/CW users understand the changing times and simply enjoy Code/CW
for what it is - one more enjoyable operating mode in the rich diversity of
Amateur Radio. Too bad you two can't come to grips with that.

Dwight, I'll match my involvement in the "rich diversity of Amateur Radio"
against anyone's in this newsgroup -- or just about anywhere else in the
ARS! And don't get me wrong -- I'm not claiming to be anything like Joe
Super Ham -- but I'm eminently qualified to judge the value and currency
of the Morse/CW mode based on my experience. You are not. Therefore,
whenever you speak on the subject, you are wasting your time.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

Sorry, but that is a judgment that you are not
qualified to make. I'm not even going to bother
to mention how wrong this judgment is, because
it comes from someone who is incapable of
rendering a credible judgment of the Morse/CW
mode because of his lack of experience therein.


Of course, it is indeed a judgement I'm qualified to make. I certainly
know as much about overall code USE in this country and elsewhere as you do.
I also know just as much as you do about its NECESSITY to meet the goals and
purpose of Amateur Radio. And those are the only things required to make a
judgement on its value as a testing requirement.


Incorrect. Dan and I are just speaking the truth
based on practical experience.something you
don't have when it comes to Morse/CW.


What experience is that, Larry? What experience do you have that makes you
uniquely qualified to judge the value of a specific testing requirement? The
answer is, of course, absolutely nothing - you're not uniquely qualified to
make value judgements about testing requirements.


(snip) but I'm eminently qualified to judge the value
and currency of the Morse/CW mode based on my
experience. (snip)


The issue isn't about the value of Morse Code itself, Larry. Instead, it's
about the value of Morse Code as a testing requirement (read the subject
line at the top of these messages). And you're no more "eminently qualified"
to make judgements about that than any other ham radio operator. In fact,
your inability to keep track of the overall subject from one message to the
next makes me doubt you're even as qualified as other operators. Most people
can keep up with the subject without constant reminders.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

Sorry, but that is a judgment that you are not
qualified to make. I'm not even going to bother
to mention how wrong this judgment is, because
it comes from someone who is incapable of
rendering a credible judgment of the Morse/CW
mode because of his lack of experience therein.


Of course, it is indeed a judgement I'm qualified to make. I certainly
know as much about overall code USE in this country and elsewhere as you do.

Dwight:

How many CW contacts have you made in your ham "career?" I'm into
the multiple thousands. If you have less than 500, then you're not even
close to being qualified to render a judgment against code testing.

I also know just as much as you do about its NECESSITY to meet the goals and
purpose of Amateur Radio.

Except, of course, when it comes to the issue of retaining a testing
requirement for a valuable basic communications skill. However, this type
of selectivity is certainly nothing new in the human condition.

And those are the only things required to make a
judgement on its value as a testing requirement.

Incorrect, but the above is probably the main reason why we're losing
our culture here in the United States.

Incorrect. Dan and I are just speaking the truth
based on practical experience.something you
don't have when it comes to Morse/CW.

What experience is that, Larry? What experience do you have that makes you
uniquely qualified to judge the value of a specific testing requirement?

Twenty-two plus years of OTA HF experience as a radio amateur, which has
been about 80 percent CW, 19 percent RTTY and other digital modes,
and 1 percent phone. What's your breakdown?

The
answer is, of course, absolutely nothing - you're not uniquely qualified to
make value judgements about testing requirements.

I can see why you'd think that way, Dwight, especially when my own
objective evaluation of those requirements does not advance your own
agenda to gain full HF privileges without any necessity to make the
effort to learn the valuable communications skill of Morse code.

(snip) but I'm eminently qualified to judge the value
and currency of the Morse/CW mode based on my
experience. (snip)

The issue isn't about the value of Morse Code itself, Larry. Instead, it's
about the value of Morse Code as a testing requirement (read the subject
line at the top of these messages).

I have consistently directed my comments toward the testing requirement
as opposed to the mode itself. The confusion there is primarily an NCTA
problem.

And you're no more "eminently qualified"
to make judgements about that than any other ham radio operator.

Unless, of course, that "other" ham radio operator has OTA HF/CW
experience at least equal to my own. And, unfortunately for the NCTA,
most hams who do have CW experience similar to mine are usually
PCTA's.

In fact,
your inability to keep track of the overall subject from one message to the
next makes me doubt you're even as qualified as other operators. Most people
can keep up with the subject without constant reminders.

Now you're grasping at straws, Dwight. Trying to find some way to
discredit me any way you can. This is always the indication that you've
run out of logical, reasonable arguments. I'll give you partial credit for
not having resorted to name calling -- yet.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

How many CW contacts have you made in your
ham "career?" I'm into the multiple thousands. If
you have less than 500, then you're not even close
to being qualified to render a judgment against
code testing.


And exactly how does the number of CW contacts made qualify one to make a
judgement about the value of code testing as a license requirement? 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). Code use is
declining here and around the world. Looking solely at Amateur Radio, even
the majority of those operators don't use code/cw on any routine or regular
basis. Because of these facts, the need for a code testing requirement has
vanished.


Twenty-two plus years of OTA HF experience as a
radio amateur, which has been about 80 percent CW,
19 percent RTTY and other digital modes, and 1
percent phone. What's your breakdown?


I believe the question was what experience you have that makes you
UNIQUELY qualified to judge the value of a specific TESTING REQUIREMENT. I
don't see anything above that would make you uniquely qualified in this
subject. Again, code testing is not, and never has been, solely for the
benefit of Amateur Radio (or operations in those bands). Therefore, the FCC
is not going to judge the value of code testing based solely on Amateur
Radio. You have to look at the larger picture, Larry. At this point, you're
still too narrowly focused.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article k.net,
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

Absolutely correct Larry. Bottom line is its too tough to actually try to
learn something for these whiners. It really is pathetic.

Yes, it's "pathetic" that so many long-timers jumped through all the
hoops and now they demand that all others do the same as they did.

Jump, jump, Danny.

LHA