"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is a selftrained skill, why put the emphasis on an outdated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something as outdated as Morse Code/CW.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, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"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?

Dwight:

Simply by serving as an indication of your level of experience in that
particular mode.

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).

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

Code use is declining here and around the world.

Not really. In fact, the only place where it has "declined" is within the
military
and commercial communications arenas, where there were relatively few
Morse/CW operators compared to the Amateur Radio Service. 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.

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.

The total number of hams who don't use Morse code is relatively high, but
only due to the fact that there are many other modes for radio amateurs
to employ. I've never demonstrated any confusion on that point, therefore,
you are raising an irrelevant and invalid argument here.

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.

Obviously, since you are in disagreement. That doesn't make you right when
you say I'm not a qualified judge of the code testing requirement -- it just
means
you have an axe to grind which makes it necessary for you to attempt to
discredit me.

Again, code testing is not, and never has been, solely for the
benefit of Amateur Radio (or operations in those bands).

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.

Therefore, the FCC
is not going to judge the value of code testing based solely on Amateur
Radio.

Then WHAT besides the ARS are they going to judge it by? The ARS
is the only communications service currently using the Morse/CW mode
to any extent which would require the regulatory attention of the FCC.
Therefore, the Coast Guard, MARS, the Maritime service, etc. etc. are
all entirely irrelevant and unresponsive to this issue.

You have to look at the larger picture, Larry. At this point, you're
still too narrowly focused.

I am focused on the Amateur Radio Service, Dwight. I realize you're
thinking about all the other radio services which, for purely economic
reasons, have dropped the use of Morse/CW and therefore the
necessity to undergo the expensive process of recruiting, training,
and providing pay and benefits to Morse/CW operators. This has no
impact in the ARS -- but you, in true NCTA fashion, fail to grasp this
very simple concept. The plain fact is that the ARS has no personnel-
based "cost" at all. Therefore, your argument is irrelevant and
unresponsive.

73 de Larry, K3LT

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

Len Over 21 wrote:

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.

Nobody can now meet the requirements most of us met, Leonardo as current
requirements are not as stringent.

Jump, jump, Danny.

....and you, of course, don't seem to be able to meet even the current
requirements. Don't bother jumping, Len. Just stand there on the
sidelines and watch the game.

Dave K8MN