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

"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/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote ...

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.
__________________________________________________ ________________

Where did you get your information, Dwight? According to the ARRL (the
primary ARS organization in the US) -- CW is the second most popular mode in
the ARS -- Just behind SSB. That on its face would mean that there are
still a whole bunch of folks out there still using it.

Arnie -
KT4ST

Where did you get your information, Dwight? According to the ARRL (the
primary ARS organization in the US) -- CW is the second most popular mode
in
the ARS -- Just behind SSB.

And that's only *half* the truth. The *REST* of the story is that this is
not
a static relationship; the use of SSB is growing while that of CW is
declining,
as each year the number of prominently morse code users either change
over, quit operating ham radio or go silent key.

Clint
KB5ZHT

your request
above could only be considered factitious. Therefore, I will treat it as
such.

Ah. Denial.

Clint
KB5ZHT

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

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.

Dwight:

I wasn't being facetious, I was asking a question based on a logical
premise which you yourself raised. So, you either answer it, or your
original premise is insupportable. Which is it?

(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.

OK, fine. Now, then, precisely which OTHER radio services currently
require Morse code testing???

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.

Hmmm. Funny how that "small minority" seems to come out of the
woodwork in vast quantities during CW contests, Field Day, or
whenever some rare DX pops up on the air!

73 de Larry, K3LT