In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:


"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

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


Already answered, Larry. I have no desire to talk in circles, repeating
everything I say because you fail to understand it the first time. And I
also have no desire to participate in your attempts to twist this (other
services and code testing) into something that doesn't fit the reality of
history or the truth.

Dwight:

Well, that's quite a roundabout way of admitting that you don't know
what you're talking about when you insist that other radio services
which don't use Morse/CW have some relevance to the ARS. And
since you can't logically support your position, it's easier for you to
bail out. I understand. Just keep in mind that you've single-handedly
demolished one of the NCTA's favourite arguments.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

Well, that's quite a roundabout way of admitting that
you don't know what you're talking about when you
insist that other radio services which don't use Morse/
CW have some relevance to the ARS. And since you
can't logically support your position, it's easier for you
to bail out. (snip)


Trying to twist what I said again, Larry? I never said anything about the
other radio services having any relevance beyond the fact that many once
used code (which was relevant to the ARS at the time) and their present lack
of code use (which has relevance today). If you choose to ignore that past
and present relevance, that's certainly your prerogative. However, by doing
so, your position has simply lost touch with reality.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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? 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)? You have yet to answer this
question, and almost seem determined to avoid it.

Dwight:

I've also answered that question numerous times, but here it comes again:

The Morse/CW mode is the only mode which requires the operator to
acquire a physical psychomotor skill in order to utilize that mode. Therefore,
it makes sense to test for a prospective operator's ability to receive Morse
code at some level, in order to ensure that this mode can continue to be
effectively employed and it's benefits and advantages conferred upon the
user. It's a fairly simple concept to understand, which makes one wonder
why the NCTA's fail to grasp it.

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?

The above is a non-sequitur, since there is no need for use of the Morse/CW
mode to "help keep the ARS abreast of modern technology...". Your
statement is illogical and assumes facts not in evidence the negative
effect of Morse/CW use on the development of other communications
technologies within the ARS.

I also asked how this
(code skill testing) will help move the ARS into the future (where we should
be mainly focused)?

Again, non-sequitur. This is a strawman argument offered in place of
something more logical, well-reasoned, and relevant. There is no connection
between Morse/CW testing or use and any possible deleterious effect on
the development of other communications modes. This is merely, as
previously stated, one of the NCTA's more famous but totally worthless
"red herring" arguments.

If you don't have an answer those questions, fine. Just
don't attempt to twist what I said.

No need, you're doing that quite nicely yourself.

73 de Larry, K3LT

--

--

If you sympathize with terrorists and middle
eastern tyrants, vote for liberals...


--

I've also answered that question numerous times, but here it comes again:

The Morse/CW mode is the only mode which requires the operator to
acquire a physical psychomotor skill in order to utilize that mode.
Therefore,
it makes sense to test for a prospective operator's ability to receive
Morse
code at some level, in order to ensure that this mode can continue to be
effectively employed and it's benefits and advantages conferred upon the
user. It's a fairly simple concept to understand, which makes one wonder
why the NCTA's fail to grasp it.

They don't "fail to grasp" what you're saying... they only point out the
fact
that the one has nothing to do with the other anymore. Yes, testing morse
code ensures that "it's benefits and advantages [are] conferred upon
the user", just like a contest of shuffleboard proves whether or not
the knowledge and sychomotor skills to play shuffleboard are inherint
within a person to play shuffleboard. The line of reasoning at this point
breaks down with all you PCTA people because you then try to make
the erroneous leap to the conclusion "therefore, it's necessary to continue
testing it for ham radio licenses."

Not many of your crowd seemed to have had a problem all through
the years for disabled people to have an exemption for high speed morse
code testing (if you had a physician's endorsement you didn't have to
prove you could send & receive morse code over 5wpm)... why did
none of you guys have the guts to stand up and say "well, the only
conclusion you can draw is that disabled & crippled people are not
real qualified hams" or "if you are disabled, you cannot ever be anything
more than a fake ham"? or how about "since the testing of morse code
is so necessary for ham radio, there should be NO exemptions for
people with hearing disorders because they can't possibly EVER show
the correct skills for being ham radio operators?"

You didn't, showing yet another error in PCTA logic. The only conclusion
a person can draw from this is that you subjectively and selectively apply
the requirements necessary for showing you have "the right stuff" to be a
ham,
and by doing show outright admit that it's more just a simple case of
personal choice and bias more than true, ground level basic needs.

Clint
KB5ZHT


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?

The above is a non-sequitur, since there is no need for use of the
Morse/CW
mode to "help keep the ARS abreast of modern technology...". Your
statement is illogical and assumes facts not in evidence the negative
effect of Morse/CW use on the development of other communications
technologies within the ARS.

I also asked how this
(code skill testing) will help move the ARS into the future (where we
should
be mainly focused)?

Again, non-sequitur. This is a strawman argument offered in place of
something more logical, well-reasoned, and relevant. There is no
connection
between Morse/CW testing or use and any possible deleterious effect on
the development of other communications modes. This is merely, as
previously stated, one of the NCTA's more famous but totally worthless
"red herring" arguments.

If you don't have an answer those questions, fine. Just
don't attempt to twist what I said.

No need, you're doing that quite nicely yourself.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

The Morse/CW mode is the only mode which requires
the operator to acquire a physical psychomotor skill
in order to utilize that mode. Therefore, it makes sense
to test for a prospective operator's ability to receive
Morse code at some level, (snip)


You didn't answer the question, Larry. I asked why why there should be an
effort on the part of the ARS or FCC to promote (boost, encourage, or push)
this single operating mode (CW) and you responded with garbage about
"physical psychomotor skill." One has absolutely nothing to do with the
other. There are skills needed to operate every mode, but those skills are
self-taught. That is not the case with Morse code. When I pointed that out,
you talked about an incentive to use CW (incentive by the ARS and FCC). At
that point, I asked you why there should be an effort on the part of the ARS
or FCC to promote this single operating mode. You brought this subject up,
so please do answer the question - why should there be an effort on the part
of the ARS or FCC to promote (boost, encourage, or push) this single
operating mode (CW)?


The above is a non-sequitur, since there is no need for use
of the Morse/CW mode to "help keep the ARS abreast of
modern technology...". Your statement is illogical and
assumes facts not in evidence the negative effect of
Morse/CW use on the development of other communications
technologies within the ARS.


If you're going to argue that Morse/CW has no negative effect on the
efforts to help keep the ARS abreast of modern technology ("one of the
NCTA's more famous but totally worthless "red herring" arguments," you
said), it was not unreasonable for me to ask if CW has a positive effect on
the efforts to help keep the ARS abreast of modern technology. You've
answered my question (CW is irrelevant in that regard), so we can now move
on.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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


"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

The Morse/CW mode is the only mode which requires
the operator to acquire a physical psychomotor skill
in order to utilize that mode. Therefore, it makes sense
to test for a prospective operator's ability to receive
Morse code at some level, (snip)


You didn't answer the question, Larry. I asked why why there should be an
effort on the part of the ARS or FCC to promote (boost, encourage, or push)
this single operating mode (CW) and you responded with garbage about
"physical psychomotor skill." One has absolutely nothing to do with the
other. There are skills needed to operate every mode, but those skills are
self-taught. That is not the case with Morse code.

Dwight:

Bingo. You finally stumbled on the truth. To be able to effectively employ
the Morse/CW mode, prospective amateurs need to learn and gain
reasonable proficiency in what is, for most, an unintuitive communications
skill which requires a fairly challenging learning experience. The simple
fact is that most prospective hams, like myself at one time, can't be
bothered to undergo this learning experience, and find it easier to attempt
to do away with the requirement instead.

When I pointed that out,
you talked about an incentive to use CW (incentive by the ARS and FCC). At
that point, I asked you why there should be an effort on the part of the ARS
or FCC to promote this single operating mode. You brought this subject up,
so please do answer the question - why should there be an effort on the part
of the ARS or FCC to promote (boost, encourage, or push) this single
operating mode (CW)?

In order to retain the ability of radio amateurs to USE this single operating
mode, as already (repeatedly) explained.

The above is a non-sequitur, since there is no need for use
of the Morse/CW mode to "help keep the ARS abreast of
modern technology...". Your statement is illogical and
assumes facts not in evidence the negative effect of
Morse/CW use on the development of other communications
technologies within the ARS.

If you're going to argue that Morse/CW has no negative effect on the
efforts to help keep the ARS abreast of modern technology ("one of the
NCTA's more famous but totally worthless "red herring" arguments," you
said), it was not unreasonable for me to ask if CW has a positive effect on
the efforts to help keep the ARS abreast of modern technology.

It is a well-known fact that some of the simplest homebuilding/kitbuilding
projects available to radio amateurs are CW transmitters. As I can relate
from personal experience, building something that actually works and
gives one the ability to communicate on-the-air is a very motivating
learning experience, which usually leads to more advanced technical
involvement. Moreover, in a lot of the more uncommon modes used
by radio amateurs (EME, for instance), the Morse/CW mode is usually
the only type of modulation that works with any kind of useful reliability.
The value of Morse/CW is well-known to QRP enthusiasts, of course.

You've
answered my question (CW is irrelevant in that regard), so we can now move
on.

I never said that, Dwight -- that's just your own self-serving "spin." And,
in the usual Usenet pattern, you lie, you lose.

Feel free to try again if and when you can get it right.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

To be able to effectively employ the Morse/CW mode,
prospective amateurs need to learn and gain reasonable
proficiency in what is, for most, an unintuitive
communications skill which requires a fairly challenging
learning experience. (snip)


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.


In order to retain the ability of radio amateurs to USE this
single operating mode, as already (repeatedly) explained.


You still haven't answered the question, Larry. I asked why there should
be an effort on the part of the ARS or FCC to encourage (boost, promote, or
push) this single operating mode (CW)? Or, to put it another way (and use
your own words), why should the ARS or FCC make an attempt to "retain the
ability of radio amateurs to USE this single operating mode?" Again, this
operating mode offers nothing today beyond simple recreation. So I guess
another point might be to ask why the ARS or FCC would require testing of
all for a primarily recreational operating mode?


It is a well-known fact that some of the simplest homebuilding/
kitbuilding projects available to radio amateurs are CW
transmitters. As I can relate from personal experience, (snip)


And I can relate from personal experience that electronics can be learned
easily without building a CW transmitter. Ramsey alone has more than a dozen
radio-related kits worthy of consideration by those seeking electronics
skills. So, while building a CW transmitter is certainly worthwhile for
those interested in CW, there are other avenues for those not interested in
CW (a fact that undermines any association this may appear to have with a
code testing requirement).


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


--

On 28 Sep 2003 04:19:07 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

There is no need for use of the Morse/CW
mode to "help keep the ARS abreast of modern technology...".

And later in the same post...

There is no connection
between Morse/CW testing or use and any possible deleterious effect on
the development of other communications modes.


73 de Larry, K3LT

I agree with both statements, Larry. And although I admittedly took
them out of context in the above quotes, the two statements are
perfectly capable of standing on their own - as two perfectly good
reasons why there is no longer any need for code testing.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

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

You've spent the last couple of weeks attempting to re-
attach some kind of significance to the fact that "other"
radio services no longer "use code" (snip)

I did that in the very message you replied to (quoted above). You're
point is? As you see, I talked about both the past and present code use by
other radio services and any relevance of that to the ARS. You tried to
twist the focus only to the present, ignoring anything about the past .

Dwight:

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?

Of
course, since both are relevant, it would be inaccurate to talk about one
(present code use) without the other (past code use).

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. Now, all of a sudden,
Dwight Stewart ups and declares that just the opposite is true. Talk
about your neck-snapping turns of events…

Not willing to
participate in such a discussion, I asked to to widen your focus to include
all of the relevant facts.

I have given the "relevant facts" ad nauseum. I suggest you stop wasting
my time and start Google-ing.

You refused to do so, repeating your question
solely about the present. It was at that point, and only at that point, the
discussion fell apart.

The discussion fell apart because YOU had nothing new to offer; now
you're trying to place the blame on me. Classic NCTA pattern.

Again, I'm more than willing to continue the
discussion, but only if it is an honest discussion with all facts
considered. However, if you want to twist facts, you can do so on your own.

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

73 de Larry, K3LT