"Bert Craig" wrote:

Then I'll answer it, Dwight. Because preparing for
and passing Element 1 requires one to demonstrate
a tad more effort and dedication than passing written
exams for which the Q & A pools are published. The
5-wpm is sufficient enough of a challenge to require
some serious studying effort over approx two or three
weeks, but not enough to discourage any individual
serious about earning HF privileges. For those who
are not, the no-code Technician license is available.
It's really quite simple.


Okay, now all you have to do is show where all that (demonstrated effort,
challenge, earning privileges, a two to three week study effort, and so on)
is listed in the FCC rules, or furthers the goals and purposes of the ARS.
These are exams for a recreational activity with some serious underpinnings.
You seem to want to turn those exams into a litmus test form of torture
focused mainly on CW.

By the way, didn't you openly oppose the across the board 5 wpm code exam?
If so, then why now is it suddenly "sufficient enough of a challenge?"


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote:

Then I'll answer it, Dwight. Because preparing for
and passing Element 1 requires one to demonstrate
a tad more effort and dedication than passing written
exams for which the Q & A pools are published. The
5-wpm is sufficient enough of a challenge to require
some serious studying effort over approx two or three
weeks, but not enough to discourage any individual
serious about earning HF privileges. For those who
are not, the no-code Technician license is available.
It's really quite simple.


Okay, now all you have to do is show where all that (demonstrated
effort,
challenge, earning privileges, a two to three week study effort, and so
on)
is listed in the FCC rules, or furthers the goals and purposes of the ARS.

Ok, Dwight. Very easy. It's not. While the FCC is the regulatory body to
whom we answer, they are definitely NOT the sum total of who or what defines
OUR hobby/service. We, as amateurs radio operators, are a big part in
retaining those element that define our rules, tradition, and culture. This
is why the NCTA's battle cry is "well, the FCC doesn't think so" and/or "it
serves no regulatory purpose." Sure, the FCC defines the rules and regs to
which we're beholden, but as rar as basis and purpose goes...we ourselves
have more say in that than you or some other NCI folks appear willing to
acknowledge. Calling the 5-wpm exam a barrier is just plain silly and in the
end, this crusade to eliminate the test will have a negative effect on the
overall quality (NOT quantity) of AR. Frankly, I have much more respect for
someone with the stones to just admit that they're too lazy or
insufficiently motivated to bother meeting the requirements than all this
"regulatory" mumbo jumbo.

These are exams for a recreational activity with some serious
underpinnings.
You seem to want to turn those exams into a litmus test form of torture
focused mainly on CW.

The 5-wpm exam..."a form of toture," Dwight? Surely you jest.

By the way, didn't you openly oppose the across the board 5 wpm code
exam?
If so, then why now is it suddenly "sufficient enough of a challenge?"

Because it beats a blank. BTW, were you one of those who said that the VHF
and up privies of your license were sufficient for your needs? How long
after Element 1 is dropped can I address you as W5NET/AE, hmm?

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Vry 73 de Bert
WA2SI

The 5-wpm exam..."a form of toture," Dwight? Surely you jest.



When you are Mentally challended like Dwight it is a big blocker

"Bert Craig" wrote:

Ok, Dwight. Very easy. It's not. While the FCC is the
regulatory body to whom we answer, they are definitely
NOT the sum total of who or what defines OUR hobby/
service. We, as amateurs radio operators, are a big part
in retaining those element that define our rules, tradition,
and culture. This is why the NCTA's battle cry is "well,
the FCC doesn't think so" and/or "it serves no regulatory
purpose." (snip)


As you know, that's only one part of the "battle cry," Bert. The rest is
that about half the radio amateurs today (Technicians) don't know code
(culture), that most who do know code don't use it (tradition), that code is
not used for our service to those outside Amateur Radio (rules), and so on.


(snip) Calling the 5-wpm exam a barrier is just plain silly (snip)


It is a barrier to those who have no interest in Morse Code. Nothing more
and nothing less.


Frankly, I have much more respect for someone with the
stones to just admit that they're too lazy or insufficiently
motivated to bother meeting the requirements than all this
"regulatory" mumbo jumbo.


I've repeatedly said I have no interest whatsoever in learning code.
Doesn't that qualify as "insufficiently motivated?"


Because it beats a blank. BTW, were you one of those who
said that the VHF and up privies of your license were sufficient
for your needs? How long after Element 1 is dropped can I
address you as W5NET/AE, hmm?


Actually, I probably wouldn't rush out to upgrade. I have no place to
install HF antennas, and probably will not for several more years. In fact,
I'm in a situation now where my participation in VHF/UHF is even somewhat
hindered. As such, upgrading my license will serve no purpose anytime soon.
Therefore, I'll probably just leave what I have well enough alone.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
k.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote:

Ok, Dwight. Very easy. It's not. While the FCC is the
regulatory body to whom we answer, they are definitely
NOT the sum total of who or what defines OUR hobby/
service. We, as amateurs radio operators, are a big part
in retaining those element that define our rules, tradition,
and culture. This is why the NCTA's battle cry is "well,
the FCC doesn't think so" and/or "it serves no regulatory
purpose." (snip)


As you know, that's only one part of the "battle cry," Bert. The rest is
that about half the radio amateurs today (Technicians) don't know code
(culture), that most who do know code don't use it (tradition)

Of course you can quote your source for these assertions, yes? I'd love to
see 'em put it to a vote. No internet polls...just a "one ham, one ballot"
vote. Oh, it shouldn't be just hams? Horsefeathers, WE define OUR
hobby/service. If a prospective ham feels that strongly about it, enter the
fold and then be heard.

, that code is
not used for our service to those outside Amateur Radio (rules), and so
on.

Amateur radio is all we're talking about, Dwight.

(snip) Calling the 5-wpm exam a barrier is just plain silly (snip)


It is a barrier to those who have no interest in Morse Code. Nothing
more
and nothing less.

That's odd, I've QSO'd via phone with a number of ops on 20 that have no
interest in Morse code, yet they did not let the code elements (Much less,
solely Element 1.) deter them from earning HF privies. It's just a
requirement to be fulfilled. Nothing more, nothing less.

Frankly, I have much more respect for someone with the
stones to just admit that they're too lazy or insufficiently
motivated to bother meeting the requirements than all this
"regulatory" mumbo jumbo.


I've repeatedly said I have no interest whatsoever in learning code.
Doesn't that qualify as "insufficiently motivated?"

It would if it remained your individual issue, sure. Instead it's morphed
into an "international" movement, the result of which will devalue AR as a
whole. Then it's our issue...and many may hold you responsible. I know I'd
NEVER snub a licensed ARO OTA...but it'd be foolish to believe that
everybody will roll out the welcome mat for known NCTA's. (Sad as it is.)
Welcome to HF, Dwight. Be careful what you wish for.

Because it beats a blank. BTW, were you one of those who
said that the VHF and up privies of your license were sufficient
for your needs? How long after Element 1 is dropped can I
address you as W5NET/AE, hmm?


Actually, I probably wouldn't rush out to upgrade. I have no place to
install HF antennas, and probably will not for several more years. In
fact,
I'm in a situation now where my participation in VHF/UHF is even somewhat
hindered. As such, upgrading my license will serve no purpose anytime
soon.
Therefore, I'll probably just leave what I have well enough alone.

Try QRP, Dwight. You'll love it. Some of the newer antennas are made to be
used in just your situation and are no bigger than VHF mobil antennas.
There's also a special feeling of accomplishment with making a contact with
2-1/2 Watts into an "invisible" wire dipole or longwire strung temporarily
from a window.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

but it'd be foolish to believe that
everybody will roll out the welcome mat for known NCTA's. (Sad as it is.)

Whats amazing is these NCTA think they should be welcomed with open arms, and
thanked for getting a license. I for one will never welcome a No-Code into Ham
Radio. Because to me they are nothing more than CBplussers, looking for more
Welfare Handouts.

"Bert Craig" wrote:

Of course you can quote your source for these assertions, yes?


What assertions, Bert? This is a newsgroup discussion, not a courtroom.


Amateur radio is all we're talking about, Dwight.


For the reasons already stated several times, code testing cannot be
discussed solely within the context of its use within the Amateur Radio
Service. The FCC doesn't view it that way, therefore we cannot do so either.


(snip) Instead it's morphed into an "international" movement,
the result of which will devalue AR as a whole. (snip)


Nonsense. The entire rest of the radio world is moving, or has moved, away
from code/CW. If anything, our continued focus on that as a primary element
of this Service is what has devalued (and is devaluing) Amateur Radio.


I know I'd NEVER snub a licensed ARO OTA...but it'd be
foolish to believe that everybody will roll out the welcome
mat for known NCTA's. (Sad as it is.) Welcome to HF,
Dwight. Be careful what you wish for.


Is that some kind of veiled threat, Bert? If so, feel free to snub me all
you want. Someone who would treat another person as unwelcomed over
something as petty as the code testing issue is not someone I would want to
talk to anyway.


Try QRP, Dwight. You'll love it. Some of the newer antennas
are made to be used in just your situation and are no bigger
than VHF mobil antennas. There's also a special feeling of
accomplishment with making a contact with 2-1/2 Watts into
an "invisible" wire dipole or longwire strung temporarily
from a window.


You don't know what my situation is, Bert. I have considered the options
available and find none of them to be very useful. An external antenna, not
matter how small, is out of the question. The same with alternative antennas
(hidden and so on). Because of the building materials used, an internal
antenna is ineffective. The same with increased power output. I am not aware
of any solution that would be effective in my situation (other than moving,
which is also out of the question at the moment).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
news
"Bert Craig" wrote:

Of course you can quote your source for these assertions, yes?


What assertions, Bert? This is a newsgroup discussion, not a courtroom.

The word assertion is not confined to a courteoom.

Amateur radio is all we're talking about, Dwight.


For the reasons already stated several times, code testing cannot be
discussed solely within the context of its use within the Amateur Radio
Service. The FCC doesn't view it that way, therefore we cannot do so
either.

I believe it's the job of the majority to work on getting the FCC to view it
that way. (Assuming, of course, the majority are PCTA's. Your opinion may
differ.)

(snip) Instead it's morphed into an "international" movement,
the result of which will devalue AR as a whole. (snip)


Nonsense. The entire rest of the radio world is moving, or has moved,
away
from code/CW. If anything, our continued focus on that as a primary
element
of this Service is what has devalued (and is devaluing) Amateur Radio.

I disagree...and BTW, it NOT a primary element.

I know I'd NEVER snub a licensed ARO OTA...but it'd be
foolish to believe that everybody will roll out the welcome
mat for known NCTA's. (Sad as it is.) Welcome to HF,
Dwight. Be careful what you wish for.


Is that some kind of veiled threat, Bert? If so, feel free to snub me
all
you want. Someone who would treat another person as unwelcomed over
something as petty as the code testing issue is not someone I would want
to
talk to anyway.

Puh-lease Dwight. Remember the "you're talking about me!" thread? No need to
play paranoid with me. If I were going to snub you or anybody else, I'd tell
you...CRT to CRT. HOWEVER, as the opening sentence of the paragraph states,
it's not my style and it's just plain wrong. Cautioning someone of a
possible hole in the road ahead is NOT akin to digging it. "Veiled threat,"
sheesh, Dwight. ggg

Try QRP, Dwight. You'll love it. Some of the newer antennas
are made to be used in just your situation and are no bigger
than VHF mobil antennas. There's also a special feeling of
accomplishment with making a contact with 2-1/2 Watts into
an "invisible" wire dipole or longwire strung temporarily
from a window.


You don't know what my situation is, Bert.

Sorry, just making an assumption in an attempt to assist.

I have considered the options
available and find none of them to be very useful. An external antenna,
not
matter how small, is out of the question. The same with alternative
antennas
(hidden and so on). Because of the building materials used, an internal
antenna is ineffective. The same with increased power output. I am not
aware
of any solution that would be effective in my situation (other than
moving,
which is also out of the question at the moment).

My job is like that. The building is really well shielded and I wanted to
run an inconspicuous 30/40m SW+ QRP rig from my desk.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote:

Then I'll answer it, Dwight. Because preparing for
and passing Element 1 requires one to demonstrate
a tad more effort and dedication than passing written
exams for which the Q & A pools are published. The
5-wpm is sufficient enough of a challenge to require
some serious studying effort over approx two or three
weeks, but not enough to discourage any individual
serious about earning HF privileges. For those who
are not, the no-code Technician license is available.
It's really quite simple.


Okay, now all you have to do is show where all that (demonstrated
effort,
challenge, earning privileges, a two to three week study effort, and so
on)
is listed in the FCC rules, or furthers the goals and purposes of the ARS.

Exactly. Bert's comment underscores the core of many who don't
give a hoot about having requirements that make sense...they only
want requirements which, by their measure, constitute a "show
of effort" on the part of all applicants. Sorry...but such a desire isn't
any part of FCC's Part 97 Purpose.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
news:su9eb.37445
Okay, now all you have to do is show where all that (demonstrated
effort,
challenge, earning privileges, a two to three week study effort, and so
on)
is listed in the FCC rules, or furthers the goals and purposes of the
ARS.

Exactly. Bert's comment underscores the core of many who don't
give a hoot about having requirements that make sense...they only
want requirements which, by their measure, constitute a "show
of effort" on the part of all applicants. Sorry...but such a desire isn't
any part of FCC's Part 97 Purpose.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill, I give a great big hoot about the regulatory stuff. I assume you're
referring to the regulatory stuff wrt "making sense," since you appear to
discount any form of testing which serves no "regulatory purpose." Exchange
"only" with "in addition to" and we're in agreement. ;-)

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI