where PCTA's fail in logic
 

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

Hard to see how a 5 wpm code test is a "scourge".

Rev. Jim, fire up your time machine and go back to 1896 when you were
an engineering advisor to Marconi. You are at home in the past. [Was
that in Italy or in hoagietown?]

Keep on with antiquity in radio amateurism. Retrograde fire on...

LHA

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is a selftrained skill, why put the emphasis on an outdated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,
"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

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/

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

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

But does the NCVEC petition, or the NCI petition address the writtens?
Not
at
all.

No, why should it? I have ALWAYS said the code was a
separate issue from writtens. I'm not opposed to revisiting
the writtens, but there's no need to wait for that before ending all
code testing.


Yes it should address writtens because by eliminating the code test without
addressing the writtens, you are reducing the overall level of knowledge
required to earn the various levels of ham licenses. Until the replacement
exams are ready, the old exams, including the code should remain intact.

Personally if the code is dropped, I would like to see the exams
restructured as follows:

A) Regulations element: One must pass this before being allowed to take any
of the other elements.
A lengthy and separate exam covering the FCC rules and regulations in depth.
Based on what I hear on the air and the statements on the internet from any
hams, there's a real problem in this area. This one should require at least
a score of 85% to pass.

B) Technician element:
Rewritten to move the regulations questions to A). Additional technical
material and operating procedures material to keep the test pool about the
same size.

C) General element:
Rewritten to move the regulations questions to A). Additional technical
material, operating procedures, and basic VE requirements material to keep
the test pool about the same size.

D) Extra element
Rewritten to move the regulations questions to A). Additional technical
material, operating procedures, and extensive VE requirements material to
keep the test pool about the same size.

I'd really like to see a rules test as a stand alone test that one must pass
before even taking any of the other elements.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE