|
where PCTA's fail in logic
|
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arguments fail; "selftrained skill" fails because everything is a selftrained skill, why put the emphasis on an outdated mode instead of testing selftrained skills on new, modern modes of communication?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 |
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 |
In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: 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. First of all, the subject was you and Larry (and your attitudes about code), which I do know something about. Second, one does not need to know code itself to see the amount of code used in this country or elsewhere. Perhaps if you looked up from you code key occasionally, and stopped looking down your nose at everyone else when you do, you would see the same decline of code use and therefore recognize how useless it is as a testing requirement. Of course, to acknowledge that reality would force you to drop your false pride and I truly wonder whether you're man enough to do that (the same with Larry). Dwight: You just locked, loaded, took careful aim, and shot yourself in the foot! If you had ANY experience with Morse/CW at all, you'd realize that the mode which is in "decline" lately on HF is SSB -- due to poor operating conditions. The CW segments continue to jump with activity. You are hopelessly out of the loop due to your own operational inexperience. I'm gonna give you some free advice here, Dwight. You're getting almost Kim-like in your shrill but specious arguments. You are truly not equipped for this debate whatsoever, and are making a bigger fool of yourself with each and every posting. You're out of your depth when discussing code testing, so I would suggest, for the sake of your own credibility, that you chose a topic you know something about. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
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 |
In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote: This may be so, but it is an imperfect system being directed by people with imperfect wisdom and questionable motives. I say questionable because their motives, for the most part, are entirely self-serving. Can you can show me one law in this country that wasn't advocated by people with self-serving motives? Laws, by their very nature, tend to serve the interests of at least someone. In reality, the only reason you're pointing to this is because people are now advocating the change of a law you happen to like (the code test requirement). And, of course, you would like everyone to believe your position in all this is not at all self-serving. Dwight: Which it isn't. The only outcome I desire is to preserve Morse code testing in order to preserve the continued growth in the numbers of new hams who have been exposed to training in this mode, in the interest of getting some percentage of them to get to the point where they can effectively use it OTA. And it is my right as an American Citizen to make an attempt to preserve this requirement. I am not challenging your right to do the opposite, even though you seem interesting in squelching my own efforts. What are you afraid of? I'm afraid of your motives in all this, Larry. I don't like the words I hear from many advocating the continuation of the code testing requirement. Those words often reek of bigotry, elitism, and discrimination against other Americans. One of the classic NCTA whines. Us horrible old PCTA's want to keep Morse code going so that we can continue to demonstrate the dominance of the white, middle-class, American male, who represents 5% of the world's population yet consumes 25% of the planet's resources, and is responsible for racism, bigotry, famine, disease, poverty, ethnic cleansing, global warming, destruction of the environment, homophobia, halitosis, and every other bad thing you can think of. Yawn! However, I guess that works for you NCTA's, in the absence of any truly valid reason for the further dumbing-down of licensing requirements in the ARS. Are you comfortable with some of the things said by those with your position? Are you comfortable with some of the things you've said (the garbage about a dumb downed America, your superiority, and so on)? Don't look now, Dwight, but America *is* dumbed-down. It has been made that way by a liberal, socialist media that continuously mocks traditional values of morality, integrity, ingenuity and hard work, and makes it a virtue to be dependent on government for cradle-to-grave life support. It is truly an international conspiracy to deprive America of it's greatness. (snip) HF access is different, and it is here that the Morse/CW mode offers benefits and advantages which can be exploited to the benefit of all radio amateurs -- but only if they know how to do so. Therefore, the testing requirement remains current and valid -- forever. Since it appears only a small minority of hams use Morse/CW on a regular or routine basis, And it is my desire that the ARS continues to have at least that "small number" of CW-using hams among it's ranks. I don't think that's too much to ask. a testing requirement obviously does not benefit "all radio amateurs." Well, it certainly doesn't benefit those hams who can't be bothered to learn a useful communications skill. However, considering the nature of the ARS in today's electronic communications reality, where the typical teenager with a computer and a cell phone has truly global communications capability in his pocket, ham radio still serves as the ultimate backup system which can effectively employ numerous modes of communication, including the most basic form -- Morse/CW. I don't want to see that valuable capability become obsolete merely because of the indifference of those who don't wish to make the effort to learn the Morse code. In addition, the testing requirements are not there to exclusively benefit Amateur Radio operators - they also exist to facilitate the goals and purposes of Amateur Radio. And it is my belief that unless we preserve code testing, those goals cannot be fully achieved. Therefore, any testing requirement must be judged within the context of each of these. The code testing requirement fails in each regard. Just the opposite is true. However, as previously stated, you are not qualified to make any judgment against the code testing requirement, since you have not gained practical operational experience in this mode. You have not had that mode's unique benefits and advantages proved to you over and over again through years of daily OTA use. I have. And I didn't go into ham radio as a CW "lover" by any means -- in fact, I was a dedicated NCTA at the time. I came across to the other side due to my own experience with Morse/CW, and thus became a True Believer. Moreover, while I now consider myself to be primarily a digital mode operator in my OTA experience, I still continue to be convinced of the value of CW when I use that mode after using PSK-31, RTTY, or any other digital mode. It's all good, and I believe that we hams need all of these resources at our fingertips. However, the only way we'll "have" CW is to know the code, and that's the rub for you NCTA's. I'm reasonably sure you'll ultimately get your way, since that's the direction this country is going in general -- down the tubes. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message om... "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. Gee, when the states stopped requiring manual transmission knowledge and/or use of hand signals while driving, what'd they replace those elements with to keep the driving test at the same level of knowledge? The point is that licensing should be about rational requirement consistent with license privileges. It has NOTHING to do with maintaining any set level of difficulty...as if that can even be measured in some way. 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. Not a bad approach... but not sure 85% should be expected passing rate for A. In any case, such a change in approach would involve considerable comment and discussion which should NOT stop the immediate removal of Element 1 (code). Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
You just locked, loaded, took careful aim, and shot yourself in the foot! If you had ANY experience with Morse/CW at all, you'd realize that the mode which is in "decline" lately on HF is SSB -- due to poor operating conditions. The CW segments continue to jump with activity. (snip) So you're saying code use "in this country" is jumping with activity? If so, where? I've looked in the commercial bands, shortwave broadcast bands, military bands, and so on, and found very little code use (certainly far less than just a few decades ago, just as I said). I'm gonna give you some free advice here, Dwight. (snip) You're out of your depth when discussing code testing, so I would suggest, for the sake of your own credibility, that you chose a topic you know something about. Now, let me give you some advice, Larry. You're too narrow-minded to even understand the concepts behind code testing. Code testing is not, and has never been, solely to benefit Amateur Radio. Therefore, you can't focus solely on Amateur Radio when discussing the code testing issue. So, for the sake of your own credibility on this subject, look outside your own narrowly defined little world at the much larger picture elsewhere (the view from the FCC's perspective). Only then will you be aware enough to seriously discuss this issue. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"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/ |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
(snip) However, as previously stated, you are not qualified to make any judgment against the code testing requirement, since you have not gained practical operational experience in this mode. (snip) Larry, one does not need to survive a house fire to make judgements about fire safety. Or be attacked by a foreign government to make a judgement about certain defense planning. Or live under a dictator to make judgements about laws affecting our freedoms. Or experience a business failure to make wise business judgements. Or experience anything else firsthand to make value judgements about it. (snip) You have not had that mode's unique benefits and advantages proved to you over and over again through years of daily OTA use. I have. (snip) Again, this is not about Morse Code/CW use - it's about the code test requirement. I can have that operational experience without a test requirement and you can continue to enjoy the "mode's unique benefits and advantages" long after the testing requirement is gone. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message hlink.net... "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote: (snip) However, as previously stated, you are not qualified to make any judgment against the code testing requirement, since you have not gained practical operational experience in this mode. (snip) Larry, one does not need to survive a house fire to make judgements about fire safety. Or be attacked by a foreign government to make a judgement about certain defense planning. Or live under a dictator to make judgements about laws affecting our freedoms. Or experience a business failure to make wise business judgements. Or experience anything else firsthand to make value judgements about it. One does have to eat a pizza to evaluate its taste and whether they will like it or not. I love pizza but hate tomatoes, cheese, and garlic. Yet combine them into a pizza and the result is entirely different. No one can tell how a cake will taste simply from reading the ingredients on a box. You can evaluate its nutritional content but not its taste. So while there are some things that do not need to be experienced to evaluate them, there are other things that do. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net... "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote: (snip) However, as previously stated, you are not qualified to make any judgment against the code testing requirement, since you have not gained practical operational experience in this mode. (snip) Larry, one does not need to survive a house fire to make judgements about fire safety. Or be attacked by a foreign government to make a judgement about certain defense planning. Or live under a dictator to make judgements about laws affecting our freedoms. Or experience a business failure to make wise business judgements. Or experience anything else firsthand to make value judgements about it. But, but, but!!!! Larry's obviously got or had large boobs, and has obviously worn a bra. Right?! He *has* hasn't he? Surely, for if not he would not be making value judgements on my callsign. Kim W5TIT |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message hlink.net... "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? Well, more importantly, when was the last time Larry wore a bra? (Wooshhhhhh--he will never get that one). Now THAT doesn't bring up good mental images, Kim! I may be damaged now! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message hlink.net... "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote: (snip) However, as previously stated, you are not qualified to make any judgment against the code testing requirement, since you have not gained practical operational experience in this mode. (snip) Larry, one does not need to survive a house fire to make judgements about fire safety. Or be attacked by a foreign government to make a judgement about certain defense planning. Or live under a dictator to make judgements about laws affecting our freedoms. Or experience a business failure to make wise business judgements. Or experience anything else firsthand to make value judgements about it. HEY! a roundabout way of what I said earlier in the thread when told "you weren't there, so you couldn't KNOW!" Clint KB5ZHT |
One does have to eat a pizza to evaluate its taste and whether they will like it or not. snip erroneous diatribe incorrect anology... the correct one would be to say "you don't have to eat a pizza to know WHAT it is, and WHAT it's made of". it's so easy. Clint KB5ZHT |
"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message ... One does have to eat a pizza to evaluate its taste and whether they will like it or not. snip erroneous diatribe incorrect anology... the correct one would be to say "you don't have to eat a pizza to know WHAT it is, and WHAT it's made of". it's so easy. Clint KB5ZHT No my analogy is quite correct. To determine the worth of pizza, you must eat to see if it is a food worth your bother. Knowing the ingredients will not tell you that. Watching other people eat one will not tell you that. Same with Morse code. Reading about past and present usage, looking at the table of dots and dashes, and watching other people operate, etc will not tell you whether you like it. It will only tell you what it is and what it is made of. Until you experience using the code for yourself (i.e. eating the pizza for yourself), it is impossible to tell whether you will like it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote ...
But, but, but!!!! Larry's obviously got or had large boobs, and has obviously worn a bra. Right?! He *has* hasn't he? Surely, for if not he would not be making value judgements on my callsign. __________________________________________________ _______________ It took a while, but I have grown accustomed to your callsign, Kim. And it wasn't necessary for me to wear a bra to do it. ;-) Arnie - KT4ST |
Clint wrote: One does have to eat a pizza to evaluate its taste and whether they will like it or not. snip erroneous diatribe incorrect anology... the correct one would be to say "you don't have to eat a pizza to know WHAT it is, and WHAT it's made of". it's so easy. Clint KB5ZHT |
In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote: (snip) However, as previously stated, you are not qualified to make any judgment against the code testing requirement, since you have not gained practical operational experience in this mode. (snip) Larry, one does not need to survive a house fire to make judgements about fire safety. Or be attacked by a foreign government to make a judgement about certain defense planning. Or live under a dictator to make judgements about laws affecting our freedoms. Or experience a business failure to make wise business judgements. Or experience anything else firsthand to make value judgements about it. Dwight, if Larrah had to do it, EVERYBODY has to do it. (snip) You have not had that mode's unique benefits and advantages proved to you over and over again through years of daily OTA use. I have. (snip) Again, this is not about Morse Code/CW use - it's about the code test requirement. I can have that operational experience without a test requirement and you can continue to enjoy the "mode's unique benefits and advantages" long after the testing requirement is gone. Larrah can't grasp the theological import of that clear and concise idea. He is a self-professed "true believer" and cannot see ANY other religious idea but his old cult status. LHA |
|
No my analogy is quite correct. To determine the worth of pizza, you must eat to see if it is a food worth your bother. Knowing the ingredients will not tell you that. here's a more accurate anology.... "You can't possibly know anything about pizza, and i'm telling you that it's an important staple to you diet. Your opinion means nothing; I am now pointing the gun of licenseing system at your head and ORDERING you to take a bite of the pizza, I am not worried one bit about what the facts are or what the market wants... I am going to see to it that everybody is force fed pizza whether they like it or not." Clint KB5ZHT |
Outside of sounding like low-grade bull****, that "reason" could be taken as wanting a government WELFARE program to preserve morse code. If morsemanship is so damn much fun, easy to learn, etc., then it can be done WITHOUT needing the subsistence of any federal testing. That was my EXACT point in an earlier post.... I was told by a certain PCTA type that "it won't exist anymore unless we force it on everybody"... well, heh, according to darwin and also the free market, the most fit survive and the free market, left to run the course as it will in and of its own needs will result in the best suited result. If you have to MAKE it happen, then it isn't making it on it's own merit. I'm afraid of your motives in all this, Larry. I don't like the words I hear from many advocating the continuation of the code testing requirement. Those words often reek of bigotry, elitism, and discrimination against other Americans. social engineering. it's affirmative action for CW; it's as you said, a welfare program for it.... One of the classic NCTA whines. Us horrible old PCTA's want to keep Morse code going so that we can continue to demonstrate the dominance of the white, middle-class, American male, who represents 5% of the world's population yet consumes 25% of the planet's resources, and ALSO produces 33% of the worlds economic output, to the tune of 11 TRILLION dollars out of the 33 trillion sum total of all nations. Just to keep the record straight. Clint KB5ZHT |
"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
... "Kim W5TIT" wrote ... But, but, but!!!! Larry's obviously got or had large boobs, and has obviously worn a bra. Right?! He *has* hasn't he? Surely, for if not he would not be making value judgements on my callsign. __________________________________________________ _______________ It took a while, but I have grown accustomed to your callsign, Kim. And it wasn't necessary for me to wear a bra to do it. ;-) Arnie - KT4ST Uh, Arnie? If you wore a bra, the only thing you'd get from me would be, "What ya packin' there, big fella?" ;) Kim W5TIT |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
One does have to eat a pizza to evaluate its taste and whether they will like it or not. (snip) So while there are some things that do not need to be experienced to evaluate them, there are other things that do. Well, unless one can eat a license requirement, I think my analogies were a little more relavent. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Len Over 21" wrote:
Outside of sounding like low-grade bull****, (snip) I might have thought that when I first read his response, but decided to be a little more controlled in my written response (knowing full well that others would come to that conclusion on their own). All Dwight said was that "your words reek of bigotry, elitism, and discrimination against other Americans." Now, I didn't specifically say Larry's words reeked of anything. What I said is the words I hear from many advocating the continuation of the code testing requirement often reek of bigotry, elitism, and discrimination against other Americans. Of course, some of Larry's past comments certainly might fit into that category, but he has since somewhat toned down his rhetoric. If YOU want to TRULY support personal initiative without "government support" (and all its 'evil' socialist-like things) then you should be able to eliminate the federal code test! Except you do NOT. You keep demanding that the government continue the federal code test in order to keep a few code users around... I've discussed that contradiction with Larry before. He does seem to exclude code testing from his conservative views opposing excessive government regulation. If Morse Code has real value, it should be able to survive in as close to a free market environment as possible. I think it has that value and can survive just fine without a regulation mandating testing. The FCC regulates and licenses ALL civil radio in the USA... yet none of the staff nor commission of the FCC are required to pass any morse code test in order to regulate US amateur radio. Of course, that should be obvious. But Larry's position benefits him more - if accepted, it would undermine all those with different views on this subject. Clearly, only those with views similar to his would accept such a premise. You seem dumb and dumberer to the fact that every other radio service (except a small part of maritime radio) in the USA has either DROPPED morse code (snip) Actually, as you may know, even the International Maritime Organization (IMO) voted in 1998 to eliminate Morse Code. The Coast Guard itself dropped code in 1995. As a result of these two events, the Coast Guard now urges commercial vessels not to use code since CG personnel, and an increasing number of radio operators in the maritime service, may no longer have the skills necessary to communicate using that system. The UN-chartered IMO is responsible for defining and regulating international maritime telecommunications. It's positions are adopted by the ITU. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote: You just locked, loaded, took careful aim, and shot yourself in the foot! If you had ANY experience with Morse/CW at all, you'd realize that the mode which is in "decline" lately on HF is SSB -- due to poor operating conditions. The CW segments continue to jump with activity. (snip) So you're saying code use "in this country" is jumping with activity? If so, where? I've looked in the commercial bands, shortwave broadcast bands, military bands, and so on, and found very little code use (certainly far less than just a few decades ago, just as I said). Dwight: Uh huh. Right. I totally agree. And if I were discussing commercial or military communications, that may be a relevant point. However, since we're discussing Amateur Radio, you're just spinning your wheels with the NCTA's most famously irrelevant and unresponsive argument. I'm gonna give you some free advice here, Dwight. (snip) You're out of your depth when discussing code testing, so I would suggest, for the sake of your own credibility, that you chose a topic you know something about. Now, let me give you some advice, Larry. You're too narrow-minded to even understand the concepts behind code testing. Code testing is not, and has never been, solely to benefit Amateur Radio. OK, Dwight -- then, for the umpteenth time, please inform us what it IS relevant to OTHER than the ARS? By your own admission, no other communications service is using Morse/CW to any noticeable extent. So, WHICH ONE IS??? Therefore, you can't focus solely on Amateur Radio when discussing the code testing issue. The heck I can't, Dwight! So, for the sake of your own credibility on this subject, look outside your own narrowly defined little world at the much larger picture elsewhere (the view from the FCC's perspective). Only then will you be aware enough to seriously discuss this issue. Dwight, unless and until you can show us just exactly WHERE the ARS's code testing requirement ***IS*** relevant OUTSIDE of the ARS, all you're doing is blowing smoke. And not very dense smoke at that. The subject of this thread is "where PCTA's fail in logic." So far, it has only served to prove that the NCTA's have no concept of logic at all, and are therefore unqualified to discuss it. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
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 , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: One does have to eat a pizza to evaluate its taste and whether they will like it or not. I love pizza but hate tomatoes, cheese, and garlic. Yet combine them into a pizza and the result is entirely different. No one can tell how a cake will taste simply from reading the ingredients on a box. You can evaluate its nutritional content but not its taste. So while there are some things that do not need to be experienced to evaluate them, there are other things that do. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee: Correct. And the Morse/CW mode is definitely one of those things that one must "experience" before they become qualified to make any sort of judgment about code testing. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: Well, more importantly, when was the last time Larry wore a bra? (Wooshhhhhh--he will never get that one). Kim W5TIT Obviously not, since I'm not in the habit of wearing ladie's underwear! So, for once you're right, Kim -- that one hit my skull and slid right off! However, my "issue" with you has nothing to do with your bra or what's in it -- it's about your call sign. But I don't expect you to "get" that, either. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: But, but, but!!!! Larry's obviously got or had large boobs, and has obviously worn a bra. Right?! He *has* hasn't he? Surely, for if not he would not be making value judgements on my callsign. Kim W5TIT Kim: One doesn't need to be endowed with large breasts or wear the requisite bra in order to be aware of what constitutes mature, intelligent, and dignified behaviour. That is, of course, unless you believe that Riley Hollingsworth is a cross-dresser! After all, you cannot disparage my opinion of your call sign without showing him the exact same level of disrespect. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes: It took a while, but I have grown accustomed to your callsign, Kim. And it wasn't necessary for me to wear a bra to do it. ;-) Arnie - KT4ST Arnie: I'm fully accustomed to Kim's call sign as well. It's well suited to her childish, self-centered, attention-grabbing personality. Moreover, I've come so accustomed to it that I've given up on the notion that she'll ever show some growth and maturity and change it for something more appropriate, dignified, and respectful of her fellow YL's. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com