Appalling...
 

Dick Carroll wrote in message ...
Greg Courville wrote:

I've been a ham for only a month now, and been using these groups for
about 6 weeks.
I really can't stand some of the things that go on here.
Has anybody ever noticed that 8 out of 10 threads on this group (and
many other amateur radio groups) end in a flame war?
It's really shocking how people can start an argument over nothing
which can escalate to vicious strings of insults complete with
profanity, sexual references and terms such as "CBplusser" and
"Knuckle-Dragger".

Greg if you want to see how all this began just spend some time in Google
and you canget an educaion. It sure didn't start by old timers belittling
newcomers. In fact it was and IS the exact reverse. Not all newcomers, by
any means, just those on this board who decided to do it, and persist to
this day.

DICK would like to present himself as a "reasonable" ham. DICK is
primary in this newgroup for inciting namecalling, preferring to call
names rather than have a legitimate discussion. See -every- post he's
made in the last week.

Don't believe DICK.

It's just unbelievable to me that while all of the
books talk about how wonderful and helpful hams are, a significant
number of them spend their time cutting each other down over random
issues. I see "newbies" come to these boards for help, and get cut
down by inconsiderate jerks who just feel like making people feel
stupid.

You're making assumptions here that shouldn't, indeed can't, be made.

Assumptions can always be made. That's what makes them assumptions.

The jerks who show up her complaining about the code test requrement and
blaming all us who just did it, without complaining.

And? Finish the thought.

That in so doing
learned that Morse code does indeed add substantially to ham radio, to the
point that we believe code testing has a permanent place in ham radio, is
just so much nonsense to them. They already know all about it.

Yet there are those of us who don't believe as you do. We are
constantly attacked.

How many hams didn't start out with a lower-level license?
People need to stop beating up on us poor no-coders.

Come into ham radio with a proper attitude (note I didn't say THE proper
attitude) and you'll be received just as well as anyone ever was.

THE proper attitude is what he meant, though. Otherwise enter at your
own risk.

Don't they
realize that the new people look up to the old-timers?

You REALLY must have not been reading here very closely at all, Greg.
Were that the case *here* you wouldn't have a report to make.

His words are valid. Initially, newcomers do look up to the
old-timers. Till the moment the old-timers start pushing "No CW=No
Ham" ideology.

I must say that
after reading books about how hams help people all over the world and
are generally just a wonderful bunch, these groups have really changed
my view of the amateur radio community.

Don't feel lonesome.
It sure changed my view of ham radio, too. I showed up here several years
ago to engage in civil, sincere discourse on the merits of code testing,
and was immediately set upon by the code haters for my views. It's been
all downhill from there.

DICK was instrumental in the downhill part. And he's been here more
than just "several years." He's working on his 1st decade of bile.

I don't doubt that even this
thread will end in a violent exchange of profanities and become just
another flame war.


Once again, you will get the treatment you deserve here, at least from me.

So far you're doing OK, I don't blame you for your concern. But I suggest
you might benefit from a bit more knowledge of the background of what has
happened here.

Absolutely.

Brian

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:
Dick Carroll wrote in message
...

Greg Courville wrote:


I've been a ham for only a month now, and been using these groups for
about 6 weeks.
I really can't stand some of the things that go on here.
Has anybody ever noticed that 8 out of 10 threads on this group (and
many other amateur radio groups) end in a flame war?
It's really shocking how people can start an argument over nothing
which can escalate to vicious strings of insults complete with
profanity, sexual references and terms such as "CBplusser" and
"Knuckle-Dragger".

Greg if you want to see how all this began just spend some time in
Google
and you canget an educaion. It sure didn't start by old timers
belittling
newcomers. In fact it was and IS the exact reverse. Not all newcomers,
by
any means, just those on this board who decided to do it, and persist to
this day.


DICK would like to present himself as a "reasonable" ham. DICK is
primary in this newgroup for inciting namecalling, preferring to call
names rather than have a legitimate discussion. See -every- post he's
made in the last week.

Strange, Brian. I am a nickle extra, and am not very good at CW, and I
get along just fine with Dick.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Which just goes to show: it's not lack of license class, it's lack of class
in all.

Kim W5TIT

Which just goes to show: it's not lack of license class, it's lack of
class
in all.

Kim W5TIT



OOOUUUUCH!!!!!
that HAD to hurt!

Clint
KB5ZHT

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Brian wrote:
Dick Carroll wrote in message
...

Greg Courville wrote:


I've been a ham for only a month now, and been using these groups for
about 6 weeks.
I really can't stand some of the things that go on here.
Has anybody ever noticed that 8 out of 10 threads on this group (and
many other amateur radio groups) end in a flame war?
It's really shocking how people can start an argument over nothing
which can escalate to vicious strings of insults complete with
profanity, sexual references and terms such as "CBplusser" and
"Knuckle-Dragger".

Greg if you want to see how all this began just spend some time in Google
and you canget an educaion. It sure didn't start by old timers belittling
newcomers. In fact it was and IS the exact reverse. Not all newcomers, by
any means, just those on this board who decided to do it, and persist to
this day.


DICK would like to present himself as a "reasonable" ham. DICK is
primary in this newgroup for inciting namecalling, preferring to call
names rather than have a legitimate discussion. See -every- post he's
made in the last week.

Strange, Brian. I am a nickle extra, and am not very good at CW, and I
get along just fine with Dick.


You like Dick? !!?!!

LHA

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

He comes in calls us the most repulsive people on the face of the
earth, remember the N***S? and then says this?

I still want to ask if this is the brave new ham type that we have to
look forward to after Morse is gone.

Mike, I don't think you are the "most repulsive people on the face of the
earth." Ignorant of the wider world of radio communications, yes.
Unable to learn much of that wider radio world, yes. Rigid, strict
moralists in what is supposed to be an avocation, a recreation, yes.

Sort of like a hockeypuck in a way. Dense, solid, overly heavy for its
size, with no redeeming esthetics to it. :-)

LHA

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

Dick Carroll wrote in message
...
Greg Courville wrote:

I've been a ham for only a month now, and been using these groups for
about 6 weeks.
I really can't stand some of the things that go on here.
Has anybody ever noticed that 8 out of 10 threads on this group (and
many other amateur radio groups) end in a flame war?
It's really shocking how people can start an argument over nothing
which can escalate to vicious strings of insults complete with
profanity, sexual references and terms such as "CBplusser" and
"Knuckle-Dragger".

Then Dick Carroll wrote:

Greg if you want to see how all this began just spend some time in Google
and you canget an educaion. It sure didn't start by old timers belittling
newcomers. In fact it was and IS the exact reverse. Not all newcomers, by
any means, just those on this board who decided to do it, and persist to
this day.

Greg again:

It's just unbelievable to me that while all of the
books talk about how wonderful and helpful hams are, a significant
number of them spend their time cutting each other down over random
issues. I see "newbies" come to these boards for help, and get cut
down by inconsiderate jerks who just feel like making people feel
stupid.

You're making assumptions here that shouldn't, indeed can't, be made.

Now comes Brian:

Assumptions can always be made. That's what makes them assumptions.

Brian:

Just because assumptions can always be made, doesn't mean that
we aren't making the correct ones.

The jerks who show up her complaining about the code test requrement and
blaming all us who just did it, without complaining.

And? Finish the thought.

That thought is complete. It was the NCTA that started this debate, and
turned it into the slugfest it became when they blamed just about everything
bad in this world on those of us hams who were able to learn the Morse
code and pass tests at strictly amateur-level speeds. The code testing
requirements had always been reasonable and were proven to be
achievable by people from all walks of life, even those with severe
communicative disabilities. However, the NCTA, in their need to make
the attempt to prove the code tests to be unreasonable and somehow
irrelevant, were the FIRST ones to resort to the empty rhetoric, negativity,
and name-calling with which we have all had to contend.

That in so doing
learned that Morse code does indeed add substantially to ham radio, to the
point that we believe code testing has a permanent place in ham radio, is
just so much nonsense to them. They already know all about it.

Yet there are those of us who don't believe as you do. We are
constantly attacked.

Incorrect. It is the NCTA's to began the "attacks." In one of my earliest
postings on Fidonet over a decade ago, one of the NCTA replies accused
me of "ethnic cleansing" because I dared to agree with the present code
testing requirements. I surely didn't start out with the notion of making
such rash statements, but I certainly wasn't going to let them go
unanswered, either.

How many hams didn't start out with a lower-level license?
People need to stop beating up on us poor no-coders.

Don't look now, but nobody's beating up on the "poor no-coders" unless
and until those same "poor no-coders" start beating up on us innocent
PCTA's who are merely stating their opinions with passion and
conviction.

Come into ham radio with a proper attitude (note I didn't say THE proper
attitude) and you'll be received just as well as anyone ever was.

Dick is absolutely right. My own radio club is full of No-code Techs, but
because of the fact that, for the most part, they haven't bothered to
place their codeless status under scrutiny by making accusations against
those of us who believe in and support code testing, we all get along
very well, indeed. When dealing with fellow hams in person, I have
never once asked for their license class. However, because my own
is self-evident by the configuration of my call sign, I have many times
been subjected to inquiries regarding my personal stance on code
testing, and then been treated accordingly. And while these are just
a few out of the dozens of hams I have dealt with in the past ten
years, these NCTA's have all followed the same pattern -- they stir
up controversy, focus that controversy on me and other PCTA's,
then drop out of sight the second they realize they're losing the
battle. The sad thing is, if they had only left it out entirely, nobody
would have had to bother with the issue in the first place!

THE proper attitude is what he meant, though. Otherwise enter at your
own risk.

No, Dick said what he meant, and he meant what he said. The NCTA
"attitude," which basically boils down to "I think we need to get rid of
code testing, and if you dare to disagree with me, I'm going to smear
you all over the floor" is the attitude to which he refers.

Don't they
realize that the new people look up to the old-timers?

You REALLY must have not been reading here very closely at all, Greg.
Were that the case *here* you wouldn't have a report to make.

His words are valid. Initially, newcomers do look up to the
old-timers. Till the moment the old-timers start pushing "No CW=No
Ham" ideology.

I don't recall ever "pushing" that ideology until some NCTA pushed the
CW = obsolete, politically incorrect, non-inclusive, racist, bigoted,
homophobic, environmentally damaging, etc. etc. ideologies first.

I must say that
after reading books about how hams help people all over the world and
are generally just a wonderful bunch, these groups have really changed
my view of the amateur radio community.

Don't feel lonesome.
It sure changed my view of ham radio, too. I showed up here several years
ago to engage in civil, sincere discourse on the merits of code testing,
and was immediately set upon by the code haters for my views. It's been
all downhill from there.

DICK was instrumental in the downhill part. And he's been here more
than just "several years." He's working on his 1st decade of bile.

Yup, but Brian has over a decade of NCTA bile under HIS belt!

I don't doubt that even this
thread will end in a violent exchange of profanities and become just
another flame war.

Once again, you will get the treatment you deserve here, at least from me.

So far you're doing OK, I don't blame you for your concern. But I suggest
you might benefit from a bit more knowledge of the background of what has
happened here.

Absolutely.

Brian

I suggest you take your own advice, Brian, and find out just exactly WHO
started the code/no-code debate and why.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
I disagree that it is reasonable. First, there is no other pass/fail
mode test. If there were, then your assertion that it was reasonable
would not fail so badly.


If it were practical to set up and administer pass/fail tests on other
modes, I would certainly support doing so. It is unfortunate that it is
only practical to administer code testing and written testing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
I disagree that it is reasonable. First, there is no other pass/fail
mode test. If there were, then your assertion that it was reasonable
would not fail so badly.


If it were practical to set up and administer pass/fail tests on other
modes, I would certainly support doing so. It is unfortunate that it is
only practical to administer code testing and written testing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

It actually could be done. Example; Pass a basic written test for say the
General class.

This would give you basic privlidges of say SSB, FM, at 200 watts on HF.
Possible retaining the sub bands also.

Then have a ENDORSEMENT to be added for additional modes, i.e. SSTV,
Digital, even CW, etc.

This could be the pass or fail part of things. Given at a local ham club,
by those that already have the endorsement or are grandfathered into it by
past experience.

Just a thought.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
I disagree that it is reasonable. First, there is no other pass/fail
mode test. If there were, then your assertion that it was reasonable
would not fail so badly.


If it were practical to set up and administer pass/fail tests on other
modes, I would certainly support doing so. It is unfortunate that it is
only practical to administer code testing and written testing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

It actually could be done. Example; Pass a basic written test for say
the
General class.

This would give you basic privlidges of say SSB, FM, at 200 watts on HF.
Possible retaining the sub bands also.

Then have a ENDORSEMENT to be added for additional modes, i.e. SSTV,
Digital, even CW, etc.

This could be the pass or fail part of things. Given at a local ham club,
by those that already have the endorsement or are grandfathered into it by
past experience.

Just a thought.

Dan/W4NTI


I would insist on an operational test for SSB and FM too besides the
written. And I would insist that the operationals be conducted by a VE team
to an established standard not just a "well he is doing OK" sort of thing.

I don't really believe in the concepts of endorsements for various modes.
The candidate should be required to learn the basics in each of the modes
before getting a license. Or make SSB and FM contingent on passing the
other modes first. They should be the last privileges to be earned rather
than the first. Otherwise we will end up with way too many of the HF
equivalent of "repeater creatures."

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"Brian" wrote in message
e.com...

I disagree that it is reasonable. First, there is no other pass/fail
mode test. If there were, then your assertion that it was reasonable
would not fail so badly.


If it were practical to set up and administer pass/fail tests on other
modes, I would certainly support doing so. It is unfortunate that it is
only practical to administer code testing and written testing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

It actually could be done. Example; Pass a basic written test for say

the

General class.

This would give you basic privlidges of say SSB, FM, at 200 watts on HF.
Possible retaining the sub bands also.

Then have a ENDORSEMENT to be added for additional modes, i.e. SSTV,
Digital, even CW, etc.

This could be the pass or fail part of things. Given at a local ham club,
by those that already have the endorsement or are grandfathered into it by
past experience.

Just a thought.

Dan/W4NTI



I would insist on an operational test for SSB and FM too besides the
written. And I would insist that the operationals be conducted by a VE team
to an established standard not just a "well he is doing OK" sort of thing.

You know Dee, there is some real wisdom in that. I think many people
would be served well by having an HF contact - possibly their first -
at the time of testing. It would get that first contact out of the way,
it would possibly calm the person down and be a little bit of fun, and
would really keep people thinking about good on the air procedures and
manners.

It would also be enjoyable to be on the other side of that QSO. I would
suspect that an Op that was a volunteer "first contact" would be a part
of the VE team.

What a nice/good idea!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"Brian" wrote in message
e.com...

I disagree that it is reasonable. First, there is no other pass/fail
mode test. If there were, then your assertion that it was reasonable
would not fail so badly.


If it were practical to set up and administer pass/fail tests on other
modes, I would certainly support doing so. It is unfortunate that it
is
only practical to administer code testing and written testing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

It actually could be done. Example; Pass a basic written test for say

the

General class.

This would give you basic privlidges of say SSB, FM, at 200 watts on HF.
Possible retaining the sub bands also.

Then have a ENDORSEMENT to be added for additional modes, i.e. SSTV,
Digital, even CW, etc.

This could be the pass or fail part of things. Given at a local ham
club,
by those that already have the endorsement or are grandfathered into it
by
past experience.

Just a thought.

Dan/W4NTI



I would insist on an operational test for SSB and FM too besides the
written. And I would insist that the operationals be conducted by a VE
team
to an established standard not just a "well he is doing OK" sort of
thing.

You know Dee, there is some real wisdom in that. I think many people
would be served well by having an HF contact - possibly their first -
at the time of testing. It would get that first contact out of the way,
it would possibly calm the person down and be a little bit of fun, and
would really keep people thinking about good on the air procedures and
manners.

It would also be enjoyable to be on the other side of that QSO. I would
suspect that an Op that was a volunteer "first contact" would be a part
of the VE team.

What a nice/good idea!

- Mike KB3EIA -


In Europe, mostly the old Iron Curtain ones, required a certain amount of
SWL time. Documented etc.

Dee do indeed have some good ideas.

Dan/W4NTI

In article k.net,
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

I would insist on an operational test for SSB and FM too besides the
written. And I would insist that the operationals be conducted by a VE
team
to an established standard not just a "well he is doing OK" sort of
thing.

You know Dee, there is some real wisdom in that. I think many people
would be served well by having an HF contact - possibly their first -
at the time of testing. It would get that first contact out of the way,
it would possibly calm the person down and be a little bit of fun, and
would really keep people thinking about good on the air procedures and
manners.

It would also be enjoyable to be on the other side of that QSO. I would
suspect that an Op that was a volunteer "first contact" would be a part
of the VE team.

What a nice/good idea!

I did a writeup on how that sort of test could be done. All it would take is a
couple of QRP rigs and some dummy loads (wouldn't actually have to be on the
air).

But NCVEC would have a cow. Too much of a "burden".

In Europe, mostly the old Iron Curtain ones, required a certain amount of
SWL time. Documented etc.

Even more than that. They required that a prospective ham actually BUILD a
receiver of a certain complexity from scratch, then use it to receive and log a
certain number of stations and countries using both 'phone and CW. They'd have
to explain the receiver's design, construction and operation, too.

Once all that was done, they'd get a beginner's license and authority to build
a transmitter of a certain complexity and power. Which would then be used to
make verified contacts in order to earn an upgraded license.

There were also written and code tests, of course. But those tests alone would
not earn a license - those hams had to build their rigs, then demonstrate
understanding of their theory and operation as well as actually use the dern
things.

What a concept.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I think that these licenses we have should be retested every so often, such
as every ten years! All applicable elements for the respective licenses
including the morse code test. Most every other license out there issued
requires some form of retesting. At least this way we will find out if
anyone has learned anything along the way or not... And it could be that if
you were, for example a 20wpm Extra, you would have to pass all the elements
required for that back then, or the license class you would have/get would
be whatever elements a person DID pass on the retest. Definitely would show
if anyone bothered to "grow" in the ten year period.

Ryan, KC8PMX


"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
I disagree that it is reasonable. First, there is no other pass/fail
mode test. If there were, then your assertion that it was reasonable
would not fail so badly.


If it were practical to set up and administer pass/fail tests on other
modes, I would certainly support doing so. It is unfortunate that it is
only practical to administer code testing and written testing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article k.net,
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

I would insist on an operational test for SSB and FM too besides the
written. And I would insist that the operationals be conducted by a
VE
team
to an established standard not just a "well he is doing OK" sort of
thing.

You know Dee, there is some real wisdom in that. I think many people
would be served well by having an HF contact - possibly their first -
at the time of testing. It would get that first contact out of the way,
it would possibly calm the person down and be a little bit of fun, and
would really keep people thinking about good on the air procedures and
manners.

It would also be enjoyable to be on the other side of that QSO. I would
suspect that an Op that was a volunteer "first contact" would be a part
of the VE team.

What a nice/good idea!

I did a writeup on how that sort of test could be done. All it would take
is a
couple of QRP rigs and some dummy loads (wouldn't actually have to be on
the
air).

But NCVEC would have a cow. Too much of a "burden".

In Europe, mostly the old Iron Curtain ones, required a certain amount of
SWL time. Documented etc.

Even more than that. They required that a prospective ham actually BUILD a
receiver of a certain complexity from scratch, then use it to receive and
log a
certain number of stations and countries using both 'phone and CW. They'd
have
to explain the receiver's design, construction and operation, too.

Once all that was done, they'd get a beginner's license and authority to
build
a transmitter of a certain complexity and power. Which would then be used
to
make verified contacts in order to earn an upgraded license.

There were also written and code tests, of course. But those tests alone
would
not earn a license - those hams had to build their rigs, then demonstrate
understanding of their theory and operation as well as actually use the
dern
things.

What a concept.

73 de Jim, N2EY


I'll tell you this Jim...the Ruskies had and probably still do have the best
CW operators in the world.

I used to have to listen to them a lot in a job I had. Amazing how so many
of them sounded like the hams on 20meters...hi.

Dan/W4NTI

Unfortunately for you I guess that idea would never come to light...
the actual tide of events is against you on that one; testing
requirements are being reduced at a slow pace and not increased.
I'm afraid you'd be spitting in the wind if you petitioned the FCC
and said "I would like to add to your administrative worries and
an already stretched budgetary problem."

Clint
KB5ZHT

Hmm... I wonder how I could work that concept into my study strategy...

73 de KG6SGY



"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...


Brian wrote:

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
thlink.net...



I'll tell you this Jim...the Ruskies had and probably still do have the
best
CW operators in the world.

I used to have to listen to them a lot in a job I had. Amazing how so
many
of them sounded like the hams on 20meters...hi.

Dan/W4NTI



And the ones that washed out of CW school? The Gulag?




Only you and a few like you washed out. Russian military, as our own,
don't.
When one is sitting trying to learn code, realizing that if you "just
can't" then
it.s off to the infantry, the failure rate is unsurprisingly low to
nonexistant.

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message thlink.net...



I'll tell you this Jim...the Ruskies had and probably still do have the best
CW operators in the world.

I used to have to listen to them a lot in a job I had. Amazing how so many
of them sounded like the hams on 20meters...hi.

Dan/W4NTI



And the ones that washed out of CW school? The Gulag?




Only you and a few like you washed out.

Poor DICK. I was never in a Russian dittybopper school.

Russian military, as our own,
don't.

Poor DICK. I was never in a US dittybopper school.

When one is sitting trying to learn code, realizing that if you "just
can't" then
it.s off to the infantry, the failure rate is unsurprisingly low to
nonexistant.

Poor DICK. I'm sure the failure rate was quite high. Why the big
rush to RTTY and other modes which don't require the operator to be a
human modem?

Perhaps Len could shed some light on this.

"Greg Courville" wrote in message ...
Hmm... I wonder how I could work that concept into my study strategy...

73 de KG6SGY

Raise your right hand and take an oath. Be sure to get a guaranteed
Morse Code MOS, though, or you might find yourself peeling taters in
an Infantry Division in Korea.

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
thlink.net...



I'll tell you this Jim...the Ruskies had and probably still do have
the best
CW operators in the world.

I used to have to listen to them a lot in a job I had. Amazing how
so many
of them sounded like the hams on 20meters...hi.

Dan/W4NTI



And the ones that washed out of CW school? The Gulag?




Only you and a few like you washed out.

Poor DICK. I was never in a Russian dittybopper school.

Russian military, as our own,
don't.

Poor DICK. I was never in a US dittybopper school.

When one is sitting trying to learn code, realizing that if you "just
can't" then
it.s off to the infantry, the failure rate is unsurprisingly low to
nonexistant.

Poor DICK. I'm sure the failure rate was quite high. Why the big
rush to RTTY and other modes which don't require the operator to be a
human modem?

Because RTTY could be run in the 'secure', or 'green' mode. And RATT was
more capable of sending LARGE volumes of messages. Due mainly to the
untrained CW operators in the US Military at the time you are referencing.

Ten groups a minute is all that was required of a O5C MOS back then.

Dan/W4NTI


Perhaps Len could shed some light on this.

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message link.net...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
thlink.net...



I'll tell you this Jim...the Ruskies had and probably still do have
the best
CW operators in the world.

I used to have to listen to them a lot in a job I had. Amazing how
so many
of them sounded like the hams on 20meters...hi.

Dan/W4NTI



And the ones that washed out of CW school? The Gulag?




Only you and a few like you washed out.

Poor DICK. I was never in a Russian dittybopper school.

Russian military, as our own,
don't.

Poor DICK. I was never in a US dittybopper school.

When one is sitting trying to learn code, realizing that if you "just
can't" then
it.s off to the infantry, the failure rate is unsurprisingly low to
nonexistant.

Poor DICK. I'm sure the failure rate was quite high. Why the big
rush to RTTY and other modes which don't require the operator to be a
human modem?

Because RTTY could be run in the 'secure', or 'green' mode.

CW can be coded as well. As long as everyone's o the same "page"
should work OK. Authenticate.

And RATT was
more capable of sending LARGE volumes of messages.

Tell me about the error rate, too.

Due mainly to the
untrained CW operators in the US Military at the time you are referencing.

So the Amateur Radio Service didn't act as a pool of trained operators
for the military?

Ten groups a minute is all that was required of a O5C MOS back then.

Dan/W4NTI

Kind of negates many of the arguments for forcing people to test for
code, doesn't it?

"Brian" wrote in message
m...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
link.net...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
thlink.net...



I'll tell you this Jim...the Ruskies had and probably still do
have
the best
CW operators in the world.

I used to have to listen to them a lot in a job I had. Amazing
how
so many
of them sounded like the hams on 20meters...hi.

Dan/W4NTI



And the ones that washed out of CW school? The Gulag?




Only you and a few like you washed out.

Poor DICK. I was never in a Russian dittybopper school.

Russian military, as our own,
don't.

Poor DICK. I was never in a US dittybopper school.

When one is sitting trying to learn code, realizing that if you
"just
can't" then
it.s off to the infantry, the failure rate is unsurprisingly low to
nonexistant.

Poor DICK. I'm sure the failure rate was quite high. Why the big
rush to RTTY and other modes which don't require the operator to be a
human modem?

Because RTTY could be run in the 'secure', or 'green' mode.

CW can be coded as well. As long as everyone's o the same "page"
should work OK. Authenticate.

And RATT was
more capable of sending LARGE volumes of messages.

Tell me about the error rate, too.

Due mainly to the
untrained CW operators in the US Military at the time you are
referencing.

So the Amateur Radio Service didn't act as a pool of trained operators
for the military?

Ten groups a minute is all that was required of a O5C MOS back then.

Dan/W4NTI

Kind of negates many of the arguments for forcing people to test for
code, doesn't it?

No it does not negate a thing Brian. It shows how ill prepared the US
Military was during the height of the Cold War.

The Iron Curtain countries didn't have a problem with good CW operators.
And IM NOT TALKING ABOUT HAM RADIO.

And thats all I can say on that subject.

Dan/W4NTI

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

Poor DICK. I'm sure the failure rate was quite high. Why the big
rush to RTTY and other modes which don't require the operator to be a
human modem?

Perhaps Len could shed some light on this.

I could, but it is like trying to teach pigs to fly...it annoys the pig and
the instructor. Nonetheless, I clean off the whiteboard and explain:

In the 1950s-1960s, morse code skills were taught to FIELD RADIO
MOS school students...but at (then named) Camp Gordon (now Fort
Gordon, GA). "Field" radios in the US Army then ranged from the old
WW2-era AN/GRC-9 two-man-pack portable to the AN/GRC-26 truck-
mounted hut containing an HF-range AM/CW/RTTY station (BC-610
transmitter) and having the masts and wires for a small rhombic.

"Angry-twentysixes" were deployed in Korea during the active war
period there (1950-1953) but the overwhelming mode of choice for field
communications was RTTY, not morse. The GRC-26 could transmit
RTTY and voice simultaneously. NVIS had not become a standard
acronym yet. Despite the hilly topology of Korean landscape, VHF
radio relay sets had become the "favorite" (most-used) method of radio
communication of any kind there. Such VHF radio relay carried voice
and TTY circuits, again the TTY preferred over manual morse code.

In the next decade, moving to southeast asia, the AN/TRC-24 (among
several) was the most used radio relay equipment, again carrying voice
and TTY. The '24 was easily spotted by the curious square antenna
configuration that worked from 40 to 400 MHz and could integrate with
Spiral-4 land cable having up to four in-line repeater amplifiers along
that cable. An integrated solution to networking at higher command
levels.

In the 1950s in Korea, the small-unit radio most used at first was the
BC-1000 "Walkie-Talkie" designed by Motorola in WW2. The AN/PRC-6
HT was next for easy squad use, on VHF and with the built-in facility for
active repeater operations. About 1952 late, the "three-band PRC-9"
family of manpacks replaced the SCR-300/BC-1000s, having less than
half the weight. Those extended into vehicle-mounted versions of the
manpack and were initially planned as three overlapping bands in VHF
intended for Artillery-Infantry-Armor units, each of those having a band.
All of the "9s" family had provisions for unattended repeater operation.

For Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia all of the mentioned VOICE radios
were used plus the appearance of the almost-all-solid-state PRC-25
multi-channel synthesized portable VHF FM set (only the final amplifier
was a tube stage). By 1970 or so, the AN/PRC-77 appeared which was
essentially the same architecture but having all solid-state circuitry.
An eighth of a million models of the '25 and '77 were produced during a
decade and a half of production in several countries.

The original SCR-300/BC-1000 "walkie-talkie" was licensed for manufacture
in many countries, including the UK (there known as WS-11?). The
improved "9s" of the late Korean War vintage were also licensed out to
other countries. Motorola's Chicago works was the pioneer in the design,
beginning before WW2 (original "handie-talkie") and into the architecture
of the 1950s-introduced manpacks.

US military aviation pioneered the UHF "military aircraft band" of 225-
400 MHz beginning in the 1950s, notably the Collins Radio design which
was channelized and had AM voice...some were still on inventory as of
1970. The SINGLE CHANNEL SSB (single user) was pioneered again
by Collins Radio for the Strategic Air Command in the 1950s, the
ignition point for the adoption of single-user SSB by radio amateurs.

While several HF range portable and transportable communications
transceivers were in use from 1950 through 1990, all with carrier on-off
control and having manual telegraph keys as part of their system, the
modes of actual use were still voice. Carrier on-off control was largely
restricted to semi-remote site operation from a wire-linked control point
(some protection of personnel from enemy DFing and bombing of RF
emitters). Various forms of voice encryption and data machine coupling
appeared then.

The first of the SINCGARS family of VHF small-unit communications sets
appeared in 1989. Design was led by ITT Fort Wayne, IN, and allowed both
frequency-hopping and external encryption devices to defeat enemy
interception. That series continues in production today with the manpack
version reduced to half the bulk and weight and including internal
encryption
circuitry for both voice and data. A standard US military land and air set
for manpack, vehicular, or airborne use, a quarter million has been produced
by ITT and the former General Dynamics Land Division in Florida.

Army land communications includes a large number of different radio relay
sets (troposcatter included in my definition of that) and whole voice-data
telephone exchanges, all mobile and truck mounted, deployable anywhere
and capable of supplying all the needs of military communications at any
level from Corps on down. The Signal Center at Fort Gordon is now the
main Signal School for the US Army and other branches. Fort Monmouth
is now the home of the Electronics Command, USA, and is a center for
coordinating manufacturing and research in Army military communications.

The Military Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, AZ, has the only "code
school" left (morse code cognition) and that Center trains ALL branch
members and necessary government employees on various Military
Intelligence tasks. Morse code cognition is taught using commercial
morse code computer programs. Such cognition schooling is only a PART
of the overall M.I. electronic intelligence intercept task. A much larger
activity there is the UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) training.

The old mythology of "special forces behind enemy lines reporting back
intel via CW" has never surfaced in any history since the 1960s. During
the first Gulf War, the "behind the lines" radios were basically the
AN/PSC-2 which is low UHF, has three antenna choices (the
largest is a satellite "umbrella") and was designed to handle voice and
data, data to 1200 BPS using a small "chiclet" style keyboard. The
deployable AN/PSC-5 is now operational with more improvements. USAF
"Joint Stars" command aircraft can easily relay PSC radio comm to other
sites and the directional UHF antennas defeat most field DF operations.

In the US military, HF radio use is largely considered to be just a backup
mode of communications. The primary medium for communications is
land radio relay, satellete relay, and small unit radio netting at VHF and
higher. At fixed bases, land communications is connected to the DSN
which is considered as the "government's own Internet" that handles
voice and data digitally and includes encryption for both (if authorized).

There is NO morse code mode used for any tactical radio communications
anywhere in today's military. There is no evidence that strategic comm
(such as by Special Forces, SEALS, etc) uses any morse code modes;
their known equipment characteristics concern only voice and data modes.

It's not possible to tell/explain what happens in "code classes" when
there are none today...

Leonard H. Anderson

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message link.net...
"Brian" wrote in message
m...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
link.net...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...

Poor DICK. I'm sure the failure rate was quite high. Why the big
rush to RTTY and other modes which don't require the operator to be a
human modem?

Because RTTY could be run in the 'secure', or 'green' mode.

CW can be coded as well. As long as everyone's o the same "page"
should work OK. Authenticate.

And RATT was
more capable of sending LARGE volumes of messages.

Tell me about the error rate, too.

Due mainly to the
untrained CW operators in the US Military at the time you are
referencing.

So the Amateur Radio Service didn't act as a pool of trained operators
for the military?

Ten groups a minute is all that was required of a O5C MOS back then.

Dan/W4NTI

Kind of negates many of the arguments for forcing people to test for
code, doesn't it?

No it does not negate a thing Brian. It shows how ill prepared the US
Military was during the height of the Cold War.

Meanwhile, the US had listening posts in Turkey, Greece, Germany,
Korea, Japan...

We didn't need to send OUR traffic via CW, we needed to copy THEIR
message traffic using CW.

The Iron Curtain countries didn't have a problem with good CW operators.
And IM NOT TALKING ABOUT HAM RADIO.

See above.

And thats all I can say on that subject.

Aw, c'mon.

"Dick Carroll" wrote:

No, Dwight, it was not all monitored by computers. In
fact computers were scarce as midnight sunshine in the
60's. I KNOW some people quite well who were both
operating CW in the military and others who spent
their entire enlistment copying it on HF with headsets.


It was where my father worked. We lived right next to the facility and his
job just about every night was to go and get those computers (or radios)
going again whenever they stopped working. He had a terminal right in the
bedroom to monitor it all. Again, this was in the mid-60's (1964 and 1965).
I even went into the facility several times and there was only four or five
guys working there (and none of them had headsets on whenever I went in). I
remember the smell of electronics was strong enough to leave me gasping for
air.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes:

I think that these licenses we have should be retested every so often, such
as every ten years! All applicable elements for the respective licenses
including the morse code test. Most every other license out there issued
requires some form of retesting. At least this way we will find out if
anyone has learned anything along the way or not... And it could be that if
you were, for example a 20wpm Extra, you would have to pass all the elements
required for that back then, or the license class you would have/get would
be whatever elements a person DID pass on the retest. Definitely would show
if anyone bothered to "grow" in the ten year period.

Works for me!

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Brian" wrote:

Meanwhile, the US had listening posts in Turkey,
Greece, Germany, Korea, Japan...

We didn't need to send OUR traffic via CW, we
needed to copy THEIR message traffic using CW.


And it was all monitored by computers. My father worked at one of those
stations in Turkey in the mid-60's (Karamusel Air Station near Istanbu).
Nobody actually listened to the initial traffic by ear. Instead, computers
listened for key words and recorded conversations that might be interesting
(CW messages were printed). Those messages were then sent back to the states
for screening and evaluation.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Computers listening for key words in the mid-60's. Hmmm.

I roomed with a ditty-bopper, he listened to live signals on a real
radio in the 1980's.

"Brian" wrote:

Computers listening for key words in the mid-60's. Hmmm.


That's what my father told me at the time (and I have no reason to doubt
what he said). Of course, I was too young to know much about it (maybe about
12-13). I do remember the terminal in the bedroom and going to the building
several times. I also remember the antennas (dozens of large vertical
antennas in two circular patterns, a large outer circle and a smaller inner
circle). You could see those antennas from anywhere on the base. There was
also a large collection of smaller antennas. I also remember a little of
what that equipment looked like inside the building, but obviously not any
of the details.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Brian" wrote:

Computers listening for key words in the mid-60's. Hmmm.


That's what my father told me at the time (and I have no reason to doubt
what he said). Of course, I was too young to know much about it (maybe about
12-13). I do remember the terminal in the bedroom and going to the building
several times. I also remember the antennas (dozens of large vertical
antennas in two circular patterns, a large outer circle and a smaller inner
circle). You could see those antennas from anywhere on the base. There was
also a large collection of smaller antennas. I also remember a little of
what that equipment looked like inside the building, but obviously not any
of the details.

I've been trying to figure out who would have enough money to buy, and
the talent to make use of, the 1960's computing resources needed to do
real-time Morse decoding in any volume. The list of possibilities is
really, really short.

I know of a not-small number of advances in Information Theory and
Cryptography where it took independent academics several decades to
(re)discover what the NSA already secretly knew. I've also always
thought that people who assume the performance of available commercial
decoders on hand-sent Morse is an indication of the state-of-the-art in
what is possible are also making a big mistake, though this is a topic
of such decreasing relevance that independent researchers will likely
never get around to reproducing what may have been possible years ago.

Dennis Ferguson

"Dennis Ferguson" wrote:

I've been trying to figure out who would have enough
money to buy, and the talent to make use of, the 1960's
computing resources needed to do real-time Morse
decoding in any volume. The list of possibilities is
really, really short.


I believe the whole thing, at least at that facility, was an Air Force
project. My father maintained the equipment (I don't think he had anything
to do with collecting information). There were perhaps a dozen (at most,
perhaps less) other guys working there. I never saw all of the people at one
time, so that's just a guess. At least three of those were civilians (or at
least I never saw them in a uniform). It was probably related to SAC
(Strategic Air Command), because that's where my father worked just before
and after that duty assignment. A few years later, he went to a similar (he
said) facility in Korea and, still later, another in Greenland. He mentioned
once where the information went to, but I only have a vague recollection of
that and no idea today where he said.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dick Carroll" wrote:

If you only had but a small portion of a clue you'd know that
most habd-sent CW not only *can* but WILL "thwart" most
consumer grade computer receive programs. I rather suspect
some more sophisticated writings do a lot better.


The Apple DOS 3.3 disk (early 1980's) came with a simple program, included
as a programming example, that did a fine job of copying code/CW. I hooked
an unused Apple II Plus to a Kenwood R2000 shortwave receiver and used that
program to copy code for several months. It rarely missed characters and
almost never missed enough characters to make the message unreadable. The
only times that program failed was when the signal I was trying to copy was
too deeply buried in the background noise or when multiple stations were
transmitting on the same frequency.

I haven't purchased a program like that recently, but surely they've
gotten better over the years. Is that not the case?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Dick Carroll" wrote:

If you only had but a small portion of a clue you'd know that
most habd-sent CW not only *can* but WILL "thwart" most
consumer grade computer receive programs. I rather suspect
some more sophisticated writings do a lot better.


The Apple DOS 3.3 disk (early 1980's) came with a simple program,
included
as a programming example, that did a fine job of copying code/CW. I hooked
an unused Apple II Plus to a Kenwood R2000 shortwave receiver and used
that
program to copy code for several months. It rarely missed characters and
almost never missed enough characters to make the message unreadable. The
only times that program failed was when the signal I was trying to copy
was
too deeply buried in the background noise or when multiple stations were
transmitting on the same frequency.

I haven't purchased a program like that recently, but surely they've
gotten better over the years. Is that not the case?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

No they haven't. The two conditions you state are still problems and good
reasons to learn to copy by ear. The human brain can sort it out when the
computer cannot. Poorly sent and spaced code is also still a problem.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dick Carroll wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

World, meet Dick Carroll/N0EX, who single -handedly- can thwart any
computer copy of his banana boat bug.



If you only had but a small portion of a clue you'd know that most
habd-sent CW not only *can* but WILL "thwart" most consumer grade
computer receive programs.
I rather suspect some more sophisticated writings do a lot better.

We've had this argument before and you have formed a concensus of ONE!

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

If you only had but a small portion of a clue you'd know that most
habd-sent CW not only *can* but WILL "thwart" most consumer grade
computer receive programs.
I rather suspect some more sophisticated writings do a lot better.

We've had this argument before and you have formed a concensus of ONE!

Brian, I think you missed the letter N in the word "ONE." :-)

LHA

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

I haven't purchased a program like that recently, but surely they've
gotten better over the years. Is that not the case?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

No they haven't.

They HAVE, but there's no market for such things, not even with the
Military Intelligence School at Fort Huachuca on ELINT training.

The two conditions you state are still problems and good
reasons to learn to copy by ear.

Which is NO reason to mandate code testing for an AMATEUR radio
license by the government.

The human brain can sort it out when the
computer cannot.

Then all the other radio services "should" have used it for communications,
right?

Wrong. All the other radio services involved in communications have
either DROPPED it or never considered it in the first place.

Poorly sent and spaced code is also still a problem.

So?

US radio amateurs who do NOT use morse code modes (the majority)
don't require morsemanship skills.

LHA

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Dick Carroll" wrote:

If you only had but a small portion of a clue you'd know that
most habd-sent CW not only *can* but WILL "thwart" most
consumer grade computer receive programs. I rather suspect
some more sophisticated writings do a lot better.

The Apple DOS 3.3 disk (early 1980's) came with a simple program, included
as a programming example, that did a fine job of copying code/CW. I hooked
an unused Apple II Plus to a Kenwood R2000 shortwave receiver and used that
program to copy code for several months. It rarely missed characters and
almost never missed enough characters to make the message unreadable. The
only times that program failed was when the signal I was trying to copy was
too deeply buried in the background noise or when multiple stations were
transmitting on the same frequency.

I haven't purchased a program like that recently, but surely they've
gotten better over the years. Is that not the case?

They have, but the mighty morsemen consider such to be desecrations
of the will of the old radio gods.

Perhaps you missed a back-and-forth I had in here with Ed Hare on a
programmer acquaintence who wrote an adaptive morse code cognition
program (on a standard PC, top of the line then, middle-level now) which
could compensate very well for variations in spacing, dot-dash lengths,
whatever "swing" is (a subjective term to morsemen), tone, rate, and
so forth. To him it was an intellectual challenge.

Some trials with my receiver and a long-wire antenna at his place
showed that there was damn little USE of morse code anywhere on HF
except in the amateur bands. There's no real market for such a thing
and the successful adaptive morse code cognition program remained
just a satisfying (to the programmer) intellectual exercise.

LHA

"Len Over 21" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" writes:
I haven't purchased a program like that recently, but
surely they've gotten better over the years. Is that not
the case?

They have, but the mighty morsemen consider such to
be desecrations of the will of the old radio gods.


Well, I suspected the programs might have gotten at least somewhat better
over the years. The author of the program I had wrote about trying to
compensate for bad code by looking for patterns instead of focusing on each
individual dot and dash as it was being sent. The program also didn't use
hard rules for dot, dash, and space, length, instead interpretating each as
it went along. Obviously, I don't know the details, but the program did do a
pretty good job considering it was just a simple programming example
included with an operating system. My only complaint was that it didn't send
code like some of the other programs advertised, but I couldn't have used
that back then anyway.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

If you only had but a small portion of a clue you'd know that most
habd-sent CW not only *can* but WILL "thwart" most consumer grade
computer receive programs.

What is "habd-sent CW?" :-)

You HAVE evaluated "most" computer morse programs and "proved"
your banana-boat swing can "thwart" them, senior? :-)

I rather suspect some more sophisticated writings do a lot better.

I rather suspect you know NOTHING of the abilities of computer
programs' abilities for receiving morse.

Please send your gas-baggery to Lakehurst, NJ.

beep, beep, BOOM! :-)

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com...

No they haven't. The two conditions you state are still problems and good
reasons to learn to copy by ear. The human brain can sort it out when the
computer cannot. Poorly sent and spaced code is also still a problem.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Seems like Morse Ops need to send better.