Some thoughtful comments from another forum on the code/nocode debate
 

I thought I'd forward the thoughtful comments below from
e-ham.net ... they say a LOT. (name/callsign omitted to
at least partially protect the innocent ...)

Carl - wk3c

*********
For the last 25 years I have been in the US Coast Guard serving as
telecommunication technician. I am now a instructor at the same course.
I started off as a Morse Code operator in New Jersey. I grant you I
graduated at the near bottom of my Morse code class but still passed the 40
wpm requirement easily.
I also was sent to 9 months of antenna and radio theory and fundamental
classes. Upon graduation billions of years ago we all were required (simply
because the instructor was a Ham Extra Class type) to take the Morse code
and written tests. My class had 37 folks in it. On a windy Saturday in New
Jersey in winter 1978 we all went and took the Ham radio test and all by
simple virtue of having studied Morse and electronic theory and fundamentals
for almost a year left with our Extra licenses.
So in 1978 37 of us got "forced" into Ham radio and to this date - 22 still
are active (three of my class passed away, and I think one is in jail) but
the point is that we are still active running MARS stations, teaching in
service schools and running C2 systems for the DoD and doing so as Hams and
Coast Guard Instructors.
A few years ago the Coast Guard decided to do away with the Morse
requirement for us to learn as newbies - and for good reason - No one ever
used it for emergencies. Technology had developed a means to communicate
request for assistance via HF voice, FM, AM, TacSat. And the trusty
cellphone. I mean - in my opinion only a fool would trust sending a morse
code message that his ship was sinking - people wanted to call on a phone -
ask for help - and hear a warm friendly voice on the other side saying help
is on the way.
Two weeks ago 28 Coasties graduated from the DoD Signal center at Ft
Gordon - they had over a year of telecommunication training, satellite
uplink/downlink, antenna theory, computer ops, you name it - but what they
didn't have is any morse code. So how many of the last 3 classes that have
graduated have became Hams - ZERO. The reason is simple - they simply don't
see a need to study something that the US Govt (both the FCC and Coast Guard
and DoD) themselves have stated was not necessary.
One of the seaman that was asking me about how to become a ham told me that
to be forced to study the code to get a license was like a surgeon being
told he had to learn about Ether because that's how they use to do it back
in the civil war or a skipper having to learn how to pilot a steamboat
because for the longest time that was the naval tradition - and he has a
point - morse code was around and was an acceptable form of communication
when Steamers and biplanes were the norm but technology has changed greatly.
But here it is today - the 21st Century and we are judging folk on their
capabilities of being good Hams based on a 19th century art form.
Do I believe in tradition - of course -- but tradition shouldn't be the
basis of restricting new technology or ideals.
Do I still use morse - yep, do I scream and yell at my new students because
even though they can design an antenna system with a coke can and chewing
gum that can talk to someone 1000 miles away but must be inadequate because
they don't know morse code - No.
Bottom line is that there are a ton of great folks out there that would be a
great benefit to Ham radio but just don't want to, or can't learn the code.
And just for the record - for the last two classes I asked "how many of you
guys use CB radios" - to date the number is Zero. I had one girl in the
telecommunication class raise her hand and ask "What's a CB?". so the
argument that if we open the airwaves up to these fine Americans that have
served for over a year learning the best in radio theory and fundamentals
that they are suddenly going to invade your air space and start talking CB
is just ridiculous.
Anyway . my two cents worth.
************
END QUOTE FROM E-HAM.NET

That would be all fine and good. but you know, as well as the rest of us, that
most of the New people will be know where near that level, and probably never
will be.

nice condescending attitute there.

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

I thought I'd forward the thoughtful comments below from
e-ham.net ... they say a LOT. (name/callsign omitted to
at least partially protect the innocent ...)

Why? We can always go searching through eham

Carl - wk3c

*********
For the last 25 years I have been in the US Coast Guard serving as
telecommunication technician. I am now a instructor at the same course.
I started off as a Morse Code operator in New Jersey. I grant you I
graduated at the near bottom of my Morse code class but still passed the 40
wpm requirement easily.
I also was sent to 9 months of antenna and radio theory and fundamental
classes. Upon graduation billions of years ago we all were required (simply
because the instructor was a Ham Extra Class type) to take the Morse code
and written tests.

WHOA! "Required?"

My class had 37 folks in it. On a windy Saturday in New
Jersey in winter 1978 we all went and took the Ham radio test and all by
simple virtue of having studied Morse and electronic theory and fundamentals
for almost a year left with our Extra licenses.

So it was a no-effort thing. These folks had all already learned both theory
and code on the taxpayer's dime, to a level far beyond that required for the
amateur license.

So in 1978 37 of us got "forced" into Ham radio and to this date - 22 still
are active (three of my class passed away, and I think one is in jail) but
the point is that we are still active running MARS stations, teaching in
service schools and running C2 systems for the DoD and doing so as Hams and
Coast Guard Instructors.

All good things.

A few years ago the Coast Guard decided to do away with the Morse
requirement for us to learn as newbies - and for good reason - No one ever
used it for emergencies.

Morse Code was phased out of the maritime services so that the shipping
companies would not have to staff their ships with skilled radio operators
whose sole duties would be radio communications.

The maritime radio services exist only because ships need communications, not
because the shipping companies or crews like to mess around with radios.

Technology had developed a means to communicate
request for assistance via HF voice, FM, AM, TacSat. And the trusty
cellphone.

I'd like to see how far from shore a cellphone works....

I mean - in my opinion only a fool would trust sending a morse
code message that his ship was sinking - people wanted to call on a phone -
ask for help - and hear a warm friendly voice on the other side saying help
is on the way.

Not exactly an unbiased opinion...

IIRC, the last use of Morse for a maritime emergency was on December 31, 1997,
involving MV Oak.

It should be noted that the newer systems have a much higher false alarm rate
than the old manual Morse system.

Two weeks ago 28 Coasties graduated from the DoD Signal center at Ft
Gordon - they had over a year of telecommunication training, satellite
uplink/downlink, antenna theory, computer ops, you name it - but what they
didn't have is any morse code. So how many of the last 3 classes that have
graduated have became Hams - ZERO. The reason is simple - they simply don't
see a need to study something that the US Govt (both the FCC and Coast Guard
and DoD) themselves have stated was not necessary.

Do they have an instructor *requiring* or *forcing* them to take the test?

One of the seaman that was asking me about how to become a ham told me that
to be forced to study the code to get a license was like a surgeon being
told he had to learn about Ether because that's how they use to do it back
in the civil war or a skipper having to learn how to pilot a steamboat
because for the longest time that was the naval tradition - and he has a
point - morse code was around and was an acceptable form of communication
when Steamers and biplanes were the norm but technology has changed greatly.

Sure. But modern MDs don't use ether, steam has been largely replaced by diesel
and gas turbines. Hams, however, still use Morse code extensively.

But here it is today - the 21st Century and we are judging folk on their
capabilities of being good Hams based on a 19th century art form.

Not true at all. Was there no use of Morse code in radio in the 20th century?

Do I believe in tradition - of course -- but tradition shouldn't be the
basis of restricting new technology or ideals.
Do I still use morse - yep, do I scream and yell at my new students because
even though they can design an antenna system with a coke can and chewing
gum that can talk to someone 1000 miles away but must be inadequate because
they don't know morse code - No.
Bottom line is that there are a ton of great folks out there that would be a
great benefit to Ham radio but just don't want to, or can't learn the code.

Maybe. We've had a nocode ham license for 12+ years now - and yet none of the
students wanted that license, huh? The satellite systems used for maritime
distress, GPS, etc., aren't HF systems either.

And just for the record - for the last two classes I asked "how many of you
guys use CB radios" - to date the number is Zero. I had one girl in the
telecommunication class raise her hand and ask "What's a CB?". so the
argument that if we open the airwaves up to these fine Americans that have
served for over a year learning the best in radio theory and fundamentals
that they are suddenly going to invade your air space and start talking CB
is just ridiculous.

Sure - those folks.

Anyway . my two cents worth.
************
END QUOTE FROM E-HAM.NET

The writer ignores the biggest differences of those 25 years:

1) Back in '78, the students learned Morse Code as part of their CG training,
so there was no other training needed for them to get Extra Class amateur
licenses. Today, they would need to put in some of their own time, and a bit of
effort, learning Morse at 5 wpm for that test.

2) There was no instructor today FORCING them to take the test. In fact, an
instructor who tried to do that might be in trouble.

An amateur license is not a license to engage in commercial, maritime,
military, broadcast, public safety or other nonamateur radio communications.
It's a license to engage in amateur radio, using the amateur radio frequency
allocations. And radio amateurs do use Morse code extensively.


73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote


1) Back in '78, the students learned Morse Code as part of their CG training,
so there was no other training needed for them to get Extra Class amateur
licenses. Today, they would need to put in some of their own time, and a bit of
effort, learning Morse at 5 wpm for that test.


So you're suggesting that 1978 era hams who didn't study Morse
specifically
to obtain an amateur license (ie., they were "forced" to learn it at
20WPM in a military training program) are less desirable hams than
those today who learn 5WPM (QRS PSE) on "their own time and effort"?

Sunuvagun!

Good luck on this one now!

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"N2EY" wrote


1) Back in '78, the students learned Morse Code as part of their CG training,
so there was no other training needed for them to get Extra Class amateur
licenses. Today, they would need to put in some of their own time, and a bit of
effort, learning Morse at 5 wpm for that test.


You know Jim, the more I ponder this paragraph, the more I think you
may just have hit on an important way of grading the dedication (and
therefore "value") of any given amateur licensee. Just by examining
their involvement in the military, we can assign them a scientific
"grade of merit" based on whether they got a free pass based on being
forced to learn code or not forced.

Merit Zero (0.0): Draftee who was forced into the military and then was
forced into Morse school.

Merit Zero-point-one (0.1): Draftee who was forced into the military
and then volunteered for Morse school to get a cushy non-infantry job.

Merit One (1.0): Volunteer who joined the military by judicial suggestion
("Boy, come back for sentencing in 10 days, unless you're in the
military by then, in which case the charges will be dropped.") but
was forced into Morse school.

Merit One-point-one (1.1): Volunteer who joined the military by
judicial suggestion ("Boy, come back for sentencing in 10 days,
unless you're in the military by then, in which case the charges
will be dropped.") and then volunteered for Morse school to get a
cushy non-infantry job.

Merit Two (2.0): Volunteer who joined the military to avoid the draft
and was forced into Morse school.

Merit Two-point-one (2.1): Volunteer who joined the military to avoid
the draft and then volunteered for Morse school to get a cushy
non-infantry job.

Merit Three (3.0): Volunteer who freely joined the military and then
was forced into Morse school.

Merit Three-point-one (3.1): Volunteer who freely joined the military
and then volunteered for Morse school to get a cush non-infantry job.

Merit Four (4.0): Person who declined to volunteer for the military
service and learned Morse on his own time and effort. (Hello, Jim)

Merit Four-point-one (4.1): Person who fled the country to avoid
military service and learned Morse on his own time and effort.

..... or maybe I've got that all bass-ackwards.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article ilgate.org, "Hans
K0HB" writes:

"N2EY" wrote


1) Back in '78, the students learned Morse Code as part of their CG
training,
so there was no other training needed for them to get Extra Class amateur
licenses. Today, they would need to put in some of their own time, and a
bit of
effort, learning Morse at 5 wpm for that test.


So you're suggesting that 1978 era hams who didn't study Morse
specifically
to obtain an amateur license (ie., they were "forced" to learn it at
20WPM in a military training program) are less desirable hams than
those today who learn 5WPM (QRS PSE) on "their own time and effort"?

No, Hans, I'm not suggesting that at all.

Sunuvagun!

Son of something else.......;-)

Good luck on this one now!

You too.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote:

(Hans K0HB) wrote:
(snip) Just by examining their involvement in the
military, we can assign them a scientific "grade of
merit" based on whether they got a free pass
based on being forced to learn code or not forced.

(snip)

Merit Four-point-one (4.1): Person who fled
the country to avoid military service and learned
Morse on his own time and effort.


You've left out a few categories:

- Person who earned their Extra amateur license
years before they were eligible for military service

- Person whom the military would not accept for
legitimate physical reasons (vision, etc.). Would
any branch of the military accept a recruit with,
say, 20/15 vision in one eye and 20/400 plus
extreme myopia in the other?


And lets not forget those who enlisted in the military and selected a
signal MOS long after code was pretty much dropped by the military. That
would include just about all those who went to the Army's Signal School
somewhere after about 1970 (over thirty years ago).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
(Hans K0HB) wrote in message
. com...
"N2EY" wrote


1) Back in '78, the students learned Morse Code as part of their CG
training,
so there was no other training needed for them to get Extra Class
amateur
licenses. Today, they would need to put in some of their own time, and
a bit of
effort, learning Morse at 5 wpm for that test.


You know Jim, the more I ponder this paragraph, the more I think you
may just have hit on an important way of grading the dedication (and
therefore "value") of any given amateur licensee.

Well, that wasn't my intent at all. I was merely pointing out that for
some folks, getting a license involves a lot of learning and the
related effort, while others already have the skills and knowledge.

The point is that licensing should be based on one's demonstration
of the required qualifications, no more, no less.

If someone already has the knowledge to pass the tests, fine.
There is no "value added" in "making them work for it" ... if
they have the knowledge they are qualified, period. (and likely
they worked for it or they wouldn't have the knowledge anyway,
so the logic of "making them work (more)" fails)

Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
(Hans K0HB) wrote in message
. com...
"N2EY" wrote


1) Back in '78, the students learned Morse Code as part of their CG
training,
so there was no other training needed for them to get Extra Class
amateur
licenses. Today, they would need to put in some of their own time, and
a bit of
effort, learning Morse at 5 wpm for that test.


You know Jim, the more I ponder this paragraph, the more I think you
may just have hit on an important way of grading the dedication (and
therefore "value") of any given amateur licensee.

Well, that wasn't my intent at all. I was merely pointing out that for
some folks, getting a license involves a lot of learning and the
related effort, while others already have the skills and knowledge.

The point is that licensing should be based on one's demonstration
of the required qualifications, no more, no less.

If someone already has the knowledge to pass the tests, fine.
There is no "value added" in "making them work for it" ... if
they have the knowledge they are qualified, period. (and likely
they worked for it or they wouldn't have the knowledge anyway,
so the logic of "making them work (more)" fails)

Carl - wk3c

Furthermore, if the US government wants to give all prospective
amateurs 3 hots and a cot, and a paycheck, for the duration it takes
to learn the code, I'd gladly enroll in the CG Morse Code school.

"Brian" wrote in message
om...

Furthermore, if the US government wants to give all prospective
amateurs 3 hots and a cot, and a paycheck, for the duration it takes
to learn the code, I'd gladly enroll in the CG Morse Code school.

There's one problem ... there IS no CG Morse Code school any
more ... the services are NOT teaching their radiomen Morse any
more. My youngest son is in Navy EOD ... on notch below the
SEALS (which he qualified for 100% except for being just barely
over the line on their perfect uncorrected vision requirement) ... and
he NEVER learned Morse ... despite the fact that his MOS is
"Radioman."

Carl - wk3c

"Brian" wrote in message
om...

Furthermore, if the US government wants to give all prospective
amateurs 3 hots and a cot, and a paycheck, for the duration it takes
to learn the code, I'd gladly enroll in the CG Morse Code school.

There's one problem ... there IS no CG Morse Code school any
more ... the services are NOT teaching their radiomen Morse any
more. My youngest son is in Navy EOD ... on notch below the
SEALS (which he qualified for 100% except for being just barely
over the line on their perfect uncorrected vision requirement) ... and
he NEVER learned Morse ... despite the fact that his MOS is
"Radioman."

Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
(Hans K0HB) wrote in message
. com...
"N2EY" wrote


1) Back in '78, the students learned Morse Code as part of their CG
training,
so there was no other training needed for them to get Extra Class
amateur
licenses. Today, they would need to put in some of their own time, and
a bit of
effort, learning Morse at 5 wpm for that test.


You know Jim, the more I ponder this paragraph, the more I think you
may just have hit on an important way of grading the dedication (and
therefore "value") of any given amateur licensee.

Well, that wasn't my intent at all. I was merely pointing out that for
some folks, getting a license involves a lot of learning and the
related effort, while others already have the skills and knowledge.

The point is that licensing should be based on one's demonstration
of the required qualifications, no more, no less.

That's your point, Carl, not my point.

The original story told how, back in 1978, the whole class of CG folks
went down to FCC and became Extras, while today none of them did.

My point was simply that there are significant differences between the
1978 and 2003 situations, such as:

- the 1978 class was 'required' to take the test, and means provided
to do so (do you think they went on their own time? used their own
transportation? paid any fees?).

- the 1978 class had already learned all they needed to know to pass
the 1978 tests.

If someone already has the knowledge to pass the tests, fine.

You can't change that situation anyway.

There is no "value added" in "making them work for it"

Who said there was? The point is that the 1978 class had a completely
different situation from the 2003 class.

... if
they have the knowledge they are qualified, period.

So would you agree with Kim that anyone who can pass the required
tests should be allowed into the ARS?

(and likely
they worked for it or they wouldn't have the knowledge anyway,
so the logic of "making them work (more)" fails)

It is a fact of human nature that most people value a thing more if it
took some investment of themselves to acquire.

73 de Jim, N2EY

snip

It is a fact of human nature that most people value a thing more if it
took some investment of themselves to acquire.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I think this is precisely why some people argue so vociferously for code
tesing despite the lack of any logical arguments for retaining it. That is
to say, they value it because it's hard instead of because it's necessary
(which it isn't!!!).

73 de Alun, N3KIP

Alun Palmer wrote:

snip

It is a fact of human nature that most people value a thing more if it
took some investment of themselves to acquire.

73 de Jim, N2EY


I think this is precisely why some people argue so vociferously for code
tesing despite the lack of any logical arguments for retaining it. That is
to say, they value it because it's hard instead of because it's necessary
(which it isn't!!!).


And here I agree with you, Alun. Now, where do we draw the knowledge line?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
(N2EY) wrote


It is a fact of human nature that most people value a thing more if it
took some investment of themselves to acquire.


Jim, you really need to retire this old mantra.

'It is a fact of human nature' that real people don't value a thing
based on it's 'investment' or 'cost', but rather based on the
usefulness, utility, comfort, satisfaction, or enjoyment that comes
from having it.

My amateur license cost me virtually nothing in terms of 'investment
of myself', and the curbs and gutters the city just installed at one
of my places cost me an $8,200 assessment. I value my amateur license
a LOT more than I value the city's new street curbing!

You invested your time, interest, and self in the amateur license. You
merely put money into the curbs and gutters. In the minds of many people,
the investment in your amateur license was far greater that your investment
in curbs and gutters.


The things that I value the very most quite honestly are literal gifts
which I have recieved without an ounce of 'investment' or 'cost' ---
the love of my wife, the smiles of my grandkids, the whisper of the
wind at sunset on Lake Vermilion, the conversation with an old friend,
or my healthy heart. I value all of these more than my homes, my RV,
my boat, or the QSL collection in the closet.


The love of your wife and all these things are not free and are not gifts.
A loving relationship requires a large and continuous investment of self
(not money) to endure and to be worth while. Each of the other items also
requires some type of investment from you that doesn't necessary involve
money.

Investment is not exclusively a monetary term.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

snip

It is a fact of human nature that most people value a thing more if it
took some investment of themselves to acquire.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I think this is precisely why some people argue so vociferously for code
tesing despite the lack of any logical arguments for retaining it.

There are lots of logical arguments for retaining code testing. And lots of
logical arguments for getting rid of it.

Ultimately it comes down to people's opinions about what should and should not
be tested.

That is
to say, they value it because it's hard instead of because it's necessary
(which it isn't!!!).

That's right - it's certainly not hard!

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
(N2EY) wrote


It is a fact of human nature that most people value a thing more if it
took some investment of themselves to acquire.


Jim, you really need to retire this old mantra.


Now, now Hans... Surely you know the value in charging your clients. If you
do not, they will not attach nearly as much importance to the therapy they
recieve. That's a fact of life.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
(N2EY) wrote


It is a fact of human nature that most people value a thing more if it
took some investment of themselves to acquire.


Jim, you really need to retire this old mantra.

'It is a fact of human nature' that real people don't value a thing
based on it's 'investment' or 'cost', but rather based on the
usefulness, utility, comfort, satisfaction, or enjoyment that comes
from having it.

EXACTLY.

Everybody I know direly and sincerely want to win the lottery, and
don't mind one bit knowing that the ticket only costs them $1... and
I doubt seriously everybody who has been plunged into millionaire
status stays up at night worrying about the fact that they didn't
work for the money.

I believe the "you enjoy more if you work for it" line is just a
way of trying to get people to do something they rather had
not do.



--

Get in touch with your soul: www.glennbeck.com
OR, if you're a liberal, maybe you can FIND one


--

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
(N2EY) wrote


It is a fact of human nature that most people value a thing more if it
took some investment of themselves to acquire.


Jim, you really need to retire this old mantra.

'It is a fact of human nature' that real people don't value a thing
based on it's 'investment' or 'cost', but rather based on the
usefulness, utility, comfort, satisfaction, or enjoyment that comes
from having it.


Why does it have to be your way or no way, Hans? I think Jim's right to a
certain degree, and I think your right to a certain degree--it all depends
upon what is being valued and who is doing the evaluating.


My amateur license cost me virtually nothing in terms of 'investment
of myself', and the curbs and gutters the city just installed at one
of my places cost me an $8,200 assessment. I value my amateur license
a LOT more than I value the city's new street curbing!

The things that I value the very most quite honestly are literal gifts
which I have recieved without an ounce of 'investment' or 'cost' ---
the love of my wife, the smiles of my grandkids, the whisper of the
wind at sunset on Lake Vermilion, the conversation with an old friend,
or my healthy heart. I value all of these more than my homes, my RV,
my boat, or the QSL collection in the closet.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

The only one of those, above, that is a literal gift is the wind at sunset
on Lake Vermilion. The rest cost you plenty.

Kim W5TIT

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

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
(N2EY) wrote


It is a fact of human nature that most people value a thing more if it
took some investment of themselves to acquire.


Jim, you really need to retire this old mantra.

'It is a fact of human nature' that real people don't value a thing
based on it's 'investment' or 'cost', but rather based on the
usefulness, utility, comfort, satisfaction, or enjoyment that comes
from having it.

My amateur license cost me virtually nothing in terms of 'investment
of myself', and the curbs and gutters the city just installed at one
of my places cost me an $8,200 assessment. I value my amateur license
a LOT more than I value the city's new street curbing!

You invested your time, interest, and self in the amateur license. You
merely put money into the curbs and gutters. In the minds of many people,
the investment in your amateur license was far greater that your
investment
in curbs and gutters.


The things that I value the very most quite honestly are literal gifts
which I have recieved without an ounce of 'investment' or 'cost' ---
the love of my wife, the smiles of my grandkids, the whisper of the
wind at sunset on Lake Vermilion, the conversation with an old friend,
or my healthy heart. I value all of these more than my homes, my RV,
my boat, or the QSL collection in the closet.


The love of your wife and all these things are not free and are not gifts.
A loving relationship requires a large and continuous investment of self
(not money) to endure and to be worth while. Each of the other items also
requires some type of investment from you that doesn't necessary involve
money.

Investment is not exclusively a monetary term.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Absolutely. Were they as free as Hans seems to think they are, I really
wonder how valuable they would be.

Kim W5TIT

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Brian" wrote in message
. com...

Furthermore, if the US government wants to give all prospective
amateurs 3 hots and a cot, and a paycheck, for the duration it takes
to learn the code, I'd gladly enroll in the CG Morse Code school.

There's one problem ... there IS no CG Morse Code school any
more ...

Sad but true.

the services are NOT teaching their radiomen Morse any
more.

Even if they were - would it make any difference to your opinion of the need
for code testing in the amateur radio service?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Dick Carroll wrote:

N2EY wrote:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


I thought I'd forward the thoughtful comments below from
e-ham.net ... they say a LOT. (name/callsign omitted to
at least partially protect the innocent ...)



Why? We can always go searching through eham

Carl - wk3c

*********
For the last 25 years I have been in the US Coast Guard serving



BIG SNIPPAGE to make room for the internet cracker/hacker/spammers
to operate


Anyway . my two cents worth.
************
END QUOTE FROM E-HAM.NET




There are so many holes, inaccuracies and downright lies in that
piece that it deserves no credibility whatever.

Some of it makes some sense. an older ham I know got his license
back when he was in an army signal core training course, which included
CW. The people in his group were granted two day passes to visit the
FCC field office to take ham tests. All passed the code test, but only
my friend passed the written. The way he tells it, few even bothered to
fill in any of that test. This was in the early fifties during Korea, and
the highest they had then was the general license.

So it may have been that the people in the eham story were "required"
to take ham tests to get weekend passes or other such prize.





-------------------------

...even though the UK has dropped mandatory Morse testing, they are
still testing for it and retain 4 classes of licenses and they have
different call signs for each class so you can tell which station has
a CW license:

Class A has 12 wpm test and grants calls with M0 prefix

Class B licensees pass the same written test as Class A, but not CW,
and they now get full HF privileges. Their calls are M1 prefixes

Intermediate A (like Novice) has 5 wpm test and grants frequencies
above 144 MHz. They get calls with a prefix 2+Letter+0 (any letter
is possible)

Intermediate B has same written test as Intermediate A and no Morse.
They get call with a prefix 2+Letter+1.

Apparently many are still trying to get a call sign indicating they
have CW skills. (a rather low form of incentive licensing, but still
incentive licensing).

But what does the UK's "FCC" get out of it?

"Dee D. Flint" wrote


You invested your time, interest, and self in the amateur license.


Sorry, but the 'investment' was trivial. Long before I thought about
getting an amateur license I already knew Morse code and electronics.
A couple hours brushing up on the common-sense rules was all the
'self' I put into it.

I value my amateur privileges very highly, but the 'cost of entry' was
almost non-existent.

73, Hans, K0HB

"Kim W5TIT" wrote


Why does it have to be your way or no way, Hans?


Did I say "my way or no way"?????

Jim is free to have a different opinion, and I am free to suggest his
opinion is inconsistent with reality.


My amateur license cost me virtually nothing in terms of 'investment
of myself', and the curbs and gutters the city just installed at one
of my places cost me an $8,200 assessment. I value my amateur license
a LOT more than I value the city's new street curbing!

The things that I value the very most quite honestly are literal gifts
which I have recieved without an ounce of 'investment' or 'cost' ---
the love of my wife, the smiles of my grandkids, the whisper of the
wind at sunset on Lake Vermilion, the conversation with an old friend,
or my healthy heart. I value all of these more than my homes, my RV,
my boat, or the QSL collection in the closet.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

The only one of those, above, that is a literal gift is the wind at sunset
on Lake Vermilion. The rest cost you plenty.

You're mistaken. They are absolute unconditional gifts, and I
treasure them all the more for the fact that no amount of effort of
mine could have 'earned' them.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"Reality doesn't care what you believe." -- K0HB

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...

Furthermore, if the US government wants to give all prospective
amateurs 3 hots and a cot, and a paycheck, for the duration it takes
to learn the code, I'd gladly enroll in the CG Morse Code school.

There's one problem ...

It would be problematic only if the CG were still trying to use the
code.

And this is Ham Radio. Perhaps the ARRL could put up a shelter for
the codeless (similar to shelters for the homeless).

Three hots and a cot, and hours and hours of code practice and speed
runs.

And no requirement to shave daily.

"Kim W5TIT" wrote


Were they as free as Hans seems to think they are, I really
wonder how valuable they would be.


I will try to end your wondering. First, I don't "seem to think"; for
my value system I "know". All of the things I mentioned are among the
things I value the very most in life. They come to me as free
unconditional gifts which no amount of 'investment' would earn. In
other words, their value is completely independent of their cost.

Without putting words in anyones mouth, it appears from the posts of
you, Jim and Dee, that your value system is based on 'investment gives
beneficial results'. In my value system, the 'results' are valued
solely on merit without regard to how I acquired them.

As a kind of crude example, the value of two $10.00 bills, one which I
found on the street and the other which I performed hard labor to earn
are exactly equal. What I 'invested' in either one is absolutely
immaterial when calculating their value --- the corner grocer will
take either one and give me precisely the same change when I purchase
a jar of olives.

Taking it back to the context of this thread, my amateur license or my
drivers license or my fishing license have value to me based on the
beneficial things I can do with them. The value is not related in any
fashion to the 'cost' or 'effort' that it took to obtain the license.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--

"I came to see your beautiful new baby, not to
listen to a description of your labor pains."
-- K0HB

Hans K0HB wrote:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote


Were they as free as Hans seems to think they are, I really
wonder how valuable they would be.



I will try to end your wondering. First, I don't "seem to think"; for
my value system I "know". All of the things I mentioned are among the
things I value the very most in life. They come to me as free
unconditional gifts which no amount of 'investment' would earn. In
other words, their value is completely independent of their cost.

Without putting words in anyones mouth, it appears from the posts of
you, Jim and Dee, that your value system is based on 'investment gives
beneficial results'. In my value system, the 'results' are valued
solely on merit without regard to how I acquired them.

As a kind of crude example, the value of two $10.00 bills, one which I
found on the street and the other which I performed hard labor to earn
are exactly equal. What I 'invested' in either one is absolutely
immaterial when calculating their value --- the corner grocer will
take either one and give me precisely the same change when I purchase
a jar of olives.

Taking it back to the context of this thread, my amateur license or my
drivers license or my fishing license have value to me based on the
beneficial things I can do with them. The value is not related in any
fashion to the 'cost' or 'effort' that it took to obtain the license.

Good post, and good argument, Hans.

But I wonder if there is no place for pride of accomplishment? In my
other hobby, I spent several years making a large telescope. It was an
intense project, and took a lot of effort. In the end, I was rewarded
with a wonderful, beautiful, and very high quality instrument. It won
first place in the only competition I entered it in.

I'm very proud of it, and very proud of being able to accomplish such a
feat with my own hands. I would have no such thoughts about the purchase
of a commercial telescope of somewhat similar style. So something must
be going on there.



"I came to see your beautiful new baby, not to
listen to a description of your labor pains."

oy!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Brian" wrote in message
. com...

Furthermore, if the US government wants to give all prospective
amateurs 3 hots and a cot, and a paycheck, for the duration it takes
to learn the code, I'd gladly enroll in the CG Morse Code school.

There's one problem ... there IS no CG Morse Code school any
more ...

Sad but true.

the services are NOT teaching their radiomen Morse any
more.

Even if they were - would it make any difference to your opinion of the
need
for code testing in the amateur radio service?

It would add *some* potential validity to the "trained (in Morse) pool of
operators" part of 97.1 ... however, that is not the case and hasn't been
for some time ...

It wouldn't be a "slam-dunk" in favor of continued Morse testing for
HF ham licenses though.

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
m...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote


Were they as free as Hans seems to think they are, I really
wonder how valuable they would be.


I will try to end your wondering. First, I don't "seem to think"; for
my value system I "know". All of the things I mentioned are among the
things I value the very most in life. They come to me as free
unconditional gifts which no amount of 'investment' would earn. In
other words, their value is completely independent of their cost.

Without putting words in anyones mouth, it appears from the posts of
you, Jim and Dee, that your value system is based on 'investment gives
beneficial results'. In my value system, the 'results' are valued
solely on merit without regard to how I acquired them.

As a kind of crude example, the value of two $10.00 bills, one which I
found on the street and the other which I performed hard labor to earn
are exactly equal. What I 'invested' in either one is absolutely
immaterial when calculating their value --- the corner grocer will
take either one and give me precisely the same change when I purchase
a jar of olives.

Taking it back to the context of this thread, my amateur license or my
drivers license or my fishing license have value to me based on the
beneficial things I can do with them. The value is not related in any
fashion to the 'cost' or 'effort' that it took to obtain the license.

73, de Hans, K0HB

I agree with Hans 100%+ on this one ... the value is in what they let
you do, not what you had to do to get them.

Carl - wk3c

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

snip

It is a fact of human nature that most people value a thing more if it
took some investment of themselves to acquire.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I think this is precisely why some people argue so vociferously for code
tesing despite the lack of any logical arguments for retaining it. That is
to say, they value it because it's hard instead of because it's necessary
(which it isn't!!!).

73 de Alun, N3KIP

Alun, it boils down to the obvious reason: They had to learn morse
code so everyone else better damn well have to learn it!!!

:-)

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
(Hans K0HB) wrote in message
. com...
"N2EY" wrote


1) Back in '78, the students learned Morse Code as part of their CG
training,
so there was no other training needed for them to get Extra Class
amateur
licenses. Today, they would need to put in some of their own time,
and
a bit of
effort, learning Morse at 5 wpm for that test.


You know Jim, the more I ponder this paragraph, the more I think you
may just have hit on an important way of grading the dedication (and
therefore "value") of any given amateur licensee.

Well, that wasn't my intent at all. I was merely pointing out that for
some folks, getting a license involves a lot of learning and the
related effort, while others already have the skills and knowledge.

The point is that licensing should be based on one's demonstration
of the required qualifications, no more, no less.

That's your point, Carl, not my point.

OK, we'll put you down for "not demonstrating qualifications."

The original story told how, back in 1978, the whole class of CG folks
went down to FCC and became Extras, while today none of them did.

1978 was 25 years ago. This isn't 1978.

In 25 years, a child could be conceived, raised, educated, and become
a working adult on their own.

Things are NOT static in time just because they are (apparently) fresh
in your mind.

My point was simply that there are significant differences between the
1978 and 2003 situations, such as:

- the 1978 class was 'required' to take the test, and means provided
to do so (do you think they went on their own time? used their own
transportation? paid any fees?).

- the 1978 class had already learned all they needed to know to pass
the 1978 tests.

Which means WHAT?

Members of ANY branch of the US military in 1978 were ALL
volunteers. ALL.

If someone already has the knowledge to pass the tests, fine.

You can't change that situation anyway.

Is this to be entirely about the PAST...again?

You cannot undo history. That has already happened...that's why it is
called history.

You can NOT use the PAST as a valid argument to have any knowledge,
skills, arts, or crafts preserved for the present and future with any
validity.

There is no "value added" in "making them work for it"

Who said there was? The point is that the 1978 class had a completely
different situation from the 2003 class.

You are slowly beginning to see reality. Congratulations.

... if
they have the knowledge they are qualified, period.

So would you agree with Kim that anyone who can pass the required
tests should be allowed into the ARS?

Are you talking about the USCG or US amateur radio?

You are confusing, hopping around on subjects...

The ONLY agency awarding grants (in the form of licenses) for operating
on allocated amateur radio frequencies is the FCC. The USCG has
nothing to do with it.

(and likely
they worked for it or they wouldn't have the knowledge anyway,
so the logic of "making them work (more)" fails)

It is a fact of human nature that most people value a thing more if it
took some investment of themselves to acquire.

Which leads everyone to the implied reason of all PCTAs arguing for
the retention of code testing: They had to do it so everyone else had
better damn well do it, too!!!

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

snip

It is a fact of human nature that most people value a thing more if it
took some investment of themselves to acquire.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I think this is precisely why some people argue so vociferously for code
tesing despite the lack of any logical arguments for retaining it.

There are lots of logical arguments for retaining code testing.

Not as a point of federal law, I think. The biggest proponents on
raap have rolled over as far as the facts are concerned, and that should be
enough for anyboy.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/2003

"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...
In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

snip

It is a fact of human nature that most people value a thing more if it
took some investment of themselves to acquire.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I think this is precisely why some people argue so vociferously for code
tesing despite the lack of any logical arguments for retaining it. That
is
to say, they value it because it's hard instead of because it's necessary
(which it isn't!!!).

73 de Alun, N3KIP

Alun, it boils down to the obvious reason: They had to learn morse
code so everyone else better damn well have to learn it!!!

Point given by Roll et. al., eh?




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/2003

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote


Why does it have to be your way or no way, Hans?


Did I say "my way or no way"?????

Jim is free to have a different opinion, and I am free to suggest his
opinion is inconsistent with reality.


My amateur license cost me virtually nothing in terms of 'investment
of myself', and the curbs and gutters the city just installed at one
of my places cost me an $8,200 assessment. I value my amateur license
a LOT more than I value the city's new street curbing!

The things that I value the very most quite honestly are literal gifts
which I have recieved without an ounce of 'investment' or 'cost' ---
the love of my wife, the smiles of my grandkids, the whisper of the
wind at sunset on Lake Vermilion, the conversation with an old friend,
or my healthy heart. I value all of these more than my homes, my RV,
my boat, or the QSL collection in the closet.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

The only one of those, above, that is a literal gift is the wind at
sunset
on Lake Vermilion. The rest cost you plenty.

You're mistaken. They are absolute unconditional gifts, and I
treasure them all the more for the fact that no amount of effort of
mine could have 'earned' them.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"Reality doesn't care what you believe." -- K0HB

Your wife's love for example may have been given unconditionally but you
have to work to keep it by giving love in return. That is an investment of
self. If you do not love in return, a spouse's love dies. It needs
nourished with love to survive.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote


Why does it have to be your way or no way, Hans?


Did I say "my way or no way"?????

Jim is free to have a different opinion, and I am free to suggest his
opinion is inconsistent with reality.


Seems like it would be a bit more acceptable if you agreed to the concept of
using the term reality with respect to "your" perspective. Your reality may
not be the same as everyone or anyone else's.

Kim W5TIT