By my best recollection there have been *maybe* about 6 or 7 who have
upgraded, decided "I've got mine." and decided they wanted to keep the
5 wpm ... out of thousands of NCI members.

Carl - wk3c

Thousands, yea right, prove it?

the club members here are fanatics in their support of code testing,
even
to
the point of openingly ridiculing Technicians who attend the meetings.

That sort of behavior is unacceptable. Not "real ham" behavior.

Unfortuneately, it is real ham behavior. Hopefully
it is just an aberration of some hams...although we have
seen such attitudes voiced in the newsgroups by
more than one or two posters in the past.

and that's why it's only a matter of time before the code testing is gone.
The PCTA crowd doesn't help itself much when it presents itself with
such an air of arrogance and aggressiveness. One ham in here actually
expressed an interest in having special new call signs issued to the new
hams that upgrade without the code test when it's dropped from the
testing requirements so "the old ham crowd will know who *not* to
talk to"... now, just what do you think the new hams are going to think
of this kind of behavior? it's not a wonder at all that the PCTA side
of the issue is losing.

Clint

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

The ARRL/READEX survey showed that a majority favored code testing, and
that
the youngest age group was the most strongly procodetest.

When was the survey done?

Late 1996. Results in Feb 1997 QST

If it is more than two years old, it
is almost useless as there has been significant change
over the last few years.

What significant change? How do we know what the change has been since
restructuring?

Common sense. Ever since the initial discussion of
nocode, every time any actual survey has been done the
results have been less in favor of keeping code. I
sincerly doubt that shift has stopped. Can I prove it? No,
but I'm confident that's were it is going.

At least a few hams have publicly renounced their NCI membership here,
saying
that 5 wpm was the right level and they could not support complete code
test
elimination. Maybe they're an anomaly - maybe not.

The comments to 98-143 were categorized by an NCI staffer (disproving
any
possible claim of bias by procodetest evaluation of the comments) and
the
resutls showed that the *majority* of commenters not only wanted
continued
code
testing, but wanted at least 2 code test speeds. This was true despite
an
email
campaign by NCI to get as many comments in support of their position of
5
wpm and sunset clause.

Now it also must be pointed out that for the initial several weeks
during 98-143 comment phase, those commenting were not
aware of the position being put forth by NCI.

So? Anyone could revise their comments. And the comment period was
extremely
long, so time wasn't a factor.

True, but many probably didn't. In the end, it makes no
difference.

How many people
at the time may who said they support ARRLs stance
may have supported NCI's position will never be known.

Sounds like straw-grasping to me, Bill. Suppose FISTS had jumped in with a
proposal? Suppose ARRL had gone for 5/13/20 wpm? Etc.

Again, at this time, the percentages make no difference.

Even
so, the issue is NOT to be decided by any "vote" or majority opinion
of any group or even the public at large. The decision will be,
as it should be, based on what should be proper regulatory
setting of licensing requirments.

I'll bet that if the majority opinion had been "5 wpm and drop it
completely as
soon as the treaty allows" we'd no longer have Element 1. And if there had
been
a bigger majority for testing greater than 5 wpm, we'd have that, too.

Wishful thinking?

Of course things may have changed since then. But for someone to claim,
without
more recent evidence, that most hams want code testing to disappear is
simply wishful thinking.

Strange, the news doesn't indicate any group of young people
demonstrating for the retention of the amateur license code test.
Nor the elimination of the amateur license code test.

Irrelevant.

Good, since I believe it was you that mentioned that fact
in the first place. If it is irrelevent, why bring it up?

I did not mention anything about young people "demonstrating". Len did.

My error then, sorry.

My point was that the strongest majority of procodetest folks was the
youngest
age group - according to the survey, anyway.

Why do you say things about the "young hams" that you know not
of?

The evidence of the survey is clear. You can "stick head and eyes in
the
sand" but it is still there.

Again, what is the date of that survey?

1996

Thanks,

Bill K2UNK

"Dick Carroll" wrote:

I still find it beyond incredible that persons who would
learn all that goes into making an engineer would have
any problem whatever with learning the most basic radio
communications skill at the most minimal level.


Because, as far as the "engineer" is concerned, it (code) isn't a "basic
radio communications skill" today, Dick. It hasn't been for several decades,
at least. As far as I know, not a single college-based communications,
radio, electronics, or engineering, course today offers instruction in code
"skill." Likewise, few, if any, employers are seeking that "skill."
Therefore, it (code) simply isn't relevant to any of these careers.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:
Dwight:

Because of that, few who oppose code testing, and even fewer

Technicians,

attend that club's meetings or socialize with the members. Find me a

survey


that is truly unbiased and I'll be glad to discuss the results. Until

then,discussing the results of surveys is simply a waste of time.

N2EY:

Then consider the comments to the restructuring NPRM.

I agree...surveys, votes, etc hold little sway with the FCC anyway.


So you think Bill Cross is obfuscating when he says that FCC wants the
ham community to decide what our rules are to be, for us to reach a
concensus??


Not at all, but I also believe that when it is obvious to the FCC that
a rule change is appropriate...even if a majority of hams oppose
that change...the FCC will do what it believes is right and in the
public interest. 98-143 serves as a bellweather to that since, if
most hams favored 5wpm General and 12 wpm Extra, the FCC
didn't buy it.

Bill, while you like to bring out this argument when discussing
Elimination of Morse code, I'd like to suggest you imagine some
situation where something you like about the ARS is going away.

Now assume that someone brings up the same point, that is:

I also believe that when it is obvious to the FCC thata rule change is
appropriate...even if a majority of hams oppose
that change...the FCC will do what it believes is right and in the
public interest.

I'll bet you would interpret that a invitation by the poster for you to
go away and kee quiet!


Perhaps we should use those words for say... BPL? Ad a few words to the
beginning, and:

NO QUOTE of yours, just an example here

As regards to the FCC approving the nationwide deployment of BPL, I also
believe that when it is obvious to the FCC that a rule change is
appropriate...even if a majority of hams oppose that change...the FCC
will do what it believes is right and in the public interest.

I'm trying to say that while a truism, it isn't necessarily a good
argument. See what I mean?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

Bill, while you like to bring out this argument when discussing
Elimination of Morse code, I'd like to suggest you imagine some
situation where something you like about the ARS is going away.


*sigh*

It's code TESTING, not CODE, that is being pushed out the door.
ad nauseum, this must be explained. Why is that?

Clint wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:


Bill, while you like to bring out this argument when discussing
Elimination of Morse code, I'd like to suggest you imagine some
situation where something you like about the ARS is going away.



*sigh*

It's code TESTING, not CODE, that is being pushed out the door.
ad nauseum, this must be explained. Why is that?

It's his point that is being debated, not whether Morse code is going
away or testing is going away.

If Bill wants to use the argument that:

Not at all, but I also believe that when it is obvious to the FCC that
a rule change is appropriate...even if a majority of hams oppose
that change...the FCC will do what it believes is right and in the
public interest. 98-143 serves as a bellweather to that since, if
most hams favored 5wpm General and 12 wpm Extra, the FCC
didn't buy it.

he really isn't using all that good of an argument. These are the same
people that think BPL might just be the biggest thing since sliced bread.

They could of course just decide that no ARS is in the public interest.
And I suspect even you might not care for that all that much.

Use the arguments of outmoded, hazing, specific mode testing and others
if you like.

But using what the FCC decides as justification probably isn't a good
argument.


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:
Dwight:

Because of that, few who oppose code testing, and even fewer

Technicians,

attend that club's meetings or socialize with the members. Find me a

survey


that is truly unbiased and I'll be glad to discuss the results. Until

then,discussing the results of surveys is simply a waste of time.

N2EY:

Then consider the comments to the restructuring NPRM.

I agree...surveys, votes, etc hold little sway with the FCC anyway.


So you think Bill Cross is obfuscating when he says that FCC wants the
ham community to decide what our rules are to be, for us to reach a
concensus??


Not at all, but I also believe that when it is obvious to the FCC that
a rule change is appropriate...even if a majority of hams oppose
that change...the FCC will do what it believes is right and in the
public interest. 98-143 serves as a bellweather to that since, if
most hams favored 5wpm General and 12 wpm Extra, the FCC
didn't buy it.

Bill, while you like to bring out this argument when discussing
Elimination of Morse code, I'd like to suggest you imagine some
situation where something you like about the ARS is going away.

We have seen that many times. Clearly the overwhelming
majority of comments filed by hams against the loss of
220 bandwidth was just such a situation. The same may end
up being the case with BPL.

Now assume that someone brings up the same point, that is:

I also believe that when it is obvious to the FCC thata rule change is
appropriate...even if a majority of hams oppose
that change...the FCC will do what it believes is right and in the
public interest.

I'll bet you would interpret that a invitation by the poster for you to
go away and kee quiet!

People can invite me to do anything. If someone is so shallow
that they think my comment above is an indirect way of telling
them to keep quiet, then they must be pretty weak minded...IMHO.

Perhaps we should use those words for say... BPL? Ad a few words to the
beginning, and:

I already brought up BPL above.

NO QUOTE of yours, just an example here

As regards to the FCC approving the nationwide deployment of BPL, I also
believe that when it is obvious to the FCC that a rule change is
appropriate...even if a majority of hams oppose that change...the FCC
will do what it believes is right and in the public interest.

I'm trying to say that while a truism, it isn't necessarily a good
argument. See what I mean?

It's not an argument, it is a fact...reality. We deal with it in the
past and will do so in the future. The point is that the FCC doesn't
look to the comments as a democratic voting process.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message
...


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

Bill, while you like to bring out this argument when discussing
Elimination of Morse code, I'd like to suggest you imagine some
situation where something you like about the ARS is going away.


*sigh*

It's code TESTING, not CODE, that is being pushed out the door.
ad nauseum, this must be explained. Why is that?



Since you ask Clint...I'll try and explain it to you.

It is because you and your ilk are attacking those that enjoy the mode.
See how simple that is.

Now one more simple thing.....if you and your ilk would stop attacking those
that enjoy using Morse Code on the air, then perhaps the debate would be
more simple.

And finally.....if you don't. Then we take it personal. See ??

Dan/W4NTI

In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

It's code TESTING, not CODE, that is being pushed out the door.
ad nauseum, this must be explained. Why is that?

Because people are not specific. Look at thread subject lines like "drop the
code" or "IARU says drop Morse". And there's a group what goes by the name
"No-Code International" - not "No Code TEST International".