(N2EY) wrote in message ...
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".

It has all been explained to Jim before. But it's more important for
him to think that we want to eliminate the use of Morse, eliminate
protected spectrum, expand phone, this, that, the other...etc. Vast
right-wing conspiracy and all that.

It's important for certain segments of our society to always be
offended and outraged.

It's important for certain segments of our society to always be
offended and outraged.


You mean like the No-Code Cbplussers who want no CW Testing?

"N2EY" wrote:

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".


All writers assume a certain level of knowledge on the part of their
target readers. The same is true for this newsgroup. Most here are aware of
the code testing debate, so there isn't any reason to restate the issue each
time something is said. As for NCI, the names of many groups don't exactly
reflect the group's publicly stated goals. For example, the Red Cross
doesn't go around painting crosses red and the Salvation Army doesn't fight
religious wars.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Brian" wrote:

It has all been explained to Jim before. But it's
more important for him to think that we want to
eliminate the use of Morse, eliminate protected
spectrum, expand phone, this, that, the other...etc.
Vast right-wing conspiracy and all that.

It's important for certain segments of our society to
always be offended and outraged.


Or at least act that way when it's convenient to do so.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dick Carroll" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote:

All writers assume a certain level of knowledge on
the part of their target readers. The same is true for
this newsgroup. Most here are aware of the code
testing debate, so there isn't any reason to restate the
issue each time something is said. As for NCI, the
names of many groups don't exactly reflect the group's
publicly stated goals. For example, the Red Cross
doesn't go around painting crosses red and the
Salvation Army doesn't fight religious wars.


On the other hand the symbol for the Red Cross is, well,
a red cross!


But how does that "Red Cross" reflect their specific goals? Remember, I
was addressing how a chosen name has a some bearing on the group's goals (a
comment about "No-Code International" versus "No Code TEST International").


And the "soldiers" of the Salvation Army wear an appropirate
uniform. So,.....


Camaflage BDU's? Few people fight wars in a dress uniform. ;-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Do you still climb the pole to use the phone?

Never did, is that what your use to?

"Dick Carroll" wrote:

You're still obfuscating, Dwight! And you know it!
No Code International means "no code test
international" only because they were forced into
making the addition. The negative response otherwise
would have been overwhelming and they knew it,
or soon found it out. But it didn't change The Agenda.


Well, I don't know anything about that, Dick. I visited their web site
after reading something Jim said recently and saw absolutely nothing about a
wider agenda to eliminate code itself. Since you seem aware of something
more than their stated goals, perhaps you should present evidence of it here
for all to see. Otherwise, it just appears you're attacking this group with
unsubstantiated innuendo (and I'm tired of hearing unsubstantiated innuendo
used as a political weapon in this country - it's sleazy, Dick).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"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.

Perhaps - but we're amateurs, remember? Not professionals.

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."

None of them I ever heard of did, either. Nor did any of them require typing,
speech or voice lessons for engineers. The radio part of EE is about building
radios, not using them.

Radio is but a small part of electrical engineering, and it keeps getting
smaller as other technologies come along. Heck, the hot subject in
communications today is fiber optics - which works by on-off keying!

Likewise, few, if any, employers are seeking that "skill."
Therefore, it (code) simply isn't relevant to any of these careers.

Neither are a whole lot of other things hams do!

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

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".

All writers assume a certain level of knowledge on the part of their
target readers. The same is true for this newsgroup. Most here are aware of
the code testing debate, so there isn't any reason to restate the issue each
time something is said.

I disagree! There's a world of difference between "drop the code" and "drop the
code test".

As for NCI, the names of many groups don't exactly
reflect the group's publicly stated goals. For example, the Red Cross
doesn't go around painting crosses red and the Salvation Army doesn't fight
religious wars.

Actually, the Salvation Army *is* fighting a religious *war* of sorts - against
evil.

If someone is against the code *test*, then let them take the trouble to spell
it out.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Neither have I, Dwight. As I have pointed out, the
ARRL/READEX survey is 7 years old. But it's the
most recent *scientific* survey we have. (Its 1500
respondents were chosen at random, not self-selected
as is the case in many "surveys".)

Okay, perhaps it wasn't you.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't me.

Someone posted the results of a survey done
by some club or group in Minnesota, Michigan, or somewhere like that, just a
week or so ago and I thought you were talking about that survey. I haven't
seen the survey you're talking about here so can't really comment on it.

It's now about 7 years old but is the most recent one that can be considered
"scientific" by any stretch of the imagination.

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

Luckily, it is rare. The club in Washington was very open to all. This
club isn't.

Then it's not worth belonging to anyway. Hostility towards another ham just
because of license class - *any* license class - isn't the way 'real hams'
behave.

Sadly, the fact that a club elsewhere is different doesn't
really help those who are here. I've considered starting an alternative
club, but I'm afraid the strong position of that club will quickly turn
anything like that into a pro-testing versus anti-code testing situation
(fed by members of both groups) which will not really benefit anybody in the
long term.

dang - wish you were in this area, Dwight.

While some folks around here have strong feelings one way and the other about
code testing, it's considered very bad form to exclude or denigrate anybody
based simply on their code-test opinion. Of course, if someone starts excluding
or denigrating, they will often find themselves excluded and denigrated - even
by those who agree with their opinion.

Not that it helps things where *you* are.

How do we know that there are "far more outside that
organization..involved"?

Well, since most Amateur Radio operators don't join any type of club
(local, ARRl, or whatever), it's a fairly safe assumption.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

But it raises a good question: what are most hams actually doing? Look at the
number of Generals, Advanceds and Extras (hams with lots of HF privileges) -
the total is well over 300,000. If even 3% of them were on HF at any given
time, the bands would be packed bandedge to bandedge. (there's only 3550 kHz
from the bottom of 80 to the top of 10 - less space than 6 or 2 meters!)

Most of those opposed to code testing I have encountered
here *are* members of NCI. (snip)

Do you know that for a fact, or did you just assume they were members like
you did with me?

I have seen them sign with their NCI numbers or otherwise mention membership.
You're the exception.

No "onsession" at all. I'm just curious as to why someone who
felt strongly or even mildly that code testing should go would
*not* join that organization. (snip)

Do you feel most who support code testing are members of FISTS or other
such clubs? I don't think so.

True - but FISTS costs $15/year to belong to. NCI is free. And until recently,
FISTS did not take a position on code testing.

Based on what I've seen, there is a general
trend throughout this country not to participate in clubs or other such
groups. About the only exception to that is national political groups, which
seem to be gaining members.

Sad but true. A very big part of the reason, I think is lack of time. Not that
we have any more or less time people had in previous times, but that we use it
differently and have different expectations. In my case, for example, free time
comes in little bits and pieces in between responsibilities.

73 de Jim, N2EY