"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...
"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,

You're absolutely correct. Dick practices the
basic fundamentals of propoganda tactics...to wit:
say it often enough and some people will believe it.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"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).

This isn't a court of law, Dwight, and the level of evidence required
to make up ones mind depends on the indivual and his attention and
perception levels.

That's true as to individual opinions. Not true, however, as to your
ability to convince others.

So your effort to demand court-grade evidence falls
flat on its face.

Actually, your inability to respond speaks volumes to the
veracity and truthfulness of your claims.

Evidence is plentiful and much
of it has been displayed right here on rrap to see, even recently, with
of course some disclaimers to match. If you missed all that it would be
because you wanted to miss it, or just don't care enough to pay attention.

More vague inuendo from Dick.

And yes, some if it is a bit sleazy as you note. But you misidentified
it a bit, as usual.

What the hell are you (Dick) talking about now?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
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!

While it is true that fiber technology today is digitally based, fiber
can actually be used for an analog transmisison function if someone
wanted to.

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

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"N2EY" wrote:
"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.


Yes, I do remember, Jim. However, why are you asking me this question?
Dick is the one who brought up the engineer in the first paragraph above. I
was simply responding to his comments. And that response addressed the
engineer solely, not amateur radio.


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!


Never said, suggested, or even hinted at, anything to the contrary. The
topic raised by Dick was the engineer, not amateur radio.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dick Carroll" wrote:

That has to be one of the top 2 or 3 "most lame"
excuses ever offered for discontinuying the code
test-that it isn't relevant to "employers".

What is it that hams learn to pass a ham radio test
*today* that IS relevant to what any employer wants
these days? In a word, NOTHING!


Then I have two questions, Dick - why did you raise the issue and who in
this discussion offered it as an 'excuse" for discontinuing the code test?
Again, you specifically said...

"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."

You brought this up and now claim it "isn't relevant." And I certainly
said nothing about this being an "excuse," or justification, or anything
similar, for ending the code test. In fact, I didn't mention amateur radio
or the code test at all in my response. Instead, my comments addressed the
specific issue you raised - why the engineer would not be interested in
learning code.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dick Carroll" wrote:

This isn't a court of law, Dwight, and the level of
evidence required to make up ones mind depends
on the indivual and his attention and perception
levels. So your effort to demand court-grade
evidence falls flat on its face.


I didn't "demand" anything at all, Dick. Instead, I simply suggested that
you should present evidence to support your claim here, so others (myself
included) can see for themselves, to avoid the impression that you're just
attacking this group with unsubstantiated innuendo. Of course, since we're
obviously not in a courtroom, how you respond to that suggestion is entirely
up to you.


Evidence is plentiful and much of it has been displayed
right here on rrap to see, even recently, with of course
some disclaimers to match. If you missed all that it would
be because you wanted to miss it, or just don't care
enough to pay attention.


I'll accept that as your "evidence," and remain totally unconvinced. I
don't know anything about NCI beyond what I've quickly read on the first
page of their website. What you've said certainly hasn't added anything to
my knowledge of that organization.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote:

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


It's human nature to shorten phrases to simplify a discussion, Jim. We all
do it when it's bloody obvious what's being discussed. If you don't, then
you're truly an extraordinary human being.


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


Oh, I see. This only applies to those oppossed to the code test. Sorry,
you don't make the rules - either in this discussion or over human nature.
To continue to demand clarification of the obvious only makes it appear you
can't see the obvious, which isn't exactly a good impression to leave with
others, Jim.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net...
"N2EY" wrote:

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

It's human nature to shorten phrases to simplify a discussion, Jim.

Of course. But in this case dropping the word "test" changes the
meaning tremendously.

We all
do it when it's bloody obvious what's being discussed. If you don't, then
you're truly an extraordinary human being.

I don't drop words that are needed for clarity.

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

Oh, I see. This only applies to those oppossed to the code test.

No, it applies to everyone.

Sorry,
you don't make the rules - either in this discussion or over human nature.

I'm simply expressing an opinion. I think people should take the time
to be clear in what they are saying, particularly in a discussion
where there are radically differing viewpoints, and where people drop
in and out of the discussion often.

To continue to demand clarification of the obvious only makes it appear you
can't see the obvious, which isn't exactly a good impression to leave with
others, Jim.

I'm simply expressing the opinion that if someone is really only
against the test, they should so specify.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"N2EY" wrote:

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



It's human nature to shorten phrases to simplify a discussion, Jim. We all
do it when it's bloody obvious what's being discussed. If you don't, then
you're truly an extraordinary human being.

Dwight, I don't believe that NCI's official position at this time is to
remove Morse code as a mode.

But with all due respect, the argument that simplification of the
discussion from something like NCTI to NCI is to say the least,
laughable. I go through more acronyms than that before getting dressed
in the morning, and can handle the extra T easily.


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



Oh, I see. This only applies to those oppossed to the code test. Sorry,
you don't make the rules - either in this discussion or over human nature.
To continue to demand clarification of the obvious only makes it appear you
can't see the obvious, which isn't exactly a good impression to leave with
others, Jim.



Let's take a ignorant but intelligent bystander who sees the words "No
Code International".


Without a person or written material to pursuade him that it really
means No Code Test International, Tell me the assumption that he is
going to make.

Can you with a straight face, tell me that the person is going to assume
that it means elimination of the test?

- Mike KB3EIA -