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".

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

"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 -

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

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?


I can tell you with a perfectly straight face that an uninvolved bystander
probably wouldn't think anything, simply because the issue doesn't mean
anything to him. As far as I can see, only an involved ham would have any
interest in NCI at all, and that type of person would surely know what the
debate is all about.

However, the words you quoted had nothing to do with NCI. They were
intended to address Jim's desire that everyone opposed to the code test must
specifically use the words "code test" during any discussion of the issue.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

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?



I can tell you with a perfectly straight face that an uninvolved bystander
probably wouldn't think anything, simply because the issue doesn't mean
anything to him. As far as I can see, only an involved ham would have any
interest in NCI at all, and that type of person would surely know what the
debate is all about.

But you can't say that No-Code International just by looking at the
name means No Code test International, deflection attempts aside.



However, the words you quoted had nothing to do with NCI. They were
intended to address Jim's desire that everyone opposed to the code test must
specifically use the words "code test" during any discussion of the issue.

Doesn't hurt! You assume everyone has an in depth grasp of an issue?

Argue as you will, Dwight. I'm just saying in your desire to be "right"
you are taking a tack that to at least some of us looks a bit silly. If
some one told me I was being imprecise, Id apologize and be more precise
with them. YMMV.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"N2EY" wrote:

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


Not when the two parties are participating in a conversation specifically
about dropping the code test, which is the current debate throughout the ham
radio community, Jim. Therefore, anyone who wants to change the debate to
focus on code itself, instead of the code test, would have the burdon of
being more specific to have his or her intent fully understood.

In reality, requiring specifics with each message posted in an existing
debate would tend to stiffle that debate, which I suspect is the underlying
goal of some of those demanding specific words and phrases from their
opposition in this debate.


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


Clarity of what - explicitness, focus, intent, meaning, unambiguity, or
all of these? There are many types of clarity, Jim. Without specifics, I
cannot be certain exactly what you mean. ;-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

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?

I can tell you with a perfectly straight face that an uninvolved bystander
probably wouldn't think anything, simply because the issue doesn't mean
anything to him. As far as I can see, only an involved ham would have any
interest in NCI at all, and that type of person would surely know what the
debate is all about.

But you can't say that No-Code International just by looking at the
name means No Code test International, deflection attempts aside.

Keep on trolling for arguments, Mike, sooner or later someone will
bite on your bait. Try to avoid leaning too far over the gunwales or
something big will bite you.

Try to remember that No Code International was started by Bruce
Perens, long before an Amateur Extra tested at 20 WPM.

However, the words you quoted had nothing to do with NCI. They were
intended to address Jim's desire that everyone opposed to the code test must
specifically use the words "code test" during any discussion of the issue.

Doesn't hurt! You assume everyone has an in depth grasp of an issue?

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Over-exaggeration again on the adjectives of
"in depth grasp."

You are already quite biased and rather adamant about it,
often going out of your way to pick a fight about code testing.

Argue as you will, Dwight. I'm just saying in your desire to be "right"

you are taking a tack that to at least some of us looks a bit silly. If
some one told me I was being imprecise, Id apologize and be more precise
with them. YMMV.

If someone told you that you are being overly aggressive about your
desire to pick a fight over word-quibbling, I'm sure you would be very
aggressive to them and want to start a fight about that... :-)

LHA

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Doesn't hurt! You assume everyone has an in depth
grasp of an issue?


Not everyone, Mike. Just the ham operators who visit this newsgroup and
eventually participate in the code testing debate.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dick Carroll" wrote:

Dwight will tell you any number of things but don't scare
him with "straight".


Now trying to live up to your name, Dick?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

--


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

"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.

BZZZZZZT !!!

Once again the logic buzzer goes off on you "and those of your ilk"

I have never attacked those who enjoy the code BECAUSE they
enjoy the code. I have attacked them via debate and conversation NOT
thier use of code but stance on the morse code TEST. You have proven
my point *exactly* that you guys REFUSE to seperate the two issues.
I like to use morse code and don't attack it. If there are hams in here
attacking
the use of morse code on the air as a means of communication, that is a
seperate issue and I am not one of them. If you "and those of your ilk"
cannot differentiate the two you have a problem.

however, via example I thank you for making my point *perfectly*.
I happen to honestly and genuinely believe that you "and those of your lik"
are purposefully doing this, that you, for various reasons, well not
seperate
the two. Among these reasons is that, like a poverty pimp in politics
throwing
around the race card incorrectly and illegitimately, you are trying to bring
others to your side of the fight when originally they may not have had
an interest in it; furthermore, I believe you know that, left standing on
it's
own without falsely creating allies, the code TEST debate is heavily
out of balance in the favor of those *against*.



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, if you would quit trying to make it personal (one of the greatest flaws
in debate procedure there IS!), and trying to make it an attack against
those
enjoying morse code instead of just an attack on morse code, the debate
WOULD be more simpler, there is no "perhaps" about it. You won't do this,
though, because the pro code test types will lose even more quickly and
with a greater margin than otherwise.

As I said before, thanks for proving my point via example.

Clint
KB5ZHT

--


"Brian" wrote in message
om...
(N2EY) wrote in message
...


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

BINGO!!!!
You are exactly right. I explained this in another form in this thread,
but you captured the essence of the argument perfectly.

As in politics, often a very weak stand or concept must be artificially
supported by, as you said, creating an offence or outrage that didn't
really exist. Certain political figures frequently take entire races
and try to bring them into the argument when there isn't an honest case
for what they are claiming.

Clint

Clint wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message
om...

(N2EY) wrote in message

...



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


BINGO!!!!
You are exactly right. I explained this in another form in this thread,
but you captured the essence of the argument perfectly.

BINGO!!!!

And You kind sir, are proof of that. Your tone in almost all your posts
indicates great offense and outrage. Deal with it.

- Mike KB3EIA -

WA8ULX wrote:

Do you guys dream about morse code tests?





Look lid you still dont get it, I am well aware the CW test is gone, my
complaint still is the Give away Written.


So why are we all not extras, then? If the writtens are so easy?