In article , (N2EY)
writes:


Fun fact:

When the results of the 1996 ARRL/READEX survey were tabulated, one of the
results shown was the support for/opposition to code testing broken down by
age
group.

All age groups showed a majority to be procodetest, but the *most*
procodetest
group were the youngest! Hams under 24 at the time were 85% procodetest/15%
anticodetest. Almost a 6 to 1 ratio!

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim:

Very interesting, indeed. This could provide excellent support to replies
to the code testing petitions recently assigned RM numbers by the FCC.
Can you provide a URL?

73 de Larry, K3LT

Well, one certainly can't say there's any substantial difficulty involved!

Difficculty, they might as well just give the EXTRA to any one who ask for it.
For that matter, they might as well give all the Licenses away.

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

Alun Palmer wrote:
Dick Carroll wrote in
:

Alun Palmer wrote:

Dick Carroll wrote in
:

Robert Casey wrote:

Dick Carroll wrote:

You view the situation as an EE who didn't need to study to work out
any of the technical problems on the Extra exam, few that there were.
Most applicants have the singleminded goal of passing the exam, and
learning beyond that goal is not only unnecessary, it gets in the way
of the goal at hand. So they naturally just don't do it. The curent
method of testing clearly facilitates that position.

I'm a EE, and like any reasonably successful college student, I still
made use of the
avaliable resources (the question pool) to prepare for the (at the
time I took them)
elements 4A and 4B. Found a few holes in my knowledge, and filled
them in for
at least long enough to score well on the tests (missed 1 on 4A, 2 on
4B IIRC).
Got the CSCEs, and then the extra on Restructuring Day.
Most students only study what is expected to be on the exams. Thus, I
could solve calculus exam problems (take the intergral of (csc
x^5)/(tan x^2 -1) dx)
but I still never got a good understanding of how to use calculus to
solve a real
world problem. Recently went looking for a "calculus for dummies"
type book, but all they had was how to do exam problems. Been there,
done that.

And obviously it wasn't a problemm and hasn't caused any problem, for
you and others similarly situated, nor for the ARS.

But.....how about all the Extras out there who have
successfully proceeded through the same system and emerged
with so little knowledge that they have no idea of even
how to design and build a simple *1/2* wave dipole?
With little or nothing beyond the question pools in their
libraries, many won't even know how or where to look it up.
And when(if) the day comes that won't be required to copy
ANY Morse code,one of the most used modes in ham radio, at the most
basic speed?

Which will affect their comprehension of dipoles neither one way or the
other.

Your linking of CW ability to comprehension of radio theory would be
frightening if it wasn't hilarious!

Understand that I'm not saying they shouldn't be hams, nor
that they shouldn't be allowed some HF access. We all start somewhere.
But to allow them licensing into the top echelon of amateurs
is ludicrous and negates all that ham radio is supposed to stand for.

In short, it reduces the ARS to CB status.

Your thinking is so completely addled that I hardly know what to say in
reply.

To quote a famous person, "There you go again!"

The minute I mention MOrse code, suddenly I'm all addled. Right.

Only when you try to link passing a Morse code test with ability to
understand theory

Well since I *didn't* make any such linkage, and never have, your
comment is out of line.

Senior, YOU've made so many out-of-line outright insults of others,
that you should spend more time off-line.

If you don't believe that proficiency in radiotelegraph operations is
a serious part of ham radio, that's your problem.

It's no one's "problem," senior.

U. S. amateur radio is NOT exclusively about radiotelegraphy.

Not in the regulations, not in the law, only in the imaginations of a
few.

I know no one who has ever linked it to technical knowlecge, despite
the many claims of NCI mavens.

Senior, your inductive reasoning doesn't have the capacity to resonate
with the rest of the world's frequency.

Get in tune.

LHA

Any twist of logic, any tactic or spin of the issue to try to
stave off the inevitable... the long overdue removal of code
testing. Nothing more.

Clint


"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...


Senior, your inductive reasoning doesn't have the capacity to resonate
with the rest of the world's frequency.

Get in tune.

LHA

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

Well since I *didn't* make any such linkage, and never have, your
comment is out of line.

Senior, YOU've made so many out-of-line outright insults of others,
that you should spend more time off-line.

Thanks for the grin, Leonard. Might I suggest that you follow your own
advice?

If you don't believe that proficiency in radiotelegraph operations is
a serious part of ham radio, that's your problem.

It's no one's "problem," senior.

U. S. amateur radio is NOT exclusively about radiotelegraphy.

....and no one has indicated belief that it is. None of that is your
concern. You aren't involved in any way.

Not in the regulations, not in the law, only in the imaginations of a
few.

You've got a pretty good imagination yourself, old timer. You keep, for
example, imagining that you are involved in amateur radio.

I know no one who has ever linked it to technical knowlecge, despite
the many claims of NCI mavens.

Senior, your inductive reasoning doesn't have the capacity to resonate
with the rest of the world's frequency.

Get in tune.

Get "Tune In The World With Amateur Radio".

Dave K8MN

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

Bill Sohl wrote:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article ,

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

Really??? Where is the documentation to back up that statement in the
face of the large majority of code supporting commentors to 98-143?

Senior, you need to look at public documentation (information
available to all) before you move your stunner to "kill" setting.

The ONLY statistical study on NPRM 98-143 Comments was done
INFORMALLY by one of the later Commenters who was apparently
interested enough to take the time to examine each and every one of
(then) over 2000 Comments. Those two are still in the FCC ECFS,
part of the 2.760 total documents on 98-143.

LHA

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

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!

What Mr. Cross (W3TN) means, I think, is that the *preferred* method of
rulemaking is for the amateur community to "discuss amongst themselves" and
come up with a consensus plan for some issue or other. Then present said plan
to FCC. Example: New Q&A pool is developed by QPC and presented to FCC for
approval. Few or no protests to the new pool; consensus acheived. FCC approves
new pool. Quick and easy.

But when consensus cannot be reached, FCC has to make a decision. And that
decision is based on many factors. In the case of code testing in regards to
98-143, the factors for reducing code testing won and the majority opinion lost
- in FCC's opinion. The medical waiver headaches alone.....(One could argue
that there was a consensus reached that medical waivers were not a good idea.
So FCC eliminated them....)

Suppose, just suppose, that the comments to 98-143 had been 80-90% to reduce to
5 wpm to meet S25.5 and eliminate all code testing as soon as the treaty
permitted. Do you think Element 1 would still be in place today? I don't.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Do you still climb the pole to use the phone?

Never did, is that what your use to?