|
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*) debate. The minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met with an attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or called for. Kim: Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use. In the absence of a code testing requirement, there will be progressively fewer hams who have never been exposed to learning the code as a result of the requirement. Since the requirement was the principle motivation to learn the code, code use *will* decline once code testing is abolished. Therefore, testing and use are two closely interrelated concepts. Until, (UNTIL, *until*) it is clearly understood that seeking the end of the CW test is not the equivalent of seeking the end of CW as a mode, this debate will never fall within the realm of "friendly" debate at all. I think it's even hazardous to use the PCTA/NCTA labels. PCTA = Pro-Code Testing Agenda; NCTA = Anti-Code Testing Agenda. Those terms are accurately descriptive of the intent of their respective groups. Where is the "hazard" in honesty? 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes: I consider my time a very valuable resource as do many others. Wy is a comment which describes time wwasted by people who don't wish to expend it learning morse considered uncomplimentary? Bill: The reason is that those who have gained Morse code proficiency have found it to be well worth the time and effort. If you haven't done so, then you aren't a qualified judge. "dinosaur/buggywhip technology" Me thinks as the end approaches...the PCTA side is grasping at straws. I suggest not playing in the political arena of change if such phraseology offends. The stock-in-trade of the NCTA has always been offensive phraseology. Would you like your favorite modes described that way? Sure wouldn't bother me. But then I've learned to disregard most rheteroic anyway. 12 years as an elected official teaches one to accept the heat or get out-of-the-kitchen. And you're the commercial-grade Vulcan stove with all eight burners, both ovens, and the grill turned up high. No wonder all your pots and kettles are black. Your gas bill must be enormous, but nobody's buying what you're cooking. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: Carl: I consider the use of the term "Morse myths" to be derogatory and inflammatory. Thus, you have also failed to meet Mike's challenge. 73 de Larry, K3LT Larry, I don't recall Mike appointing your the judge and arbiter ... Carl: In that case, consider my services to have been donated out of my own generosity. "Morse Myths" is, as you well know by now, simply a term that refers to all of the patently false, old wives' tales, such as "Morse gets through when nothing else will.", This one is true… "Morse is essential for emergency communications.", Who said that? Provide correctly attributed quote. "Morse acts as a 'lid filter' to keep us from being overrun by the "mongul hordes' of CBers who are lurking in the wings waiting to take over the ham bands." etc. I've never said that whatsoever -- in fact, on many occasions, I've gone out of my way to note that a lot of the problems on HF phone are being caused by 20-WPM code tested Extras. I reject your claim that the term "Morse Myths" is derogatory and inflamatory. Reject all you want, Carl, but the fact remains that it is. You have taken the low road, while claiming the opposite. It is simply a term that refers in "shorthand" form to a panoply of falacies that are often cited as "reasons why we MUST keep Morse testing" ... none of which hold water and all of which have been rejected by the FCC. I have always presented well-reasoned, factual, and unemotional arguments in support of code testing. Please don't hold me up to the same light as those who may have transgressed in the manner which you refer to above. Above all, please remember that by far, the largest portion of the QRM in the code/no-code debate has been from the NCTA side. Also remember that as one who has never used the Morse/CW mode to an extent which would have allowed you to gain useful proficiency in the mode, you are not qualified to judge the value of this mode at all. I'm not sitting here trying to argue technical topics with you, so don't you try to tell me that the Morse/CW mode and testing aren't of value to the ARS. We are not on each other's respective levels of expertise. Since I'm more than willing to respect your technical expertise, don't presume to challenge my qualifications to make judgments about CW and code testing, because you don't know what your talking about. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article .net, "Bill Sohl"
writes: Carl: I consider the use of the term "Morse myths" to be derogatory and inflammatory. Thus, you have also failed to meet Mike's challenge. 73 de Larry, K3LT Hw about morse fallicies, morse inaccuracies, erronious morse claims? Which of these do you find acceptable? Cheers, Bill K2UNK Bill: None, actually. The truth is that the Morse/CW mode is one of the most practical, efficient, effective, and universal modes of radio communication available to radio amateurs, and well worth the effort to gain and maintain this particular skill. Everything you and Carl mention is nothing more than NCTA sour grapes. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article k.net, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "Hans K0HB" wrote in message . com... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote: I think I've taken the high ground Carl, with all due respect, using abrasive and derisive terms like "jumping through hoops" is not "the high ground". It is your same old baiting and condescending rhetoric, seemingly calculated to be inflamatory and divisive. "jumping through hoops" is "abrasive and drisive" ??? Yes, it is. The image is not complimentary. Would you like the written tests described that way? So are phrases like "waste valuable time learning Morse" I consider my time a very valuable resource as do many others. Everyone's time is valuable, not just RF engineers' I agree, and nothing I said suggests otherwise. Why is a comment which describes time wwasted by people who don't wish to expend it learning morse considered uncomplimentary? It says that learning the mode is a waste of time. It is...for the person making the statement. What is wrong with saying: "I don't want to *spend* the time necessary to learn...." Which, on close examination means the same thing. "dinosaur/buggywhip technology" Me thinks as the end approaches...the PCTA side is grasping at straws. I suggest not playing in the political arena of change if such phraseology offends. Are you saying I should simply shut up and go away? That's not like you at all, Bill. Nope. I'm suggesting that if the language used in discussion is so bbjectionable, then perhaps you'd rather not play in the political sandbox. I also think it is rather humorous that we are down to the level of concern that we are debating such mundane phrasology as that above. Carl claimed he had "taken the high ground". And for the most part of that post, he did. But he did let a few derogatory phrases slip in. Hans, K0HB also took note of them, and Hans is definitely not a 'PCTA grasping at straws'. I don't care for the "jump through the hoops" example either... but I have no problem with "waste my time learning" Would you like your favorite modes described that way? Sure wouldn't bother me. But then I've learned to disregard most rheteroic anyway. 12 years as an elected official teaches one to accept the heat or get out-of-the-kitchen. I thought the point of this thread was to avoid the 'heat'. Any time there are opposing positions, there will be some heat. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Kim" writes: "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... The issue isn't about USE it is about the lack of any rational reason to retain code testing as a license requirement now that the ITU mandatory code knowledge requirment has ended. Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*) debate. The minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met with an attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or called for. Not that I have observed, Kim. But can you accurately say that *no one* wants to end Morse use? Can you name one? Search the entire population of licensed hams and I'm sure there's some here and there that would take that stance...BUT, that is not the position (just in case someone tries to suggest otherwise) of NCI. We (NCI) oppose code testing. We (NCI) have no problem with code USE. Until, (UNTIL, *until*) it is clearly understood that seeking the end of the CW test is not the equivalent of seeking the end of CW as a mode, this debate will never fall within the realm of "friendly" debate at all. I think it's even hazardous to use the PCTA/NCTA labels. One of the problems is that some folks aren't clear that it is only the *test* they are against. Another problem is that some (many?) that favor code testing suggest that by ending that testing it will lead to an end to code use. I don't belive that at all and there are hundreds of examples of older technology and skills that are still practiced today in other fields even though such technology/skill is recognized as no longer generally used/needed (e.g. archery, manual transmission autos, etc.) Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... I just saw another accusation of Pro-Coders as technically backwards. Unfortuneately, extremist comments are present on both sides. Yet some of the most progressive RF Engineers and Technicians I know (who are Hams) are really enamored of Morse CW. Nothing wrong with that. The issue isn't about USE it is about the lack of any rational reason to retain code testing as a license requirement now that the ITU mandatory code knowledge requirment has ended. But that isn't my question or argument, Bill. It isn't really about the test. I don't care if they make the taking the test punishable by inprisonment. My question was related to the statements that Pro coders are technically backwards. I would challenge the NCTA's to show some proof that those who believe that the morse code test should be retained are in a technical backwater. It isn't that the individuals that want code retained are in a technical backwater, but rather that their procode test arguments fail as to any technical reason for retaining code testing. On that point, don't take my word on it, read the FCC R&O on NPRM98-143 and you'll find every argument being put forth today has already been made to the FCC and rejected by the FCC. I would also challenge them to do it without being abrasive or insulting. Feel free to let me know if I fail that challenge. You did just fine from the civility standpoint, but perhaps I didn't make myself clear. This isn't about the test. Just facts or intelligent informed opinions. As above, for the facts and the ultimate opinion (the only opinion that in the end means anything) can be found in 98-143 R&O. Bill, it isn't about the test. Pro coders can help by refraining from name calling too. Agreed. My statement is that there is no direct relationship. Not sure what relationship you are referring to. I'm alomost confused here Bill! I'm saying there is no direct relationship between being Pro-Code and technical ability. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article .net, "Bill Sohl" writes: Carl: I consider the use of the term "Morse myths" to be derogatory and inflammatory. Thus, you have also failed to meet Mike's challenge. 73 de Larry, K3LT Hw about morse fallicies, morse inaccuracies, erronious morse claims? Which of these do you find acceptable? Cheers, Bill K2UNK Bill: None, actually. The truth is that the Morse/CW mode is one of the most practical, efficient, effective, and universal modes of radio communication available to radio amateurs, and well worth the effort to gain and maintain this particular skill. Everything you and Carl mention is nothing more than NCTA sour grapes. 73 de Larry, K3LT Yet, even if one accepts your claim that morse is...one of the most...etc You have failed to convince the FCC (98-143) and more recently the international radio community (WRC-03) that whatever traits morse has it should be retained as a test requirement. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article k.net, "Bill Sohl" writes: I consider my time a very valuable resource as do many others. Wy is a comment which describes time wwasted by people who don't wish to expend it learning morse considered uncomplimentary? Bill: The reason is that those who have gained Morse code proficiency have found it to be well worth the time and effort. If you haven't done so, then you aren't a qualified judge. In your humble opinion anyway. "dinosaur/buggywhip technology" Me thinks as the end approaches...the PCTA side is grasping at straws. I suggest not playing in the political arena of change if such phraseology offends. The stock-in-trade of the NCTA has always been offensive phraseology. I have seen the same levels on both sides...but it certainly hasn't been the "stock and trade" of NCTA (IMHO). Would you like your favorite modes described that way? Sure wouldn't bother me. But then I've learned to disregard most rheteroic anyway. 12 years as an elected official teaches one to accept the heat or get out-of-the-kitchen. And you're the commercial-grade Vulcan stove with all eight burners, both ovens, and the grill turned up high. No wonder all your pots and kettles are black. Your gas bill must be enormous, but nobody's buying what you're cooking. ROTFLMAO... The sale seems to have been made already to the only buyer that counts...the FCC and, more recently, the ITU. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: Now, I wouldn't expect to be able to have that sort of a relationship with you, Dick ... you're not open-minded enough to accept that others see things different than you. (You see, I accept that you like and use CW ... I disagree only with your propatation of the "Morse myths" and your insistence that everyone should have Morse forced on them in exchange for HF privs ... fortunately, most of the rest of the world doesn't agree with you.) Carl - wk3c Carl: I consider the use of the term "Morse myths" to be derogatory and inflammatory. Thus, you have also failed to meet Mike's challenge. 73 de Larry, K3LT Hw about morse fallicies, morse inaccuracies, erronious morse claims? Which of these do you find acceptable? It's easy enough to accept that those of you who have never had any use for radiotelegraphy would view its stated attributes as mythical, and for the lot of you that is indeed a proper description. You couldn't communciate your way out of an emergency using Morse if the fate of the planet DID depend on it! I stand a better chance of helping someone else in life as a ham without knowing any code than waiting for that unlikly need for CW to actually be used. As for the fate of the planet, when is the sequal coming out to ID4? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: In article , "Kim" writes: "Bill Sohl" wrote in message thlink.net... The issue isn't about USE it is about the lack of any rational reason to retain code testing as a license requirement now that the ITU mandatory code knowledge requirment has ended. Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*) debate. The minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met with an attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or called for. Not that I have observed, Kim. But can you accurately say that *no one* wants to end Morse use? Until, (UNTIL, *until*) it is clearly understood that seeking the end of the CW test is not the equivalent of seeking the end of CW as a mode, this debate will never fall within the realm of "friendly" debate at all. I think it's even hazardous to use the PCTA/NCTA labels. One of the problems is that some folks aren't clear that it is only the *test* they are against. And you have to doubt the veracity of many of those who do. And you make that statement based on what?... or is this just another propoganda effort to "suggest" a conspiracy of purpose or some other fiction in your mind? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message . net... Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... I just saw another accusation of Pro-Coders as technically backwards. Unfortuneately, extremist comments are present on both sides. Yet some of the most progressive RF Engineers and Technicians I know (who are Hams) are really enamored of Morse CW. Nothing wrong with that. The issue isn't about USE it is about the lack of any rational reason to retain code testing as a license requirement now that the ITU mandatory code knowledge requirment has ended. But that isn't my question or argument, Bill. It isn't really about the test. I don't care if they make the taking the test punishable by inprisonment. My question was related to the statements that Pro coders are technically backwards. I would challenge the NCTA's to show some proof that those who believe that the morse code test should be retained are in a technical backwater. It isn't that the individuals that want code retained are in a technical backwater, but rather that their procode test arguments fail as to any technical reason for retaining code testing. On that point, don't take my word on it, read the FCC R&O on NPRM98-143 and you'll find every argument being put forth today has already been made to the FCC and rejected by the FCC. I would also challenge them to do it without being abrasive or insulting. Feel free to let me know if I fail that challenge. You did just fine from the civility standpoint, but perhaps I didn't make myself clear. This isn't about the test. Just facts or intelligent informed opinions. As above, for the facts and the ultimate opinion (the only opinion that in the end means anything) can be found in 98-143 R&O. Bill, it isn't about the test. Pro coders can help by refraining from name calling too. Agreed. My statement is that there is no direct relationship. Not sure what relationship you are referring to. I'm alomost confused here Bill! I'm saying there is no direct relationship between being Pro-Code and technical ability. OK, I agree. My point is that the arguments should and can be made without regard to personal aspects of either side. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes: But can you accurately say that *no one* wants to end Morse use? Can you name one? Sure! Remember Mark Morgan, KB9RQZ, whose spelling was even worse than Bruce's? Search the entire population of licensed hams and I'm sure there's some here and there that would take that stance And that's my point when someone says "*no one* wants to end Morse *use*." ...BUT, that is not the position (just in case someone tries to suggest otherwise) of NCI. We (NCI) oppose code testing. We (NCI) have no problem with code USE. That's been made clear. But the name of the organization doesn't include "test" so there could be some confusion. Until, (UNTIL, *until*) it is clearly understood that seeking the end of the CW test is not the equivalent of seeking the end of CW as a mode, this debate will never fall within the realm of "friendly" debate at all. I think it's even hazardous to use the PCTA/NCTA labels. One of the problems is that some folks aren't clear that it is only the *test* they are against. Another problem is that some (many?) that favor code testing suggest that by ending that testing it will lead to an end to code use. I don't belive that at all and there are hundreds of examples of older technology and skills that are still practiced today in other fields even though such technology/skill is recognized as no longer generally used/needed (e.g. archery, manual transmission autos, etc.) We don't know what will happen without a test. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article , Leo writes: An excellent idea. I for one would be very interested in seeing the logic and rationale that folks have for keeping or retiring the code test. By removing the emotion, personal opinion and bias from the discussion, some quite interesting points may well be raised. Unfortunately, it is pretty much impossible to remove personal opinion from the discussion. That's because every reason for keeping or removing the test ultimately comes down to an opinion question. For example, take the "Morse is needed for emergencies" reason. On the one hand, Morse is not used very much in emergency communication. On the other hand, it *is* still used occasionally, by hams, in emergency communications. More important, there *are* times when it when it is the only available mode that would get through in the situation. (Note that phrase "only available mode") Absolutely, Jim! And, as an added commentary to the above, it would be my hope that many in the EmComm interest of ham radio would push CW at every chance they had. When I was in a position of leadership in EmComm, I always pushed CW--and there was not portion of the group that moaned or forsaked it. Everyone recognized its value, and the value that those who use and understand it brought to the table. All of the above are documented facts. The problem is, does the occasional use of Morse in emergencies mean that *all* hams *must* be tested on the mode? Some say yes, some say no, some say it's a piece of the reason. All based on personal opinion, nothing more. I say no. It is no reason for keeping CW as a tested element for licensing. That is my personal opinion. Boil down any of the arguments on either side, and what you wind up with is personal opinion. 73 de Jim, N2EY Exactly. If I am asked to explain my personal opinion, that is when it gets ugly--although from my perspective it gets ugly from an intial onslaught of insults and uglies from people who differ from my opinion. My return to them is going to be in like manner--but *ONLY* toward the attitude they display. I have no problem at all with anyone's opinion or beliefs on CW. All are quite valid, and I think the trend only reflects majority *opinion,* not display of force or argument from either side. Kim W5TIT |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article , "Kim" writes: "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... The issue isn't about USE it is about the lack of any rational reason to retain code testing as a license requirement now that the ITU mandatory code knowledge requirment has ended. Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*) debate. The minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met with an attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or called for. Not that I have observed, Kim. But can you accurately say that *no one* wants to end Morse use? Of course not. But I can accurately say that there is no need to roll everyone who wants to see an end to the test element, into the "no CW use" minority (note I said minority), either. Until, (UNTIL, *until*) it is clearly understood that seeking the end of the CW test is not the equivalent of seeking the end of CW as a mode, this debate will never fall within the realm of "friendly" debate at all. I think it's even hazardous to use the PCTA/NCTA labels. One of the problems is that some folks aren't clear that it is only the *test* they are against. 73 de Jim, N2EY Anyone, *anyone* who allows theirself (bad English) to get all in a huff about CW use going away or being legislated out of ham radio is being foolish. There are a few who have been proponents of seeing the end of CW; and when I see those posts, I yawn and go on. There will never be an end to CW use, and it would never be banned from use in the ham bands...it just wouldn't. I think it would be unrealistic to think it would. And, if it was based off a majority of users of the bands, I rest assured knowing that most would not support an end to CW use. I think those who are in the minority are there mostly for the shock value of it. Kim W5TIT |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
... In article , "Kim W5TIT" writes: Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*) debate. The minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met with an attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or called for. Kim: Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use. In the absence of a code testing requirement, there will be progressively fewer hams who have never been exposed to learning the code as a result of the requirement. Since the requirement was the principle motivation to learn the code, code use *will* decline once code testing is abolished. Therefore, testing and use are two closely interrelated concepts. 1) To use the test element as a reason to proliferate CW users is not acceptable to me. The reason is because the test requirement is a government sponsored requirement. If we use your expectation for the requirement above, then I respond that the continuance of the mode of CW is not the responsiblity of the government, nor should it be. The FCC, the government, has decided that CW is no longer needed for its expectation and interpretation of what the ARS is about. To argue with that is merely spinning our wheels at this point--it's a done deal. So, if your basic support of the CW test as a requirement for ham radio is that it will keep people learning and using the mode, then I would wholehertedly disagree. 2) Using the statement you make, above: would you not also agree then, that the choice by some people to stop short of HF privileges, simply because of a CW test requirement, depletes the overall supply of HF, therefore CW, users anyway? I'd rather dismiss the test requirement for CW and have HF thrive and active for the ARS. The influence of good amateur radio operators who appreciate the value, tradition, and history of CW will always be a positive effect on the maintenance of the population of CW users. Again, it is not up the government to be the arm of CW continuance. Until, (UNTIL, *until*) it is clearly understood that seeking the end of the CW test is not the equivalent of seeking the end of CW as a mode, this debate will never fall within the realm of "friendly" debate at all. I think it's even hazardous to use the PCTA/NCTA labels. PCTA = Pro-Code Testing Agenda; NCTA = Anti-Code Testing Agenda. Those terms are accurately descriptive of the intent of their respective groups. Where is the "hazard" in honesty? 73 de Larry, K3LT The hazard, Larry, is in the derogatory slams that have been bantered back and forth while using those terms. The term "******" (excuse me, to anyone who is offended by that word--me included) isn't derogatory until some bigoted person uses it against another person, either. No hazard, at all, in being honest. Kim W5TIT |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
... I have always presented well-reasoned, factual, and unemotional arguments in support of code testing. *Cough* WHAT?????!!!!! Sure, Larry. That is why you are so endeared by many in this newsgroup, alone. Sure. Please don't hold me up to the same light as those who may have transgressed in the manner which you refer to above. PHULEEZE. You are the *BEACON* to those whom Carl depicted, Larry! Forget about being held up to any light. You *ARE* the light. Above all, please remember that by far, the largest portion of the QRM in the code/no-code debate has been from the NCTA side. Also remember that as one who has never used the Morse/CW mode to an extent which would have allowed you to gain useful proficiency in the mode, you are not qualified to judge the value of this mode at all. I'm not sitting here trying to argue technical topics with you, so don't you try to tell me that the Morse/CW mode and testing aren't of value to the ARS. We are not on each other's respective levels of expertise. Since I'm more than willing to respect your technical expertise, don't presume to challenge my qualifications to make judgments about CW and code testing, because you don't know what your talking about. 73 de Larry, K3LT And, you obviously think that what you just said, above, is well-reasoned, factual, and unemotional??!! I've broken my own rule and just responded to a post from you that was none of the above. Kim W5TIT |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
... Well, Hood Buddy, your rejection is hereby rejected! Yeah. Hood Buddy is probably about right... Kim W5TIT |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
... Bill Sohl wrote: "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: Now, I wouldn't expect to be able to have that sort of a relationship with you, Dick ... you're not open-minded enough to accept that others see things different than you. (You see, I accept that you like and use CW ... I disagree only with your propatation of the "Morse myths" and your insistence that everyone should have Morse forced on them in exchange for HF privs ... fortunately, most of the rest of the world doesn't agree with you.) Carl - wk3c Carl: I consider the use of the term "Morse myths" to be derogatory and inflammatory. Thus, you have also failed to meet Mike's challenge. 73 de Larry, K3LT Hw about morse fallicies, morse inaccuracies, erronious morse claims? Which of these do you find acceptable? It's easy enough to accept that those of you who have never had any use for radiotelegraphy would view its stated attributes as mythical, and for the lot of you that is indeed a proper description. You couldn't communciate your way out of an emergency using Morse if the fate of the planet DID depend on it! And, DICK, what modes would be your failure to communicate your way of an emergency if the fate of the planet depends on it? I wish, for once, you'd answer an honest question. I suspect it'll be the usual, though. Complete silence because my question is not only one you can't answer (yeah, I'll make the bet that you are *NOT* proficient in all available modes of ham radio), and it's also one that makes a counter to the point you attempted to illustrate, above. So, DICK, what mode would be our shortcoming if we were all looking to you to "save the planet?" Kim W5TIT |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
... N2EY wrote: In article , "Kim" writes: "Bill Sohl" wrote in message thlink.net... The issue isn't about USE it is about the lack of any rational reason to retain code testing as a license requirement now that the ITU mandatory code knowledge requirment has ended. Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*) debate. The minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met with an attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or called for. Not that I have observed, Kim. But can you accurately say that *no one* wants to end Morse use? Until, (UNTIL, *until*) it is clearly understood that seeking the end of the CW test is not the equivalent of seeking the end of CW as a mode, this debate will never fall within the realm of "friendly" debate at all. I think it's even hazardous to use the PCTA/NCTA labels. One of the problems is that some folks aren't clear that it is only the *test* they are against. And you have to doubt the veracity of many of those who do. The "veracity?" Did you look up that word before you used it? I am sure that anyone who posts an opinion is being pretty genuine in their belief... Kim W5TIT |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote
The term "******" (excuse me, to anyone who is offended by that word--me included) isn't derogatory until some bigoted person uses it against another person, either. No hazard, at all, in being honest. Of course it's derogatory, no matter who uses the word. True story..... In the winter of 2001/02 K0CKB and I were vacationing in the southwest. We had parked our RV in the lovely town of Big Spring, Texas for a couple of days, and I had my truck down at the local "quick lube" place for an oil change. A local fellow also having his truck lubed noticed a "Sailors have more fun" bumper sticker on my truck, and struck up a conversation about his days in the Navy. Like me, he had spent some time in the brown water Navy running PBR's in the Mekong, so a lively conversation ensued. In discussing some of his close calls, he attributed his survival to "his big ******", who was one of his crewman, apparently a big man who was particularly good with heavy weapons. He had liberated a 50-calibre from a wrecked aircraft and mounted it on the bow of the PBR in place of the lighter 'regulation' mount, and was extremely adept at using the gun. The fellow cited this the single most important reason his craft had survived Now in the context of the conversation it was apparent to everyone present that he held this crewman in VERY high regard. Yet the term was patently as derogatory as if he had called the man a mo----f---er, a c--ks---ker, or any other demeaning name. Two bystanders (not minorities) took the guy to task for his choice of words, and he apologized. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Not sure what you mean. In every state I know of, there's no test or restriction on manuals vs. automatics unless someone is clearly unable to drive a manual. Hello Jim ...Just in reference to the old buggy whip automatic xmission argument .....a skill is a skill is a skill .... noting less nothing more untill it is needed. eg ...my buddy took me to pick up his son's truck .. stick shift and he was stuck.... Just the way that no code ops will be stuck when it comes to the CW mode. BTW I can't wait for all the leaps and bounds in growth of the service once CW testing is gone. I would venture to say that at least a half a dozen new modes will be created within a few months now that all of those EEs will be "activated". I'm an EE. ...and I'm a PT Correction ..all of those EEs and computer engineers who are presently non-ticketed due to CW being below their technical prowess. ld even say that I would have to eat crow as no doubt within 1 year a mode will be discovered that "will always get through". No mode always gets through. Some modes, however, get through when some other modes don't. But I am sure that will come with all the new technical blood that giving the CW test the boot will result in .. (tounge in cheekedly) 73 to all ...God Bless Tom Popovic KI3R Port Vue PA |
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om... "Kim W5TIT" wrote The term "******" (excuse me, to anyone who is offended by that word--me included) isn't derogatory until some bigoted person uses it against another person, either. No hazard, at all, in being honest. Of course it's derogatory, no matter who uses the word. True story..... In the winter of 2001/02 K0CKB and I were vacationing in the southwest. We had parked our RV in the lovely town of Big Spring, Texas for a couple of days, and I had my truck down at the local "quick lube" place for an oil change. A local fellow also having his truck lubed noticed a "Sailors have more fun" bumper sticker on my truck, and struck up a conversation about his days in the Navy. Like me, he had spent some time in the brown water Navy running PBR's in the Mekong, so a lively conversation ensued. In discussing some of his close calls, he attributed his survival to "his big ******", who was one of his crewman, apparently a big man who was particularly good with heavy weapons. He had liberated a 50-calibre from a wrecked aircraft and mounted it on the bow of the PBR in place of the lighter 'regulation' mount, and was extremely adept at using the gun. The fellow cited this the single most important reason his craft had survived Now in the context of the conversation it was apparent to everyone present that he held this crewman in VERY high regard. Yet the term was patently as derogatory as if he had called the man a mo----f---er, a c--ks---ker, or any other demeaning name. Two bystanders (not minorities) took the guy to task for his choice of words, and he apologized. 73, de Hans, K0HB Hans, unfortunately, that term is freely used down here. I've heard it from perfect strangers if I happen to be with the common friend of another and they just chat for a few minutes, to a close gathering of all friends who freely express that form of hatred, regardless of how they know I feel about it. I have dropped three, what I thought was, very good friends in the last two years over this issue. Not only the "term" but the emotion of bigotry *and* racism that goes along with it, is alive and well down here. I freely express disdain at the emotion of bigotry and racism and have often been chastised for it. Now, among my black friends I am called that name--and, I admit, it still throws me when they use--but I am told over and over again that the use of that word "among them" is an expression of kindred spirit. I still tell them I don't like it. I tell them to call me by the affectionate name one of my girlfriends calls me, "Boo." I have also met blacks (and people from other ethnic groups) who are bigots and racists and I have just as much disdain for them. Kim W5TIT |
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message om... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote And one of the founders of the company, who is a friend and colleague of mine now, is a no-code tech (I persuaded him to get into ham radio. He has NO interest in Morse, but is a hell of a digital modes engineer.) That's quite a story, Carl, since the company was founded in 1935 by Ralph Allison. That would put Ralph up in his 90's somewhere. Well, it's good to know he's still in engineering and keeping up with the latest trends. Give him best regards from everyone at ADC. We were under the mistaken impression that he had passed on. 73, de Hans, K0HB -- http://www.adc.com/aboutadc/history/ OK ... I'm mistaken ... I was refering to Paul Nikolich the Chair of IEEE 802 ... in retrospect, I believe he was one of the founders of a company that your company acquired. I was not trying to mislead anyone. Carl |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Kim W5TIT" writes: Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*) debate. The minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met with an attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or called for. Kim: Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use. I would assert that being forced to learn code to gain access to HF "soured" more people on code use than it encouraged ... of course, some percentage of folks decided they liked code and continued to use it, but MANY simply endured something they had no interest in to get past the test, then "threw away the key." Remember the old adage "honey is better than vinegar." In the absence of a code testing requirement, there will be progressively fewer hams who have never been exposed to learning the code as a result of the requirement. Since the requirement was the principle motivation to learn the code, code use *will* decline once code testing is abolished. Therefore, testing and use are two closely interrelated concepts. Translation: Larry and his "kindred spirits" are either unwilling to expend the effort to (or incapable of *politely*) encourage people to "give the code a try and see if you like it." And, they are apparently unwilling to take "No thanks, not interested" for an answer. Thus, they continue to seek to have the FCC mandate an arguably counter-productive "recruiting program" for them ... 73, Carl - wk3c |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
... "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... None, actually. The truth is that the Morse/CW mode is one of the most practical, efficient, effective, and universal modes of radio communication available to radio amateurs, and well worth the effort to gain and maintain this particular skill. I see that Larry still has that macro key programmed ... :-) Carl - wk3c ROFLMAO!!!!! Kim W5TIT |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: Carl: I consider the use of the term "Morse myths" to be derogatory and inflammatory. Thus, you have also failed to meet Mike's challenge. 73 de Larry, K3LT Larry, I don't recall Mike appointing your the judge and arbiter ... Carl: In that case, consider my services to have been donated out of my own generosity. I guess I got what I paid for :-) "Morse Myths" is, as you well know by now, simply a term that refers to all of the patently false, old wives' tales, such as "Morse gets through when nothing else will.", This one is true… Bluntly - baloney ... there ARE modes that will get through at s/n ratios where Morse would be totally undetectable, let alone decodable ... ignore the facts if it preserves your fantasy world where Morse is all-important (the "legend in your own mind"), but the rest of the world will pass you by without your even understanding why ... "Morse is essential for emergency communications.", Who said that? Provide correctly attributed quote. Read any number of absurd pro-code-testing comments filed with the FCC ... "Morse acts as a 'lid filter' to keep us from being overrun by the "mongul hordes' of CBers who are lurking in the wings waiting to take over the ham bands." etc. I've never said that whatsoever -- in fact, on many occasions, I've gone out of my way to note that a lot of the problems on HF phone are being caused by 20-WPM code tested Extras. I didn't say that YOU necessarily said that ... though you HAVE refered to the "knuckle-draggers" and other terms that fall into a similar category. I reject your claim that the term "Morse Myths" is derogatory and inflamatory. Reject all you want, Carl, but the fact remains that it is. You have taken the low road, while claiming the opposite. It is simply a term that refers in "shorthand" form to a panoply of falacies that are often cited as "reasons why we MUST keep Morse testing" ... none of which hold water and all of which have been rejected by the FCC. I have always presented well-reasoned, factual, and unemotional arguments in support of code testing. RTFLMAO!!! Please don't hold me up to the same light as those who may have transgressed in the manner which you refer to above. Above all, please remember that by far, the largest portion of the QRM in the code/no-code debate has been from the NCTA side. ROTFLMAO some more ... Also remember that as one who has never used the Morse/CW mode to an extent which would have allowed you to gain useful proficiency in the mode, you are not qualified to judge the value of this mode at all. You are totally wrong on this assertion ... I know the code, had "useful proficiency" (nearly 20 wpm at my peak), but haven't used it in a long time ... I am certainly qualified to judge the value of the mode (at least for my purposes, and also in more general terms). I'm not sitting here trying to argue technical topics with you, so don't you try to tell me that the Morse/CW mode and testing aren't of value to the ARS. We are not on each other's respective levels of expertise. Since I'm more than willing to respect your technical expertise, don't presume to challenge my qualifications to make judgments about CW and code testing, because you don't know what your talking about. Larry, I don't demean your "real ham-ness" because you are not my equal on the technical plane, but you demean the "real ham-ness" of anyone who is up to your "standards" of Morse prowess ... I think you're arrogance and narrow-mindedness are showing again. Carl - wk3c |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article .net, "Bill Sohl" writes: Carl: I consider the use of the term "Morse myths" to be derogatory and inflammatory. Thus, you have also failed to meet Mike's challenge. 73 de Larry, K3LT Hw about morse fallicies, morse inaccuracies, erronious morse claims? Which of these do you find acceptable? Cheers, Bill K2UNK Bill: None, actually. The truth is that the Morse/CW mode is one of the most practical, efficient, effective, and universal modes of radio communication available to radio amateurs, and well worth the effort to gain and maintain this particular skill. I see that Larry still has that macro key programmed ... :-) Carl - wk3c |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... It's well known that for the likes of you,*everything* pertaining to Morse code is mythical! Hell, you couldn't take advantage of any of it's attributes if your very life depended on it! I certainly could ... however, the probablilty of my life depending on the use of Morse is smaller than that of my life being saved by a lightning bolt that kills a great white shark that's trying to eat me in the middle of the Sahara desert ... Carl - wk3c |
I tell them to call me
by the affectionate name one of my girlfriends calls me, "Boo." I heard she calls you BOY. |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Kim" writes: "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... The issue isn't about USE it is about the lack of any rational reason to retain code testing as a license requirement now that the ITU mandatory code knowledge requirment has ended. Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*) debate. The minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met with an attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or called for. Not that I have observed, Kim. But can you accurately say that *no one* wants to end Morse use? Of course not. But I can accurately say that there is no need to roll everyone who wants to see an end to the test element, into the "no CW use" minority (note I said minority), either. Agreed! Point is, however, that the "no one" statement is simply not correct. Until, (UNTIL, *until*) it is clearly understood that seeking the end of the CW test is not the equivalent of seeking the end of CW as a mode, this debate will never fall within the realm of "friendly" debate at all. I think it's even hazardous to use the PCTA/NCTA labels. One of the problems is that some folks aren't clear that it is only the *test* they are against. 73 de Jim, N2EY Anyone, *anyone* who allows theirself (bad English) to get all in a huff about CW use going away or being legislated out of ham radio is being foolish. Not necessarily. Not after seeing the mode (not just the test) attacked the way I have. There are a few who have been proponents of seeing the end of CW; and when I see those posts, I yawn and go on. That's *you* - not everyone. There will never be an end to CW use, and it would never be banned from use in the ham bands...it just wouldn't. I think it would be unrealistic to think it would. I hope you are right about that. Some of us are not about to "trust to the kindness of strangers" however And, if it was based off a majority of users of the bands, I rest assured knowing that most would not support an end to CW use. Not now, anyway. I think those who are in the minority are there mostly for the shock value of it. Perhaps. But not too long ago, the mere suggestion of *any* class of ham license with no code test would have gathered almost no support. And the idea of the total abolition of code testing would have been discarded with the claim that *no-one* wanted all code testing to end. They way to outlaw something is little by little. Remember your concerns about the restrictions on privacy brought about by 'homeland security' responses? Little by little.... There was a time when AM was king of the 'phone modes. Then SSB came a long and took center stage, while AM was relegated to niche status. Most folks said "No-one is against the *use* of AM".... But that was not good enough for some, and proposals have arisen every so often to effectively outlaw AM from the ham bands. HF ham bands, anyway. So far, none of them have been successful. Up until 20 years ago, the amateur power limit was 1 kW DC input to the stages delivering power to the antenna. Then the rules changed to 1.5 kW PEP output. For the AM folks, this was effectively a lowering of the power limit to about half of what it had been before the change. For SSB folks, it was effectively about a 50% raise of the power limit. LIttle by little... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: On the one hand, Morse is not used very much in emergency communication. On the other hand, it *is* still used occasionally, by hams, in emergency communications. More important, there *are* times when it when it is the only available mode that would get through in the situation. (Note that phrase "only available mode") All of the above are documented facts. The problem is, does the occasional use of Morse in emergencies mean that *all* hams *must* be tested on the mode? Some say yes, some say no, some say it's a piece of the reason. All based on personal opinion, nothing more. Boil down any of the arguments on either side, and what you wind up with is personal opinion. 73 de Jim, N2EY Jim: The truth is, only hams who know the Morse code have the capability to fall back on the CW mode when other modes are unavailable. Absolutely true. But whether that is a reason to make every ham pass a code test is a matter of opinion - some say yes, others say no. Why do hams know the Morse code? Because they had to learn it to pass the code tests to become licensed or obtain upgrades. That's one reason. In the absence of a code testing requirement, why will they learn it? Here are some reasons: - Morse is fun for many thousands of hams - Lots of interesting DX on Morse only - Morse gets through better than any analog voice mode and better than many TOR modes - Morse equipment for a given performance level costs less and is simpler than any other mode - Morse is usually aural, not visual, but doesn't require talking. It's a unique way of communicating - Morse takes up less, or far less, spectrum than almost all other modes. - There is much less objectionable stuff to deal with in the parts of the bands where Morse is usually used. How will we convince new hams to invest the time and effort to learn this useful communications skill when they are not offered the incentive of increased operating privileges? Through the incentives of: - improved performance of a given radio setup - less crowded spectrum space - a unique communications experience not available elsewhere - rare DX - spectrum conservation There is also the element of putting the mode out there for others to see. As in demonstrations at club meetings, hamfests, conventions, Field Day, etc. "Sell" the mode the way the FM/repeater, PSK-31, APRS, packet and other folks have been selling their modes for years. If all a new ham ever sees is other, more experienced hams talking into mikes and tapping keyboards, that's all the newbie will think exists. Look at what the AM and vintage/military radio folks have done. They set up demos at hamfests and other venues to show what it's all about. Why not the same thing with Morse? Show 'em how it's done - plant the seed. Or consider the QRP/homebrew/hiker folks. What's the most effective mode to bring along on a backpack trip? Elecraft has a new rig - the KX1. Amazing little box the size of a stack of QSLs. Is there *any* non-CW rig of equivalent size/weight/power requirement that will perform anywhere near as well? You should see the looks on their faces at FD when they see the CW station making QSOs at a rate better than the 'phone folks, yet using a more modest setup and expending far *less* effort. When well over half the points earned by a 4A+free VHF FD setup come from one fulltime and one part time setup running CW, serious selling is happening. I'm asking you because I don't have the answers. I'm one of those hams who learned the code because I wanted to be a ham, and the requirement was there. That's you. It's not everybody. Some will be sold on the mode regardless of whether or not there's a test. Some will never be sold no matter what you do. And some will be sold if approached in the right way. Ony *after* learning the code and becoming a reasonably proficient CW operator did I become aware of it's benefits and advantages. Personally, I'm grateful that the code testing requirement existed when I became a ham. Had it not, I never would have become a CW operator...and neither will most hams in the ECTA (Era of Code Test Abolition). How do we know that for sure? Maybe you would have seen the light after getting frustrated with other modes. Here's an experience I had recently (post-restructuring): Relatively new ham got started via the Tech route. Decided he wanted HF and passed the required elements, including code, which was learned from CDs and computer software. But then he discovered that learning enough code to pass the test was a far different thing from copying and sending live on the air in a real QSO. Now remember, this ham had already passed all the code tests he'd ever need to pass. He had all bands and modes open to him, and a nice HF station set up. There was absolutely no requirement that he ever do any Morse code operating at all, ever. Nor was there any requirement to spend more time and effort learning to send and copy real-world off-the-air Morse. But this ham *wanted* to use the mode, based on its merits alone. With a small amount of help and encouragement, he learned the skills of on-air copy, sending, abbreviations, procedure, etc. I had the privilege and honor of being his first CW QSO. Since then he's had many more, his skills have improved, and he's on the way. CW SS is a few weekends away......... And this ham is the kind who will share what he has learned with others and repeat the cycle. Test or no test. -- Sure, not every new or old ham will be "sold". But we don't need every ham. Just enough hams. And a positve image. Does that answer the question? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article , "Kim W5TIT" writes: Of course not. But I can accurately say that there is no need to roll everyone who wants to see an end to the test element, into the "no CW use" minority (note I said minority), either. Agreed! Point is, however, that the "no one" statement is simply not correct. Let's recall that you are far more into definition than I am, Jim. When I say "no one" it may not mean *everyone* but it means enough to be counted as no one. I believe that the number of folks who wish to see an end to CW in the bands of the ARS are so miniscule that the projection of that ever being a reality is moot. Anyone, *anyone* who allows theirself (bad English) to get all in a huff about CW use going away or being legislated out of ham radio is being foolish. Not necessarily. Not after seeing the mode (not just the test) attacked the way I have. I've seen it attacked also. But I've never for a moment given it any kind of merit--the mode simply would never be banned from the ARS. Has any mode ever been banned? Sure, rules have changed; rules pertaining to power limits, rules pertaining to test requirements, rules pertaining even (I believe) to *where* in the bands that different modes are allowed or not. But I doubt a mode would ever be banned, once implemented and in place. There are a few who have been proponents of seeing the end of CW; and when I see those posts, I yawn and go on. That's *you* - not everyone. I can't imagine anyone giving merit to the thought that a mode would be banned. Maybe I am being unrealistic. Using history as a perspective of measurement; I don't see it ever happening. There will never be an end to CW use, and it would never be banned from use in the ham bands...it just wouldn't. I think it would be unrealistic to think it would. I hope you are right about that. Some of us are not about to "trust to the kindness of strangers" however I think I believe it enough that I'll eat my sock (the right foot sock) if it ever happens. And, if it was based off a majority of users of the bands, I rest assured knowing that most would not support an end to CW use. Not now, anyway. My term "most" includes those people who now and in the future have any kind of romantic thought about the ARS. And, I think most do. There are the few who would see an end to something they don't like. But, given the desire and will of most ARS folks, CW--nor any mode for that matter--will disappear. Now, if I am wrong about history just let me know and I *may* change my belief. I think those who are in the minority are there mostly for the shock value of it. Perhaps. But not too long ago, the mere suggestion of *any* class of ham license with no code test would have gathered almost no support. And the idea of the total abolition of code testing would have been discarded with the claim that *no-one* wanted all code testing to end. I can see requirements changing, etc. But, I cannot see the FCC ever saying, "OK, no more ______ as a legal mode in the ARS." They way to outlaw something is little by little. Remember your concerns about the restrictions on privacy brought about by 'homeland security' responses? Little by little.... I have never doubted that the government would do as they have done. I daresay they were doing under different guises for many years now. Nothing different there. It's all about expectation. The expectation that the FCC would ever ban a mode is minimal for me. There was a time when AM was king of the 'phone modes. Then SSB came a long and took center stage, while AM was relegated to niche status. Most folks said "No-one is against the *use* of AM".... But, did the FCC ever get anywhere close to seeing its use banned? I am not, remember, saying that a mode would become so unpopular or disliked on a scale such that it would be rare to find it openly being used. I am saying, however, that I believe the FCC would never regulate its ban. But that was not good enough for some, and proposals have arisen every so often to effectively outlaw AM from the ham bands. HF ham bands, anyway. So far, none of them have been successful. And, I don't think they ever would be. Up until 20 years ago, the amateur power limit was 1 kW DC input to the stages delivering power to the antenna. Then the rules changed to 1.5 kW PEP output. For the AM folks, this was effectively a lowering of the power limit to about half of what it had been before the change. For SSB folks, it was effectively about a 50% raise of the power limit. LIttle by little... 73 de Jim, N2EY I do see things changing in the ARS, but not related to the outlawing of a mode. Kim W5TIT |
|
|
"WA8ULX" wrote in message ... I tell them to call me by the affectionate name one of my girlfriends calls me, "Boo." I heard she calls you BOY. Ain't it amazing Bruce? This Texas Twit keeps sticking that foot deeper in her mouth everytime. Hug and Chalk is going strong. Dan/W4NTI |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Kim W5TIT" writes: Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*) debate. The minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met with an attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or called for. Kim: Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use. I would assert that being forced to learn code to gain access to HF "soured" more people on code use than it encouraged ... of course, some percentage of folks decided they liked code and continued to use it, but MANY simply endured something they had no interest in to get past the test, then "threw away the key." Remember the old adage "honey is better than vinegar." In the absence of a code testing requirement, there will be progressively fewer hams who have never been exposed to learning the code as a result of the requirement. Since the requirement was the principle motivation to learn the code, code use *will* decline once code testing is abolished. Therefore, testing and use are two closely interrelated concepts. Translation: Larry and his "kindred spirits" are either unwilling to expend the effort to (or incapable of *politely*) encourage people to "give the code a try and see if you like it." And, they are apparently unwilling to take "No thanks, not interested" for an answer. Thus, they continue to seek to have the FCC mandate an arguably counter-productive "recruiting program" for them ... 73, Carl - wk3c Poor no code goofballs. They still haven't figured it out. We don't want a bunch of unqualified, ten four screaming, under educated, individuals poluting up the spectrum. We were doing just fine when we had 250K licensed. In fact the QRM is just as bad on HF as it was then. The only difference is the folks on the air actually KNEW SOMETHING. Dan/W4NTI |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: Carl: I consider the use of the term "Morse myths" to be derogatory and inflammatory. Thus, you have also failed to meet Mike's challenge. 73 de Larry, K3LT Larry, I don't recall Mike appointing your the judge and arbiter ... Carl: In that case, consider my services to have been donated out of my own generosity. I guess I got what I paid for :-) "Morse Myths" is, as you well know by now, simply a term that refers to all of the patently false, old wives' tales, such as "Morse gets through when nothing else will.", This one is true. Bluntly - baloney ... there ARE modes that will get through at s/n ratios where Morse would be totally undetectable, let alone decodable ... ignore the facts if it preserves your fantasy world where Morse is all-important (the "legend in your own mind"), but the rest of the world will pass you by without your even understanding why ... "Morse is essential for emergency communications.", Who said that? Provide correctly attributed quote. Read any number of absurd pro-code-testing comments filed with the FCC ... "Morse acts as a 'lid filter' to keep us from being overrun by the "mongul hordes' of CBers who are lurking in the wings waiting to take over the ham bands." etc. I've never said that whatsoever -- in fact, on many occasions, I've gone out of my way to note that a lot of the problems on HF phone are being caused by 20-WPM code tested Extras. I didn't say that YOU necessarily said that ... though you HAVE refered to the "knuckle-draggers" and other terms that fall into a similar category. I reject your claim that the term "Morse Myths" is derogatory and inflamatory. Reject all you want, Carl, but the fact remains that it is. You have taken the low road, while claiming the opposite. It is simply a term that refers in "shorthand" form to a panoply of falacies that are often cited as "reasons why we MUST keep Morse testing" ... none of which hold water and all of which have been rejected by the FCC. I have always presented well-reasoned, factual, and unemotional arguments in support of code testing. RTFLMAO!!! Please don't hold me up to the same light as those who may have transgressed in the manner which you refer to above. Above all, please remember that by far, the largest portion of the QRM in the code/no-code debate has been from the NCTA side. ROTFLMAO some more ... Also remember that as one who has never used the Morse/CW mode to an extent which would have allowed you to gain useful proficiency in the mode, you are not qualified to judge the value of this mode at all. You are totally wrong on this assertion ... I know the code, had "useful proficiency" (nearly 20 wpm at my peak), but haven't used it in a long time ... I am certainly qualified to judge the value of the mode (at least for my purposes, and also in more general terms). I'm not sitting here trying to argue technical topics with you, so don't you try to tell me that the Morse/CW mode and testing aren't of value to the ARS. We are not on each other's respective levels of expertise. Since I'm more than willing to respect your technical expertise, don't presume to challenge my qualifications to make judgments about CW and code testing, because you don't know what your talking about. Larry, I don't demean your "real ham-ness" because you are not my equal on the technical plane, but you demean the "real ham-ness" of anyone who is up to your "standards" of Morse prowess ... I think you're arrogance and narrow-mindedness are showing again. Carl - wk3c One major problem that is being ignored is that these alleged 20 wpm Extras are the multiple guess guys. Probably doing good to make it to ten WPM. Just hunt, peck and hope. One other 'minor' detail, is that they ALL were taught on 11 meters. How many real hams. Say those that were not infected by the CB crap do these things? Dang few I would venture. Unless they were like Polly and Billy Jack....Conditionals that were Grandfathered in back in the early 60s. Lets see some real figures. Not conjecture. Dan/W4NTI |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Kim W5TIT" writes: Of course not. But I can accurately say that there is no need to roll everyone who wants to see an end to the test element, into the "no CW use" minority (note I said minority), either. Agreed! Point is, however, that the "no one" statement is simply not correct. Let's recall that you are far more into definition than I am, Jim. When I say "no one" it may not mean *everyone* but it means enough to be counted as no one. I believe that the number of folks who wish to see an end to CW in the bands of the ARS are so miniscule that the projection of that ever being a reality is moot. Anyone, *anyone* who allows theirself (bad English) to get all in a huff about CW use going away or being legislated out of ham radio is being foolish. Not necessarily. Not after seeing the mode (not just the test) attacked the way I have. I've seen it attacked also. But I've never for a moment given it any kind of merit--the mode simply would never be banned from the ARS. Has any mode ever been banned? Sure, rules have changed; rules pertaining to power limits, rules pertaining to test requirements, rules pertaining even (I believe) to *where* in the bands that different modes are allowed or not. But I doubt a mode would ever be banned, once implemented and in place. There are a few who have been proponents of seeing the end of CW; and when I see those posts, I yawn and go on. That's *you* - not everyone. I can't imagine anyone giving merit to the thought that a mode would be banned. Maybe I am being unrealistic. Using history as a perspective of measurement; I don't see it ever happening. There will never be an end to CW use, and it would never be banned from use in the ham bands...it just wouldn't. I think it would be unrealistic to think it would. I hope you are right about that. Some of us are not about to "trust to the kindness of strangers" however I think I believe it enough that I'll eat my sock (the right foot sock) if it ever happens. And, if it was based off a majority of users of the bands, I rest assured knowing that most would not support an end to CW use. Not now, anyway. My term "most" includes those people who now and in the future have any kind of romantic thought about the ARS. And, I think most do. There are the few who would see an end to something they don't like. But, given the desire and will of most ARS folks, CW--nor any mode for that matter--will disappear. Now, if I am wrong about history just let me know and I *may* change my belief. I think those who are in the minority are there mostly for the shock value of it. Perhaps. But not too long ago, the mere suggestion of *any* class of ham license with no code test would have gathered almost no support. And the idea of the total abolition of code testing would have been discarded with the claim that *no-one* wanted all code testing to end. I can see requirements changing, etc. But, I cannot see the FCC ever saying, "OK, no more ______ as a legal mode in the ARS." They way to outlaw something is little by little. Remember your concerns about the restrictions on privacy brought about by 'homeland security' responses? Little by little.... I have never doubted that the government would do as they have done. I daresay they were doing under different guises for many years now. Nothing different there. It's all about expectation. The expectation that the FCC would ever ban a mode is minimal for me. There was a time when AM was king of the 'phone modes. Then SSB came a long and took center stage, while AM was relegated to niche status. Most folks said "No-one is against the *use* of AM".... But, did the FCC ever get anywhere close to seeing its use banned? I am not, remember, saying that a mode would become so unpopular or disliked on a scale such that it would be rare to find it openly being used. I am saying, however, that I believe the FCC would never regulate its ban. But that was not good enough for some, and proposals have arisen every so often to effectively outlaw AM from the ham bands. HF ham bands, anyway. So far, none of them have been successful. And, I don't think they ever would be. Up until 20 years ago, the amateur power limit was 1 kW DC input to the stages delivering power to the antenna. Then the rules changed to 1.5 kW PEP output. For the AM folks, this was effectively a lowering of the power limit to about half of what it had been before the change. For SSB folks, it was effectively about a 50% raise of the power limit. LIttle by little... 73 de Jim, N2EY I do see things changing in the ARS, but not related to the outlawing of a mode. Kim W5TIT Spark was banned. Wide band FM was banned from HF. For decades all we could do was talk and do CW. It was years fighting to get SSTV allowed. Then digital, other than RTTY was another long road. Most of the time the FCC simply didn't bother to authorize a new mode. Thats how it works Hug and Chalk. Dan/W4NTI |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com