"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
I think Jim was stretching it a little far to decide to be offended by the
phrase "jump through the hoop" and "waste their valuable time." But, that's
my opinion...

Oh, my. Such language.

Kim, it's more important than ever before to be offended about
something, or by someone; anything at all.

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
I just saw another accusation of Pro-Coders as technically backwards.

Yet some of the most progressive RF Engineers and Technicians I know
(who are Hams) are really enamored of Morse CW.

In over 32 years as an RF engineer, I have not had the same experience.
The most technical folks have seemed more interested in the technical
side of ham radio and there have been MANY who I could not recruit
into ham radio because they had no interest in and were unwilling to waste
their valuable time learing Morse to a level that would get them decent
HF privs. (some have capitulated and jumped through the 5 wpm hoop
since "restructuring" and are now extras, but many have refused, on
principal, to jump through the hoop, saying they'll wait until they don't
have to waste their time on Morse)

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.

Most of the avid CW ragchewers/contesters I've known over the years
(remember, I'm a long-time ham) have been more interested in the operating
activity (ragchewing, contesting, paper-chasing) than the technical side.
My experience has been that they have been less technically inclined than
a lot of the no-code techs I've met, less inclined to participate in
public
service/emergency communications, and more inclined to just being "users"
rather than tinkerers ...

Remember, this is my personal experience, and since it seems to differ
from
yours, YMMV ...

I would also challenge them to do it without being abrasive or
insulting.

I think I've met the challenge ...

Just facts or intelligent informed opinions.

Since there are no authortative, scientific statistics (and probably never
will
be), I think that all you can expect to get are peoples accounting of
their
own
personal experiences. Mine are admitedly coming from the fact that I'm
"in
the business" of RF engineering ... but through local clubs and ARES/RACES
participation over the past 25+ years, my observations seem to hold, even
amongst contacts/acquaintences/friends who are not "in the profession."
Remember, YMMV ...


Pro coders can help by refraining from name calling too.

We shall see ...

My statement is that there is no direct relationship.

The evidence is anecdotal will, as I point out, vary from person
to person, depending on their location, profession, the "slant"
of the local club(s) they belong to, etc.

Anyone ready for a real discussion without the barbs? Can we do it?
First person to start throwing insults only makes it look bad for
his/her side.

I think I've taken the high ground ... we'll see how the other side deals
with it ...

73,
Carl - wk3c


Well Carl in my personal experience (my own) I am quite good at CW, and
spent most of my life in the Electronics field. All self taught (Morse and
theory). Never been to a electronics tech school, but managed to make a
living in the field for years.

Dan/W4NTI

"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.

I don't mourn the end of Morse testing, but I recognize the fact that
many honorable folks disagree with me, and I try to treat their
opinions with respect.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
"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" ??? You must have
REALLY thin skin Hans.

I don't mourn the end of Morse testing, but I recognize the fact that
many honorable folks disagree with me, and I try to treat their
opinions with respect.

I accept that some disagree with the elimination of Morse testing
as a requirement for access to HF ... it is their reasons for disagreeing
that I disagree with, cannot support because they are illogical and
inaccurate, and I resent their condescending attitude that "nobody
is/or can be a 'Real Ham' without being Morse proficient.

BTW .. I liked your comments on the Speroni petition ... and
I didn't accuse you of being abrasive with the bit a the end about
"casting it aside with great force" or whatever the exact wording
was.

73,
Carl - wk3c

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"
"dinosaur/buggywhip technology"

Would you like your favorite modes described that way?

You must have
REALLY thin skin Hans.

In my experience Hans does not have a 'thin skin' at all.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"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.
Wy is a comment which describes time wwasted by people who
don't wish to expend it learning morse considered uncomplimentary?

"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.

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.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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"
"dinosaur/buggywhip technology"

Would you like your favorite modes described that way?

You must have
REALLY thin skin Hans.

In my experience Hans does not have a 'thin skin' at all.


Hey Jim you forgot the "old manual transmission saw" ....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 would 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". On the serious side
....I feel a bit sad that people, for whatever reason, won't get to enjoy
an "avocal" means of communication utilizing the computer that the we all
have.

73 God Bless Tom Popovic KI3R Belle Vernon PA

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


In over 32 years as an RF engineer, I have not had the same experience.
The most technical folks have seemed more interested in the technical
side of ham radio and there have been MANY who I could not recruit
into ham radio because they had no interest in and were unwilling to waste
their valuable time learing Morse to a level that would get them decent
HF privs. (some have capitulated and jumped through the 5 wpm hoop
since "restructuring" and are now extras, but many have refused, on
principal, to jump through the hoop, saying they'll wait until they don't
have to waste their time on Morse)

Carl:

Now, there's classic NCTA logic for you! You and your fellow
professional RF engineers, with your "code testing as a hoop"
mentality, have actually wasted more time by *not* learning the
code and passing the code tests than you have saved. For one
thing, as ham radio history has proved many times, those of
you who made the attempt to learn the code and upgrade through
the progressively higher-speed code tests may have very well
become enthusiastic CW operators, and ultimately, PCTA's.
All you've done is demonstrate that even professionally-qualified
electronics technicians and engineers can be just as lazy and
unmotivated to learn a useful communications skill as a truck
driver whose main RF experience is on 11-meters.

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.

Most of the avid CW ragchewers/contesters I've known over the years
(remember, I'm a long-time ham) have been more interested in the operating
activity (ragchewing, contesting, paper-chasing) than the technical side.
My experience has been that they have been less technically inclined than
a lot of the no-code techs I've met, less inclined to participate in public
service/emergency communications, and more inclined to just being "users"
rather than tinkerers ...

And my experience, and that of many of the PCTA posters in this NG,
has been exactly the opposite.

Remember, this is my personal experience, and since it seems to differ from
yours, YMMV ...

Indeed, it does.

I would also challenge them to do it without being abrasive or insulting.

I think I've met the challenge ...

Hmmm. I think the statement that code testing is "jumping through
a hoop" is questionable, but I'll let it slide.

Just facts or intelligent informed opinions.

Since there are no authortative, scientific statistics (and probably never
will
be), I think that all you can expect to get are peoples accounting of their
own
personal experiences. Mine are admitedly coming from the fact that I'm "in
the business" of RF engineering ... but through local clubs and ARES/RACES
participation over the past 25+ years, my observations seem to hold, even
amongst contacts/acquaintences/friends who are not "in the profession."
Remember, YMMV ...

My experiences would seem to be the polar opposite of your own, and for
the exact same reasons. Yes, MM does V.

Pro coders can help by refraining from name calling too.

We shall see ...

Well, so far, I seem to have violated that injunction, since I have indulged
in calling NCTA's "lazy." However, I consider that to be honesty, not
name calling. Therefore, in fairness, that needs to "slide" as well.

My statement is that there is no direct relationship.

The evidence is anecdotal will, as I point out, vary from person
to person, depending on their location, profession, the "slant"
of the local club(s) they belong to, etc.

Agreed. However, my own experience is that technically involved
no-coders also tend to be reticent to indulge in stating their opinion
about code testing. It is the ones who just want a microphone in
their hot little hands who seem to be all worked up about it.

Anyone ready for a real discussion without the barbs? Can we do it?
First person to start throwing insults only makes it look bad for
his/her side.

I think I've taken the high ground ... we'll see how the other side deals
with it ...

Your high ground will hardly require the use of supplemental O².
Being on "the other side," I feel that I have taken an approach based
on honesty, since I've actually lived on *both* sides. I therefore claim
the same "high ground." Move over, Carl!

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


In over 32 years as an RF engineer, I have not had the same experience.
The most technical folks have seemed more interested in the technical
side of ham radio and there have been MANY who I could not recruit
into ham radio because they had no interest in and were unwilling to
waste
their valuable time learing Morse to a level that would get them decent
HF privs. (some have capitulated and jumped through the 5 wpm hoop
since "restructuring" and are now extras, but many have refused, on
principal, to jump through the hoop, saying they'll wait until they don't
have to waste their time on Morse)

Carl:

Now, there's classic NCTA logic for you! You and your fellow
professional RF engineers, with your "code testing as a hoop"
mentality, have actually wasted more time by *not* learning the
code and passing the code tests than you have saved.

No, those who chose not to jump through the hoop wasted NO
time ... they devoted their discretionary time to other technical
pusuits without required hoop jumping ... a loss to the ARS.

For one
thing, as ham radio history has proved many times, those of
you who made the attempt to learn the code and upgrade through
the progressively higher-speed code tests may have very well
become enthusiastic CW operators, and ultimately, PCTA's.

A modest percentage, perhaps, but those folks would likely
have given Morse a try and become Morse enthusiasts without
having been forced into it by a test requirement. And while
some may have become Morse enthusiasts voluntarily, that
does not mean that they would have become PCTAs, seeking
to force Morse on everyone.

All you've done is demonstrate that even professionally-qualified
electronics technicians and engineers can be just as lazy and
unmotivated to learn a useful communications skill as a truck
driver whose main RF experience is on 11-meters.

Now that is derogatory and not based in any fact.

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.

Most of the avid CW ragchewers/contesters I've known over the years
(remember, I'm a long-time ham) have been more interested in the
operating
activity (ragchewing, contesting, paper-chasing) than the technical side.
My experience has been that they have been less technically inclined than
a lot of the no-code techs I've met, less inclined to participate in
public
service/emergency communications, and more inclined to just being "users"
rather than tinkerers ...

And my experience, and that of many of the PCTA posters in this NG,
has been exactly the opposite.

Remember, this is my personal experience, and since it seems to differ
from
yours, YMMV ...

Indeed, it does.

I would also challenge them to do it without being abrasive or
insulting.

I think I've met the challenge ...

Hmmm. I think the statement that code testing is "jumping through
a hoop" is questionable, but I'll let it slide.

Just facts or intelligent informed opinions.

Since there are no authortative, scientific statistics (and probably
never
will
be), I think that all you can expect to get are peoples accounting of
their
own
personal experiences. Mine are admitedly coming from the fact that I'm
"in
the business" of RF engineering ... but through local clubs and
ARES/RACES
participation over the past 25+ years, my observations seem to hold, even
amongst contacts/acquaintences/friends who are not "in the profession."
Remember, YMMV ...

My experiences would seem to be the polar opposite of your own, and for
the exact same reasons. Yes, MM does V.

Pro coders can help by refraining from name calling too.

We shall see ...

Well, so far, I seem to have violated that injunction, since I have
indulged
in calling NCTA's "lazy." However, I consider that to be honesty, not
name calling. Therefore, in fairness, that needs to "slide" as well.

My statement is that there is no direct relationship.

The evidence is anecdotal will, as I point out, vary from person
to person, depending on their location, profession, the "slant"
of the local club(s) they belong to, etc.

Agreed. However, my own experience is that technically involved
no-coders also tend to be reticent to indulge in stating their opinion
about code testing. It is the ones who just want a microphone in
their hot little hands who seem to be all worked up about it.

Have you considered the possibility that those technically involved
no-coders are reluctant to subject themselves to being called
'knuckle-draggers" and "cb-plussers"???? (the sort of abuse that
at least the more vocal in the PCTA, including yourself, dish out)

Carl - wk3c

no-coders are reluctant to subject themselves to being called
'knuckle-draggers" and "cb-plussers"???

Whats the problem Karl, does the truth HURT?