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

Remember Bill.......... The P in PCTA could also stand for the word POST as
well!!!! :)

Ryan


Actually, with friends like WA8ULX, the PCTA folks don't need any
enimies as such personal attacks discredit the PCTA position very well.

The reality is that personal attacks rather than comments
(acrimonius or not) about morse or any other mode are significantly
different. If I consider FORDS to be a crap automobile, that
is considerably different than calling FORD OWNERS "knuckle
draggers".

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article .net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"WA8ULX" wrote in message
...
no-coders are reluctant to subject themselves to being called
'knuckle-draggers" and "cb-plussers"???

Whats the problem Karl, does the truth HURT?

Actually, with friends like WA8ULX,

I don't think Bruce is a friend of either side. Or ham radio, for that matter.

the PCTA folks don't need any
enimies as such personal attacks discredit the PCTA position very well.

If that's true, do the personal attacks by others discredit the NCTA position?

Fact is, Bruce discredits only himself.

The reality is that personal attacks rather than comments
(acrimonius or not) about morse or any other mode are significantly
different. If I consider FORDS to be a crap automobile, that
is considerably different than calling FORD OWNERS "knuckle
draggers".

Sure.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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")

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

In article Iw0ib.539895$Oz4.443507@rwcrnsc54, "garigue"
writes:

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" ...

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.

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.

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".

No mode always gets through. Some modes, however, get through when some other
modes don't.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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'

Wy 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.

What is wrong with saying:

"I don't want to *spend* the time necessary to learn...."

"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.

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'.

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'.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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?

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

"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/

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

No mode always gets through. Some modes, however, get through when some other
modes don't.

Jim:

Indeed. And more often than not, it's usually good, 'ole fashion Morse/CW
which is getting through.

73 de Larry, K3LT

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. Why
do hams know the Morse code? Because they had to learn it to pass
the code tests to become licensed or obtain upgrades. In the absence
of a code testing requirement, why will they learn it? 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? 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. 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).

73 de Larry, K3LT