"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, 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

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote


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 ...


I thought the thread was about Pro Code Test folks, not Pro Code User
folks. Your "official position" is that you have nothing against
Morse use, only Morse testing, yet your diatribes invariably bring
into question the technical competence of CW contesters and DXers.
How about Phone contesters and DXers --- are they more technically
competent than CW contesters and DXers? If not, then your argument is
exposed as based on your own biases, not on the facts.

I don't support the continuance of Morse testing, but I damned sure
intend to continue to support USE of Morse.

All of that aside, your premise that contesters and DXers are below
average in technical inclination doesn't align very well with reality.
Perhaps you belong to the wrong clubs. Contesters and DXers are
historically at the forefront of pushing improved technology,
especially in receiver design, antenna design, and integrating
computerized technology into their station design. The only remaining
viable manufacturer of HF radios in the US is TenTec, a company
founded and run by avid DXers/contesters, and catering to their needs.
"Force 12", the current leader in HF antenna technology is owned by
avid contesters. DigiKey, the electronics distributor was founded by
fellow members of the University of Minnesota Contest Club, mostly
electrical engineering students. (They got into business designing
and selling electronic keyers, hence the name.) Ron Stordahl, N5IN,
was one of the founders and still heads the company which is a major
employer in the city where it is based. All this from an avid CW
contester and electronics engineer.

By the way, my company just completed successful field trials of SDR
(Software Defined Radio) technology. (See
http://www.adc.com/investorrelations...LEASEID=119340
) Many of the leading people involved in the project are hams who are
also (choke) CW (and Phone) contesters.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
http://www.adc.com
http://home.earthlink.net/~k0hb

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote


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 ...


I thought the thread was about Pro Code Test folks, not Pro Code User
folks.

Hans ... read Mike's post ... *he* raised the issue of Morse USERS vs.
those who don't use Morse ... I merely related my personal experience
in that stated context.

Your "official position" is that you have nothing against
Morse use, only Morse testing,

I don't ... but I also don't agree with the claim that Morse users
are more technically astute than non-Morse users. That was what
I was addressing and it was responsive to the question/context.

yet your diatribes invariably bring

I don't think my relating my personal experience was a "diatribe."
Give it a rest Hans.

into question the technical competence of CW contesters and DXers.
How about Phone contesters and DXers --- are they more technically
competent than CW contesters and DXers? If not, then your argument is
exposed as based on your own biases, not on the facts.

No, my comment was not based on bias ... I clearly stated it was based
on my personal experience and "YMMV."

I don't support the continuance of Morse testing, but I damned sure
intend to continue to support USE of Morse.

Then we are in the same camp ...

All of that aside, your premise that contesters and DXers are below
average in technical inclination doesn't align very well with reality.
Perhaps you belong to the wrong clubs. Contesters and DXers are
historically at the forefront of pushing improved technology,
especially in receiver design, antenna design, and integrating
computerized technology into their station design. The only remaining
viable manufacturer of HF radios in the US is TenTec, a company
founded and run by avid DXers/contesters, and catering to their needs.
"Force 12", the current leader in HF antenna technology is owned by
avid contesters. DigiKey, the electronics distributor was founded by
fellow members of the University of Minnesota Contest Club, mostly
electrical engineering students. (They got into business designing
and selling electronic keyers, hence the name.) Ron Stordahl, N5IN,
was one of the founders and still heads the company which is a major
employer in the city where it is based. All this from an avid CW
contester and electronics engineer.

I didn't say *all* CW enthusiasts, contesters, and paper chasers were
non-technical ... I just related my own personal experience ... which
varies from yours. (sheesh ...)


By the way, my company just completed successful field trials of SDR
(Software Defined Radio) technology. (See

http://www.adc.com/investorrelations...LEASEID=119340
) Many of the leading people involved in the project are hams who are
also (choke) CW (and Phone) contesters.

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.)

Carl - wk3c

"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/

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Works for me.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
link.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.

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.

Kim W5TIT

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

"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

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

In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:


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:

One year ago, I traded in a perfectly good 2001 Toyota Corolla LE with
a 5-speed manual gearbox for a new 2003 model with an automatic
transmission. However, I still see the need for code testing in the ARS.
I own a few rifles and handguns, but wouldn't want to bet my life on my
proficiency with a compound bow. However, I still see the need for
code testing in the ARS. How do you explain that?

73 de Larry, K3LT