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

Didnt you like that comment over hers Dan, 1 of GIRL FREINDS, maybe she just
has a problem with guys, you dont think she might be lite in the Loafers do
you?

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

"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.

Sorry, Kim, that's too much of a stretch. "No one" means "not anyone" or "not
even one person". Zero people, in other words.

"Almost no one" is what I think you intended to write. As in "Almost no one
wants to see Morse use banned".

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.

I hope you are right. However, I recall a time when the same could be said of
those who wished to see an end to code testing.

"Never" is a very long time. How many things have you seen in your lifetime
that, if someone had told you about them years ago, you would have said "That
will *never* happen in my lifetime"?

Look who is the new governor of California. Of course he's really just a front
man for term-limited Pete Wilson, but if someone had told you when the first
Conan movie came out that you were looking at the future governor of
California....

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.

"Never" is a very long time.

Has any mode ever been banned?

Yes. "Mode B" (spark) transmissions were banned for amateurs in 1927. Oddly
enough, they were not banned for the maritime services until 1966.

Amateur use of spark had just about disappeared by 1925, however.

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.

Sure. For example, once upon a time, the voice part of 80 meters was the low
end.

But I doubt a mode would ever be banned, once implemented and in place.

I hope you are right. But MARS does not allow the use of the mode on their
frequencies, by order of the military person in charge. Even if the volunteers
want to use it, they're not allowed. Why? No reason given. Many MARS folks quit
over that ruling.

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.

For your sake I hope that never becomes a necessity.

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."

I can. Not very likely, but given the changes in rules I've seen in 36 years, I
don;t count anything out.

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
along 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.

There was a docket in the 1970s that would have limited the bandwidth of all
modes on HF to 3.5 kHz in the 'phone subbands. That would have effectively
banned AM and any form of FM below 30 MHz. It was seriously considered.

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...

I do see things changing in the ARS, but not related to the outlawing of a
mode.

Lots of ways to outlaw something. Take away the spectrum where it can be used,
reduce the power level, etc.

Little by little...

73 de Jim, N2EY

My first amateur license, a Novice, was dated October 12, 1967. It arrived
October 14.

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

But I doubt a mode would ever be banned, once implemented and in place.

I hope you are right. But MARS does not allow the use of the mode on their
frequencies, by order of the military person in charge. Even if the
volunteers
want to use it, they're not allowed. Why? No reason given. Many MARS folks
quit
over that ruling.


We are discussing ARS frequencies, to use your firmness of interpretation.
:)


I think I believe it enough that I'll eat my sock (the right foot sock)
if
it ever happens.

For your sake I hope that never becomes a necessity.


I'm pretty certain.


I can see requirements changing, etc. But, I cannot see the FCC ever
saying, "OK, no more ______ as a legal mode in the ARS."

I can. Not very likely, but given the changes in rules I've seen in 36
years, I
don;t count anything out.


Well, you mentioned that "spark" was banned. Hmmmm, so there's been a ban
on a mode. However, would the ban have been a response to bandwidth usage?
I mean would spark violate the spirit of the R&R as they exist today?


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.

There was a docket in the 1970s that would have limited the bandwidth of
all
modes on HF to 3.5 kHz in the 'phone subbands. That would have effectively
banned AM and any form of FM below 30 MHz. It was seriously considered.


That's like my almost, Jim. Are we going to speak in almost terms or not?
:)


73 de Jim, N2EY


Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote



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.


Spark transmissions were outlawed (as well they should have been) so
the precedent exists.

On a more immediate note, as relates to your discussion on AM phone,
I'd have to dig out some old material to get all the facts exactly in
order, but there was a petition (in the 70's?) which the I
***believe*** the FCC had moved to the stage of an NPRM to outlaw AM
transmissions on the HF amateur bands. The rationale was that AM was
(is?) wasteful of spectrum because SSB can convey the same message in
half the bandwidth oF DSB AM phone and without those awful sounding
hetrodyning carriers. The proposal narrowly missed being adopted,
only because of a huge hue and cry from thousands of AM-forever hams
(who drew ARRL into the fight on their side). Today you're hard
pressed to find any remaining AM-ers on the band, and if the petition
were re-introduced it might well be adopted due to lack of organized
opposition. Most of the AM-forever crowd has moved to "forever".

73, de Hans, K0HB

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

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

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!

Dick:

More realistically, they couldn't use CW to communicate their way
out of an emergency even if the life of one person depended on it!
That is a much more likely scenario than any sort of "planetary" disaster.

73 de Larry, K3LT

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

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

Bill:

In that case, they must have a taste for the carbonized remains of
what could have been a tasty and nourishing meal. My condolences
to the dishwasher who must now deal with your blackened pots and
kettles.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

Jim:

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


And just to crown their ignorarance of it all, when I found a
dead-band morning where there was group of very weak Europeans coming in
on 20 meter PSK31 that wouldn't print, but their CW ID's were completely
good copy, Carl and his little lid buddy Brain Burke accuse me of "not
being able to make PSK31 work!"

Dick:

LOL! I've had that experience many times on PSK-31. I think it's
a fantastic mode, but it has it's own built-in feature which serves to
prove the value of CW!

Can you believe the clowns? I had only been working PSK31 for the past
6 or 8 months!

I know, the reason for the failure of PSK31 in that case was likely
polar phase shift, but that seems to be meaningless to our technical
genius and his pals!

Polar phase shift, eh? Seems to be a lot of that going around on PSK-31
these days! Like I said, I think it's a great mode, but it hasn't caused me
to toss my CW keys in the trash -- yet!

"Too many clowns and not enough ringmasters!"

*They're already here!"

So it would seem.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

As for the fate of the planet,
when is the sequal coming out to ID4?



Whatever it is, I didn't see the first three and have similar lack of
interest in the fourth.

Dick:

"ID4" is the production company's short name for the film which was
released under the name "Independence Day." It was only one film
and had no sequels. However, I really do suggest that you do see
it. It shows what happens when our planet is invaded by No-code
Techs. They get beat by those who know how to use Morse/CW.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

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. In article ,
"Kim W5TIT" writes:

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.

Kim:

The written exams required by the FAA for one to obtain a pilot's
license 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.

Why should the government have the responsibility to "force" people
to take exams in order to obtain a pilot's license? Where is the
government's "responsibility" to create a growing number of licensed
aircraft pilots?

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.

Well, you have a right to that disagreement, Kim. That doesn't mean
you are correct in your thinking, however.

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've never had any problem with hams who decide to stop themselves at
the Technician class, unless and until they begin to whine about code
testing, and make insulting inferences about those who support code testing.

I'd rather dismiss the test requirement for CW and have HF
thrive and active for the ARS.

There was never a problem with HF use "thriving" even when we had
code testing up to 20 WPM, Kim, so what will be the difference in the
ECTA?

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.

A lot of those CW users only became CW users because of the
requirement to be tested in Morse code proficiency. How does "history"
and "tradition" play a role in causing prospective licensed pilots to
learn and master a wide variety of knowledge necessary for the safe
operation of an aircraft?

Again, it is not up the government to be the arm of CW continuance.

Again, why is it up to government to be the arm of the continuance of
aviation -- and how do the FAA's pilot licensing requirements meet that
need?

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)

I am offended by that word, Kim -- and if you are yourself, why did you use it?
I personally have sanitized that word from my vocabulary, both spoken and
in writing. I never mention it even in jest or as an example.

isn't derogatory until some
bigoted person uses it against another person, either. No hazard, at all,
in being honest.

That word is always derogatory because it is calculated to be demeaning to
people who happen to be of the Negro (Latin for black) race. The fact that
you use it even in an attempt to prove some nebulous point about honesty
suggests that you are, indeed, prejudiced and bigoted.

73 de Larry, K3LT