"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


"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.


That would be those engineers who understood the real value of simple,
effective, easily implemented baseline communications which can be used
from almost anywhere with the least amount of simple equipment
imaginable.
Carl never did understand any of this, and of course it doesn't match
his agenda, so it has no validity to him.


Then I guess the many other services which, at one time, did use morse
(i.e. military, marine, etc); but ended its use some time ago didn't
have the engineering folks that "understood the real value...."

And there *you* go again. No one has ever even suggested that any
other entity use morse in place of more advanced modes. Maybe you in
Joisey will never find yerself in circumstances where you could well
make use of it. Others have clearly demonstrated otherwise, but your
agenda will not be penetrated by so mundane a thing as a fact.

So where is that fact in the comments before the FCC now or in
the 98-143 comments. Whatever few claims may have been
made they failed to convince the FCC of being of sufficient
occasion(s) or impact to retain code testing. Reminds me of the
anti-raise the speed limit crowd who would argue that 55mph
should be retained if it saves but one life. that's nothing
but an emotional argument that doesn't hold sway with the bottom line
risk/reward analysis we alkl make every day we go out into the world.

The PCTA folks argue CW is needed "just in case" yet the "case"
is all but nonexistent or of such low volume that the economics
or mandating a requirment "just in case" doesn't make sense except
when the argument is to the extreme of...even if it is only used
or needed once in a great while.

The issue is one of personal choice, not need, as to ever using morse
anymore. At best, there is but a handful of anecdotal references to
morse being claimed as being "the only mode usable" under some
actual emergencies. Those that claim morse is needed for emergencies
fail to show any reliance on the mode in the vast (probably 90+ percent)
domain of those organizations (RACES, ARES, etc) that actually
put in place teams of operators, stations and portable equipment.

What that says is that never again shall any significant use of
radiotelgraphy *ever* again see a need arise.

Yep, that's pretty much a statement I agree with.

And that clearly is a possibility.

At least you agree on something.

Just as much a possibility as the impossibility of what
happened on Sept 11, 2001 seemed in advance of that date. QED.

The relavence to morse code test requirement being????

In over 32 years as an RF engineer, I have not had the same experience.

This would be no surprise, given your OBVIOUS hatred of
radiotelegraphy.

Dick would have us believe he can read people's minds as
to their likes/dislikes.

If you had a zealot ranting and raving on
such a subject each and every time it came up would YOU bring it up, or
see to it that you never involved yourself in such a conversation with
him?

Since it is likly you've never engaged Carl in and direct
conversation I find your claim he is or would be "ranting
and raving" about anything.

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 the
don't have to waste their time on Morse)

Mygawd man, no one in his right mind, having once endured that diatribe,
would be eager to have to go through it all over again. You have it
programmed into your psyche, if not in a keyboard macro. Naturally they
avoided any act or word which would have keyed your internal macro. Who
wouldn't?

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.

That *might* be a bit difficult given that even Carl, their vaunted
leader, is a SSB ratchjaw, not given to even putting a digital HF
station on the air, much less doing any "amsteur digital design".


Dick appears to question the technical competency and contribution(s)
Carl has made.

Carl talks the talk. No walk.

And you make that statement based on what? What, if anything,
do you know of Carl's contribution to technology...be it directly
related to ham radio or not?

Most of the avid CW ragchewers/contesters I've known over the years
(remember, I'm a long-time ham)

Ah, it MUST be pointed out here that your tenure as a longtime ham did
not include close connection to *anyone* who was seriously involved in
radiotelegraphy in any way. And I know that how? By your actions here!
It's completely safe to say that no one would tolarate your attitude as
a friend, not likely as even a casual acquaintance, given the lever of
vituperation you have always shown toward CW. So what would anyone
expect your experience to be??

So how do you explain my comradeship with hams that are avid
CW users yet are fuly aware of my role in NCI to end code tetsing?

Perhaps it's that you have a more engaging personality than Carl.
He has a real problem in that regard.

As above, unless you have had direct personal contact with an individual,
I would be very hesitent to judge that person's personality based solely
on RRAP commentary.

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 ...

Same old, same old... Make the CW supporters appear to be Luddites-an
accusation you have repeated many times here on rrap=-Go googling for
the facts if anyone doubts it.

The FACTS are that the CW suppoorters are far most often the users of
advanced digital modes. I'd wager that Carl has never been on the air
using CLOVER II. I have.

So are you saying only "CW suppoorters" (sic) or a majority of same
are likly to be users of advanced digital modes?

In this particular tussle it is clearly the majority.

"Clearly" based on what data?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK