"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

"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

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Now, I wouldn't expect to be able to have that sort of a relationship
with you, Dick ... you're not open-minded enough to accept that others
see things different than you. (You see, I accept that you like and use
CW ... I disagree only with your propatation of the "Morse myths" and
your insistence that everyone should have Morse forced on them in
exchange for HF privs ... fortunately, most of the rest of the world
doesn't agree with you.)

Carl - wk3c

Carl:

I consider the use of the term "Morse myths" to be derogatory and
inflammatory. Thus, you have also failed to meet Mike's challenge.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Leo
writes:

By removing the emotion, personal opinion and bias from the
discussion, some quite interesting points may well be raised.

Leo:

Emotion, personal opinion, and bias is the sum total of the NCTA
repertoire. I should know; I used to be one!

73 de Larry, K3LT

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

In article , Mike Coslo writes:


My statement is that there is no direct relationship.

Mike:

Your statement is correct. The connection between code testing/use
and technical insufficiency among radio amateurs is one of the most
specious, improbable, and self-serving arguments ever contrived by
the NCTA.

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.

Speaking from personal experience, the hams I've known who were the most
likely to be technically involved were also those who both embraced the use
of the Morse/CW mode, and supported the concept of code testing as a
licensing requirement. They were always the ones most active on the air,
not only on HF but on VHF as well -- and I mean weak-signal VHF, not FM.

I have also known a lot of highly technical "no-coders," but their contribution
was mainly in the arena of FM repeaters. However, they have, for the most
part, been unconcerned about the code testing issue, since they had no
aspirations to operate HF. I highly value their efforts, and consider them to
be full-fledged hams. This assessment is strengthened by the fact that they
left themselves out of a debate over a topic they knew little or nothing
about.

The whole ball of wax boils down to one thing -- the willingness of a certain
group of prospective hams to meet licensing requirements which support
the learning and use of what is unquestionably one of the most versatile and
useful modes of radio communication -- CW using Morse code. Since the
ability to effectively employ this mode holds the unique requirement that the
operator acquire a physical skill, and considering the fact that many other
modes which do not levy this skill development "overhead" exist, has caused
many people to vent their frustration at this requirement, rather than make an
honest attempt to overcome it. In so doing, they have tried almost every
trick in the book, including the "code = technical decline" argument.

One cannot ignore that the principle motivation of the NCTA is just plain,
old-fashioned laziness. This is a human trait, and we are all guilty of it, to
some extent. That is not a "barb," it is just honesty. I consider myself
qualified to make that judgment, since I squandered what is now 28% of
my lifetime being on the wrong side of the code/no-code testing ideology.
My problem was I was too lazy to be bothered to learn the code and
become a licensed radio amateur. When my desire to become a ham
finally overcame my laziness, everything else fell into place in very short
order. The sooner we recognize the true motivation of the NCTA, the
sooner they will be shown to be wrong.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"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

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

Now, I wouldn't expect to be able to have that sort of a relationship
with you, Dick ... you're not open-minded enough to accept that others
see things different than you. (You see, I accept that you like and use
CW ... I disagree only with your propatation of the "Morse myths" and
your insistence that everyone should have Morse forced on them in
exchange for HF privs ... fortunately, most of the rest of the world
doesn't agree with you.)

Carl - wk3c

Carl:

I consider the use of the term "Morse myths" to be derogatory and
inflammatory. Thus, you have also failed to meet Mike's challenge.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Larry,

I don't recall Mike appointing your the judge and arbiter ...

"Morse Myths" is, as you well know by now, simply a term
that refers to all of the patently false, old wives' tales, such as
"Morse gets through when nothing else will.", "Morse is essential
for emergency communications.", "Morse acts as a 'lid filter' to
keep us from being overrun by the "mongul hordes' of CBers
who are lurking in the wings waiting to take over the ham bands."
etc.

I reject your claim that the term "Morse Myths" is derogatory and
inflamatory. It is simply a term that refers in "shorthand" form to
a panoply of falacies that are often cited as "reasons why we MUST
keep Morse testing" ... none of which hold water and all of which
have been rejected by the FCC.

Carl - wk3c

"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

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