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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
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

Bad judgement?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote


We (NCI) have no problem with code USE.


I believe that is the official position of NCI, but sometimes "body
language" gives a different perception.

For example, on our web home page, NCI goes to some length to make
it's position "crystal clear" that

"2. Manual radiotelegraphy communications has been
superceded by more modern, reliable, accurate,
faster and efficient means of communication. "

That "crystal clear" statement doesn't speak to TESTING at all. It
speaks to things like reliability, accuracy, speed, and efficiency of
communications. In other words, issues surrounding the USE of the
mode. That sort of official statement, along with the propensity of
the Executive Director to publicly portray Morse USERS in a
less-than-favorable light, creates impressions which run counter to
your assertion above.

I have separately petitioned the Board of Directors to make a single
simple organizational change which would go MILES toward reinforcing
your statement above. I'll await with interest the report of the next
quarterly meeting of the Board of Directors.

73, de Hans, K0HB
NCI # 4303 http://www.nocode.org

That "crystal clear" statement doesn't speak to TESTING at all. It
speaks to things like reliability, accuracy, speed, and efficiency of
communications. In other words, issues surrounding the USE of the
mode. That sort of official statement, along with the propensity of
the Executive Director to publicly portray Morse USERS in a
less-than-favorable light, creates impressions which run counter to
your assertion above.

I have separately petitioned the Board of Directors to make a single
simple organizational change which would go MILES toward reinforcing
your statement above. I'll await with interest the report of the next
quarterly meeting of the Board of Directors.

73, de Hans, K0HB
NCI # 4303 http://www.nocode.org


Oh no your in trouble now, I ll bet you as we speak, your member number is
being discarded. If you had gotten permission to make the above statements with
Karls permission, you would have probably been OK.

"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?


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.


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


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. 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. 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. 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. I think those who are in the
minority are there mostly for the shock value of it.

Kim W5TIT

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

"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?


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.

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


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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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....

There was a time when AM was king of the 'phone modes. Then SSB came a long and
took center stage, while AM was relegated to niche status. Most folks said
"No-one is against the *use* of AM"....

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.

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...

73 de Jim, N2EY

"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. 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.


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


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.


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."


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
long 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.


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...

73 de Jim, N2EY


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

Kim W5TIT