In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

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.

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.

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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

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.

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


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

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote



The term "******" (excuse me, to anyone who is offended
by that word--me included) isn't derogatory until some
bigoted person uses it against another person, either.
No hazard, at all, in being honest.


Of course it's derogatory, no matter who uses the word.

True story.....

In the winter of 2001/02 K0CKB and I were vacationing in the
southwest. We had parked our RV in the lovely town of Big Spring,
Texas for a couple of days, and I had my truck down at the local
"quick lube" place for an oil change. A local fellow also having his
truck lubed noticed a "Sailors have more fun" bumper sticker on my
truck, and struck up a conversation about his days in the Navy. Like
me, he had spent some time in the brown water Navy running PBR's in
the Mekong, so a lively conversation ensued. In discussing some of
his close calls, he attributed his survival to "his big ******", who
was one of his crewman, apparently a big man who was particularly good
with heavy weapons. He had liberated a 50-calibre from a wrecked
aircraft and mounted it on the bow of the PBR in place of the lighter
'regulation' mount, and was extremely adept at using the gun. The
fellow cited this the single most important reason his craft had
survived Now in the context of the conversation it was apparent to
everyone present that he held this crewman in VERY high regard. Yet
the term was patently as derogatory as if he had called the man a
mo----f---er, a c--ks---ker, or any other demeaning name. Two
bystanders (not minorities) took the guy to task for his choice of
words, and he apologized.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote



The term "******" (excuse me, to anyone who is offended
by that word--me included) isn't derogatory until some
bigoted person uses it against another person, either.
No hazard, at all, in being honest.


Of course it's derogatory, no matter who uses the word.

True story.....

In the winter of 2001/02 K0CKB and I were vacationing in the
southwest. We had parked our RV in the lovely town of Big Spring,
Texas for a couple of days, and I had my truck down at the local
"quick lube" place for an oil change. A local fellow also having his
truck lubed noticed a "Sailors have more fun" bumper sticker on my
truck, and struck up a conversation about his days in the Navy. Like
me, he had spent some time in the brown water Navy running PBR's in
the Mekong, so a lively conversation ensued. In discussing some of
his close calls, he attributed his survival to "his big ******", who
was one of his crewman, apparently a big man who was particularly good
with heavy weapons. He had liberated a 50-calibre from a wrecked
aircraft and mounted it on the bow of the PBR in place of the lighter
'regulation' mount, and was extremely adept at using the gun. The
fellow cited this the single most important reason his craft had
survived Now in the context of the conversation it was apparent to
everyone present that he held this crewman in VERY high regard. Yet
the term was patently as derogatory as if he had called the man a
mo----f---er, a c--ks---ker, or any other demeaning name. Two
bystanders (not minorities) took the guy to task for his choice of
words, and he apologized.

73, de Hans, K0HB


Hans, unfortunately, that term is freely used down here. I've heard it from
perfect strangers if I happen to be with the common friend of another and
they just chat for a few minutes, to a close gathering of all friends who
freely express that form of hatred, regardless of how they know I feel about
it. I have dropped three, what I thought was, very good friends in the last
two years over this issue. Not only the "term" but the emotion of bigotry
*and* racism that goes along with it, is alive and well down here.

I freely express disdain at the emotion of bigotry and racism and have often
been chastised for it. Now, among my black friends I am called that
name--and, I admit, it still throws me when they use--but I am told over and
over again that the use of that word "among them" is an expression of
kindred spirit. I still tell them I don't like it. I tell them to call me
by the affectionate name one of my girlfriends calls me, "Boo."

I have also met blacks (and people from other ethnic groups) who are bigots
and racists and I have just as much disdain for them.

Kim W5TIT

I tell them to call me
by the affectionate name one of my girlfriends calls me, "Boo."

I heard she calls you BOY.

"WA8ULX" wrote in message
...
I tell them to call me
by the affectionate name one of my girlfriends calls me, "Boo."

I heard she calls you BOY.



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

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?

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote



The term "******" (excuse me, to anyone who is offended
by that word--me included) isn't derogatory until some
bigoted person uses it against another person, either.
No hazard, at all, in being honest.


Of course it's derogatory, no matter who uses the word.


Pure BS....... words mean nothing!!! It's the racist asshole behind the
words you need to be concerned with. Remember the phrase "Sticks and stones
may break my bones, but names will never hurt me?" I am more concerned with
the sticks and stones!!!!!



--
Ryan, KC8PMX

"Symbolism is for the simple minded....."

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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

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.

Kim:

Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use.

I would assert that being forced to learn code to gain access to HF
"soured" more people on code use than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked code and continued to
use it, but MANY simply endured something they had no interest in
to get past the test, then "threw away the key."

Remember the old adage "honey is better than vinegar."

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.

Translation: Larry and his "kindred spirits" are either unwilling to expend
the effort to (or incapable of *politely*) encourage people to "give the
code a try and see if you like it." And, they are apparently unwilling to
take "No thanks, not interested" for an answer. Thus, they continue to
seek to have the FCC mandate an arguably counter-productive "recruiting
program" for them ...

73,
Carl - wk3c