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

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

I consider my time a very valuable resource as do many others.
Wy is a comment which describes time wwasted by people who
don't wish to expend it learning morse considered uncomplimentary?

Bill:

The reason is that those who have gained Morse code proficiency
have found it to be well worth the time and effort. If you haven't done
so, then you aren't a qualified judge.

"dinosaur/buggywhip technology"

Me thinks as the end approaches...the PCTA side is grasping
at straws. I suggest not playing in the political arena of change if
such phraseology offends.

The stock-in-trade of the NCTA has always been offensive phraseology.

Would you like your favorite modes described that way?

Sure wouldn't bother me. But then I've learned to disregard
most rheteroic anyway. 12 years as an elected official teaches
one to accept the heat or get out-of-the-kitchen.

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.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

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 ...

Carl:

In that case, consider my services to have been donated out of my own
generosity.

"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.",

This one is true…

"Morse is essential
for emergency communications.",

Who said that? Provide correctly attributed quote.

"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've never said that whatsoever -- in fact, on many occasions, I've gone
out of my way to note that a lot of the problems on HF phone are being
caused by 20-WPM code tested Extras.

I reject your claim that the term "Morse Myths" is derogatory and
inflamatory.

Reject all you want, Carl, but the fact remains that it is. You have taken
the low road, while claiming the opposite.

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.

I have always presented well-reasoned, factual, and unemotional
arguments in support of code testing. Please don't hold me up to
the same light as those who may have transgressed in the manner
which you refer to above. Above all, please remember that by far,
the largest portion of the QRM in the code/no-code debate has been
from the NCTA side. Also remember that as one who has never
used the Morse/CW mode to an extent which would have allowed
you to gain useful proficiency in the mode, you are not qualified to
judge the value of this mode at all. I'm not sitting here trying to
argue technical topics with you, so don't you try to tell me that the
Morse/CW mode and testing aren't of value to the ARS. We are
not on each other's respective levels of expertise. Since I'm
more than willing to respect your technical expertise, don't presume
to challenge my qualifications to make judgments about CW and
code testing, because you don't know what your talking about.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article .net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

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

Hw about morse fallicies, morse inaccuracies, erronious morse
claims? Which of these do you find acceptable?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill:

None, actually. The truth is that the Morse/CW mode is one of the most
practical, efficient, effective, and universal modes of radio communication
available to radio amateurs, and well worth the effort to gain and maintain
this particular skill. Everything you and Carl mention is nothing more than
NCTA sour grapes.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
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"

I consider my time a very valuable resource as do many others.

Everyone's time is valuable, not just RF engineers'

I agree, and nothing I said suggests otherwise.

Why is a comment which describes time wwasted by people who
don't wish to expend it learning morse considered uncomplimentary?

It says that learning the mode is a waste of time.

It is...for the person making the statement.

What is wrong with saying:

"I don't want to *spend* the time necessary to learn...."

Which, on close examination means the same thing.

"dinosaur/buggywhip technology"

Me thinks as the end approaches...the PCTA side is grasping
at straws. I suggest not playing in the political arena of change if
such phraseology offends.

Are you saying I should simply shut up and go away? That's not like you at
all,
Bill.

Nope. I'm suggesting that if the language used in discussion
is so bbjectionable, then perhaps you'd rather not play in
the political sandbox. I also think it is rather humorous that
we are down to the level of concern that we are debating such
mundane phrasology as that above.

Carl claimed he had "taken the high ground". And for the most part of that
post, he did. But he did let a few derogatory phrases slip in.

Hans, K0HB also took note of them, and Hans is definitely not a 'PCTA
grasping
at straws'.

I don't care for the "jump through the hoops" example either...
but I have no problem with "waste my time learning"

Would you like your favorite modes described that way?

Sure wouldn't bother me. But then I've learned to disregard
most rheteroic anyway. 12 years as an elected official teaches
one to accept the heat or get out-of-the-kitchen.

I thought the point of this thread was to avoid the 'heat'.

Any time there are opposing positions, there will be some heat.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"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

Bill Sohl wrote:

"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.

But that isn't my question or argument, Bill. It isn't really about the
test. I don't care if they make the taking the test punishable by
inprisonment.

My question was related to the statements that Pro coders are
technically backwards.




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.


You did just fine from the civility standpoint, but perhaps I didn't
make myself clear. This isn't about the test.


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.

Bill, it isn't about the test.


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.

I'm alomost confused here Bill! I'm saying there is no direct
relationship between being Pro-Code and technical ability.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article .net, "Bill
Sohl"
writes:

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

Hw about morse fallicies, morse inaccuracies, erronious morse
claims? Which of these do you find acceptable?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill:

None, actually. The truth is that the Morse/CW mode is one of the most
practical, efficient, effective, and universal modes of radio
communication
available to radio amateurs, and well worth the effort to gain and
maintain
this particular skill. Everything you and Carl mention is nothing more
than
NCTA sour grapes.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Yet, even if one accepts your claim that morse is...one of the most...etc
You have failed to convince the FCC (98-143) and more recently the
international radio community (WRC-03) that whatever traits
morse has it should be retained as a test requirement.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

I consider my time a very valuable resource as do many others.
Wy is a comment which describes time wwasted by people who
don't wish to expend it learning morse considered uncomplimentary?

Bill:

The reason is that those who have gained Morse code proficiency
have found it to be well worth the time and effort. If you haven't done
so, then you aren't a qualified judge.

In your humble opinion anyway.

"dinosaur/buggywhip technology"

Me thinks as the end approaches...the PCTA side is grasping
at straws. I suggest not playing in the political arena of change if
such phraseology offends.

The stock-in-trade of the NCTA has always been offensive phraseology.

I have seen the same levels on both sides...but it certainly
hasn't been the "stock and trade" of NCTA (IMHO).

Would you like your favorite modes described that way?

Sure wouldn't bother me. But then I've learned to disregard
most rheteroic anyway. 12 years as an elected official teaches
one to accept the heat or get out-of-the-kitchen.

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

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

"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

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!

I stand a better chance of helping someone else in life as a ham
without knowing any code than waiting for that unlikly
need for CW to actually be used. As for the fate of the planet,
when is the sequal coming out to ID4?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK