|
What makes a Pro code test Amateur a Troglodyte?
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. 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. I would also challenge them to do it without being abrasive or insulting. Just facts or intelligent informed opinions. Pro coders can help by refraining from name calling too. My statement is that there is no direct relationship. 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. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike,
An excellent idea. I for one would be very interested in seeing the logic and rationale that folks have for keeping or retiring the code test. By removing the emotion, personal opinion and bias from the discussion, some quite interesting points may well be raised. 73, Leo On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:34:37 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: 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. 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. I would also challenge them to do it without being abrasive or insulting. Just facts or intelligent informed opinions. Pro coders can help by refraining from name calling too. My statement is that there is no direct relationship. 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. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"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. 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) 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 ... Remember, this is my personal experience, and since it seems to differ from yours, YMMV ... I would also challenge them to do it without being abrasive or insulting. I think I've met the challenge ... 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 ... Pro coders can help by refraining from name calling too. We shall see ... 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. 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 ... 73, Carl - wk3c |
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. 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) 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 ... I agree that the Tech's on average have been more likely to do public support in my area. i'm also in a University town, so that can skew the results. But that's okay as far as my argument goes. As long as things average out, its consistent with my statement. Remember, this is my personal experience, and since it seems to differ from yours, YMMV ... I would also challenge them to do it without being abrasive or insulting. I think I've met the challenge ... 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 ... Pro coders can help by refraining from name calling too. We shall see ... 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. True enough. My main purpose here is to see if any of those who declare that PCTA's are behind the times can come up with anything substantial. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"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. 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) My experience has been different. But let's talk about yours. First off, with all due respect, I would submit that Carl is perhaps not the optimum salesperson for convincing people to take code tests in order to get a license. Carl's claim, as I read it, is that he knows RF engineers who would have become hams but for the code test. Some of them have become hams in spite of that test, or since it was lowered to 5 wpm for all classes. The question I ask is this: What does it matter to amateur radio what a person's job is, unless that person actually uses their job-related skills for amateur radio? And how many RF engineers will put that experience to work in amateur radio if the code test is removed that are allegedly being stopped today? I remember back in 1990 that this same argument was being used against the Technician code test. We were told that ham radio would get lots of new technical folks to push development of the VHF/UHF spectrum, and that such folks weren't interested in taking code tests. Yet here it is a dozen years later and there hasn't been any techno-revolution in amateur VHF/UHF. That doesn't mean there hasn't been progress, just that there hasn't been massive changes. Indeed, consider the recent developments in 24 GHz EME. Several enterprising hams have built stations for that band capable of EME QSOs (USA to Czech Republic is the current record, IIRC) using only small (~ 2 meter diameter) dishes and less than 100 watts output from the TWTs. And the mode used? 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 ... I've found more homebrewers among CW ops than any other part of ham radio. Remember, this is my personal experience, and since it seems to differ from yours, YMMV ... Of course. I would also challenge them to do it without being abrasive or insulting. I think I've met the challenge ... Almost. You wrote: "were unwilling to waste their valuable time lear[n]ing Morse" and "jumped through the 5 wpm hoop" which some folks would take as abrasive and/or insulting. Why not just say: "were unwilling to spend the time and effort" and "passed the 5 wpm test simply to meet the requirement" ? Is an RF engineer's time more valuable than, say, a doctor's or lawyer's? Suppose a doctor or lawyer wants to be a ham, but doesn't want to spend the time learning all the material in the written tests just to use a manufactured rig to chase DX. Would you say such a person did not want to waste their valuable time learning the theory needed for the Extra test? Or, perhaps, did not want to jump through the written test hoop? 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. Agreed. 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 ... Of course. Pro coders can help by refraining from name calling too. We shall see ... I think I've done that. 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. One can find anecdotes for almost any position. 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 ... Except for the "waste their valuable time" and "hoop" stuff, I'd agree. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "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. 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) 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 ... Remember, this is my personal experience, and since it seems to differ from yours, YMMV ... I would also challenge them to do it without being abrasive or insulting. I think I've met the challenge ... 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 ... Pro coders can help by refraining from name calling too. We shall see ... 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. 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 ... 73, Carl - wk3c Well Carl in my personal experience (my own) I am quite good at CW, and spent most of my life in the Electronics field. All self taught (Morse and theory). Never been to a electronics tech school, but managed to make a living in the field for years. Dan/W4NTI |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... [snip] 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". Gee, Dick your hatred of SSB is showing again ... and you failed Mike's "test" because you resorted to insults. Besides, I'm active on digital ... how the hell do you profess to know what modes I'm capable of/equipped for/using????? At least I can get PSK31 to work ... 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?? One of my best friends, now SK unfortuantely, was a CW op ... worked as radio officer on ships, was a LL telegrapher when he was a kid. 60 wpm in his head, while drunk, smoking, and playing poker was no problem for him. HE understood that CW "wasn't my thing" and we still were friends, enjoyed other aspects of ham radio together, and had a good time. 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 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. 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. With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB |
"Leo" wrote in message ... Mike, An excellent idea. I for one would be very interested in seeing the logic and rationale that folks have for keeping or retiring the code test. By removing the emotion, personal opinion and bias from the discussion, some quite interesting points may well be raised. 73, Leo Leo, The whole discussion and every possible argument pro/con on code testing has been reviewed in the comments filled under NPRM98-143 as well as several other past FCC reviews. In the 98-143 R&O which came from all those comments, the FCC found not one reason of sufficient cause to retain any code testing...EXCEPT, at that time, the ITU treaty still required code testing for hams permitted under 30MHz operation. As of July 5, 2003 the ITU treaty changed and ended mandatory morse testing completely...leaving any decision to have any morse testing that of each individual country. Given the end to the ITU treaty requirement and coupling that with the prior findings of the FCC R&O for 98-143, the only conclusion one can have is that...absent anything NEW in the arguments, the FCC should now remove all morse testing. People can argue with the past FCC findings, but nothing being offered now is anything that the FCC hasn't heard before. Add to that the fact that other administrations have already ended code testing since July 5, 2003 one can also conclude that it isn't likly that the USA will retain code anymore. In the end, it is not a matter of IF, but more simply WHEN. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"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...." 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. 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. 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) 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. 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? 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? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"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 OČ. 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 |
no-coders are reluctant to subject themselves to being called
'knuckle-draggers" and "cb-plussers"??? Whats the problem Karl, does the truth HURT? |
"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? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"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. Wy is a comment which describes time wwasted by people who don't wish to expend it learning morse considered uncomplimentary? "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. 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. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"WA8ULX" wrote in message ... no-coders are reluctant to subject themselves to being called 'knuckle-draggers" and "cb-plussers"??? Whats the problem Karl, does the truth HURT? Actually, with friends like WA8ULX, the PCTA folks don't need any enimies as such personal attacks discredit the PCTA position very well. The reality is that personal attacks rather than comments (acrimonius or not) about morse or any other mode are significantly different. If I consider FORDS to be a crap automobile, that is considerably different than calling FORD OWNERS "knuckle draggers". Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote
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 ... I thought the thread was about Pro Code Test folks, not Pro Code User folks. Your "official position" is that you have nothing against Morse use, only Morse testing, yet your diatribes invariably bring into question the technical competence of CW contesters and DXers. How about Phone contesters and DXers --- are they more technically competent than CW contesters and DXers? If not, then your argument is exposed as based on your own biases, not on the facts. I don't support the continuance of Morse testing, but I damned sure intend to continue to support USE of Morse. All of that aside, your premise that contesters and DXers are below average in technical inclination doesn't align very well with reality. Perhaps you belong to the wrong clubs. Contesters and DXers are historically at the forefront of pushing improved technology, especially in receiver design, antenna design, and integrating computerized technology into their station design. The only remaining viable manufacturer of HF radios in the US is TenTec, a company founded and run by avid DXers/contesters, and catering to their needs. "Force 12", the current leader in HF antenna technology is owned by avid contesters. DigiKey, the electronics distributor was founded by fellow members of the University of Minnesota Contest Club, mostly electrical engineering students. (They got into business designing and selling electronic keyers, hence the name.) Ron Stordahl, N5IN, was one of the founders and still heads the company which is a major employer in the city where it is based. All this from an avid CW contester and electronics engineer. By the way, my company just completed successful field trials of SDR (Software Defined Radio) technology. (See http://www.adc.com/investorrelations...LEASEID=119340 ) Many of the leading people involved in the project are hams who are also (choke) CW (and Phone) contesters. 73, de Hans, K0HB -- http://www.adc.com http://home.earthlink.net/~k0hb |
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message om... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote 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 ... I thought the thread was about Pro Code Test folks, not Pro Code User folks. Hans ... read Mike's post ... *he* raised the issue of Morse USERS vs. those who don't use Morse ... I merely related my personal experience in that stated context. Your "official position" is that you have nothing against Morse use, only Morse testing, I don't ... but I also don't agree with the claim that Morse users are more technically astute than non-Morse users. That was what I was addressing and it was responsive to the question/context. yet your diatribes invariably bring I don't think my relating my personal experience was a "diatribe." Give it a rest Hans. into question the technical competence of CW contesters and DXers. How about Phone contesters and DXers --- are they more technically competent than CW contesters and DXers? If not, then your argument is exposed as based on your own biases, not on the facts. No, my comment was not based on bias ... I clearly stated it was based on my personal experience and "YMMV." I don't support the continuance of Morse testing, but I damned sure intend to continue to support USE of Morse. Then we are in the same camp ... All of that aside, your premise that contesters and DXers are below average in technical inclination doesn't align very well with reality. Perhaps you belong to the wrong clubs. Contesters and DXers are historically at the forefront of pushing improved technology, especially in receiver design, antenna design, and integrating computerized technology into their station design. The only remaining viable manufacturer of HF radios in the US is TenTec, a company founded and run by avid DXers/contesters, and catering to their needs. "Force 12", the current leader in HF antenna technology is owned by avid contesters. DigiKey, the electronics distributor was founded by fellow members of the University of Minnesota Contest Club, mostly electrical engineering students. (They got into business designing and selling electronic keyers, hence the name.) Ron Stordahl, N5IN, was one of the founders and still heads the company which is a major employer in the city where it is based. All this from an avid CW contester and electronics engineer. I didn't say *all* CW enthusiasts, contesters, and paper chasers were non-technical ... I just related my own personal experience ... which varies from yours. (sheesh ...) By the way, my company just completed successful field trials of SDR (Software Defined Radio) technology. (See http://www.adc.com/investorrelations...LEASEID=119340 ) Many of the leading people involved in the project are hams who are also (choke) CW (and Phone) contesters. And one of the founders of the company, who is a friend and colleague of mine now, is a no-code tech (I persuaded him to get into ham radio. He has NO interest in Morse, but is a hell of a digital modes engineer.) Carl - wk3c |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote
And one of the founders of the company, who is a friend and colleague of mine now, is a no-code tech (I persuaded him to get into ham radio. He has NO interest in Morse, but is a hell of a digital modes engineer.) That's quite a story, Carl, since the company was founded in 1935 by Ralph Allison. That would put Ralph up in his 90's somewhere. Well, it's good to know he's still in engineering and keeping up with the latest trends. Give him best regards from everyone at ADC. We were under the mistaken impression that he had passed on. 73, de Hans, K0HB -- http://www.adc.com/aboutadc/history/ |
Actually, with friends like WA8ULX, the PCTA folks don't need any
enimies as such personal attacks discredit the PCTA position very well. And with people like you and Karl, Ham Radio doesnt have a chance to survive. |
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
(snip) 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. I think you're focusing on the wrong issue, Mike. When discussing the retention of code testing, the real issue is how doing so futhers the basis and purpose of Amateur Radio. The FCC has framed this several times. For example... "We are persuaded that because the amateur service is fundamentally a technical service, the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service. We note, moreover, that the design of modern communications systems, including personal communication services, satellite, fiber optic, and high definition television systems, are based on digital communication technologies. We also note that no communication system has been designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive messages in Morse code by ear. In contrast, modern communication systems are designed to be automated systems. Given the changes that have occurred in communications in the last fifty years, we believe that reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement will allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise." - FCC WT Docket No. 98-143 RM-9148 RM-9150 RM-9196 As you can see, none of this focuses on the individual people opposing or supporting code testing. Instead, it focuses on what furthers the basis and purpose of Amateur Radio. If others focused on the same, there would perhaps be far less hostility in the discussion. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
link.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. 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. Kim W5TIT |
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. Hey Jim you forgot the "old manual transmission saw" ....BTW I can't wait for all the leaps and bounds in growth of the service once CW testing is gone. I would venture to say that at least a half a dozen new modes will be created within a few months now that all of those EEs will be "activated". I would even say that I would have to eat crow as no doubt within 1 year a mode will be discovered that "will always get through". On the serious side ....I feel a bit sad that people, for whatever reason, won't get to enjoy an "avocal" means of communication utilizing the computer that the we all have. 73 God Bless Tom Popovic KI3R Belle Vernon PA |
Remember Bill.......... The P in PCTA could also stand for the word POST as
well!!!! :) Ryan Actually, with friends like WA8ULX, the PCTA folks don't need any enimies as such personal attacks discredit the PCTA position very well. The reality is that personal attacks rather than comments (acrimonius or not) about morse or any other mode are significantly different. If I consider FORDS to be a crap automobile, that is considerably different than calling FORD OWNERS "knuckle draggers". Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
In article .net, "Bill Sohl"
writes: "WA8ULX" wrote in message ... no-coders are reluctant to subject themselves to being called 'knuckle-draggers" and "cb-plussers"??? Whats the problem Karl, does the truth HURT? Actually, with friends like WA8ULX, I don't think Bruce is a friend of either side. Or ham radio, for that matter. the PCTA folks don't need any enimies as such personal attacks discredit the PCTA position very well. If that's true, do the personal attacks by others discredit the NCTA position? Fact is, Bruce discredits only himself. The reality is that personal attacks rather than comments (acrimonius or not) about morse or any other mode are significantly different. If I consider FORDS to be a crap automobile, that is considerably different than calling FORD OWNERS "knuckle draggers". Sure. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Leo
writes: An excellent idea. I for one would be very interested in seeing the logic and rationale that folks have for keeping or retiring the code test. By removing the emotion, personal opinion and bias from the discussion, some quite interesting points may well be raised. Unfortunately, it is pretty much impossible to remove personal opinion from the discussion. That's because every reason for keeping or removing the test ultimately comes down to an opinion question. For example, take the "Morse is needed for emergencies" reason. On the one hand, Morse is not used very much in emergency communication. On the other hand, it *is* still used occasionally, by hams, in emergency communications. More important, there *are* times when it when it is the only available mode that would get through in the situation. (Note that phrase "only available mode") All of the above are documented facts. The problem is, does the occasional use of Morse in emergencies mean that *all* hams *must* be tested on the mode? Some say yes, some say no, some say it's a piece of the reason. All based on personal opinion, nothing more. Boil down any of the arguments on either side, and what you wind up with is personal opinion. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article Iw0ib.539895$Oz4.443507@rwcrnsc54, "garigue"
writes: 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. Hey Jim you forgot the "old manual transmission saw" ... Not sure what you mean. In every state I know of, there's no test or restriction on manuals vs. automatics unless someone is clearly unable to drive a manual. BTW I can't wait for all the leaps and bounds in growth of the service once CW testing is gone. I would venture to say that at least a half a dozen new modes will be created within a few months now that all of those EEs will be "activated". I'm an EE. I would even say that I would have to eat crow as no doubt within 1 year a mode will be discovered that "will always get through". No mode always gets through. Some modes, however, get through when some other modes don't. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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' Wy 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. What is wrong with saying: "I don't want to *spend* the time necessary to learn...." "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. 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'. 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'. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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 |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote
And one of the founders of the company, who is a friend and colleague of mine now, is a no-code tech (I persuaded him to get into ham radio. He has NO interest in Morse, but is a hell of a digital modes engineer.) That's quite a story, Carl, since the company was founded in 1935 by Ralph Allison. That would put Ralph up in his 90's somewhere. Well, it's good to know he's still in engineering and keeping up with the latest trends. Give him best regards from everyone at ADC. We were under the mistaken impression that he had passed on. 73, de Hans, K0HB -- http://www.adc.com/aboutadc/history/ |
|
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:15 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com