Element 1, Code vs. No-code, and Dad
 

Every one in awhile, I like to remind some here of what it is we're
actually talking about. Kinda like to get the big picture out there
for any potential newbies whom might be fooled into believing the
"barrier" argument that characterizes the Element 1 requirement as
being forced to "jump through hoops."

Step 1. Preparation requires that one listen to a training CD or tape
(ARRL, W5YI, etc.) to learn the sound of two or three characters per
day. There are 43 letters, numbers, punctuation marks, and Pro-signs
in all that one must memorize. Approx. two 20 min. sessions per day is
more than enough to be "reasonably" prepared to pass Element 1 after
approx. one month. (Only have time for one 20 min. session per day?
…make it two months.)

Step 2. Visit some of the websites that have sample CW QSO's.
Familiarize yourself with the format of a simple CW QSO, i.e. RST,
QTH, name, rig, antenna, etc.

Step 3. Just take the test. (And if, for some reason, you don't
pass…take it again.)

Behold the much-feared behemoth:

__________________ BT _R R_T 58_ 589. Q_H IS _HI_ADEL_HIA, _A. BT NA_E
HR IS _OHN ES A_E IS 35 Y_RS O_D. W_ HR IS CLO_DY. RI_ IS _EN_OO_. BT
AN_EN_A IS _I_OL_E.

Five minutes of very clear CW is piped into your headphones at 5-wpm,
not 13-wpm, and not 20-wpm. In the example above, N0CW has missed both
callsigns and pretty much a character or two from almost every word.
But if s/he uses just a little common sense combined with the "few
minutes" s/he's given at the end to fill in the blank, it becomes
quite clear that putting together a string of 25 correct characters is
actually quite easy. Particularly so because numbers, punctuation
marks and pro-signs count as 2 each.

N0CW DE KN0WCW BT UR RST 589 589. QTH IS PHILADEPLPHIA, PA. BT NAME HR
IS JOHN ES AGE IS 35 YERS OLD. WX HR IS CLOUDY. RIG IS KENWOOD. BT
ANTENNA IS DIPOLE.

Funny thing happened the other day. My father asked me what all the
hubbub was about re. the code. (Apparently, I had left my QST in the
car and he decided to peruse away.) I explained that some folks
consider Morse code antiquated and feel that there are better, more
modern, modes in use today. I went on to include that some also feel
that it's unfair to make newcomers "jump through hoops" to become
ARO's, thus constituting a "barrier" to some, otherwise qualified,
potential hams.

So Dad pondered for a moment and furled his 77 yr. old eyebrows and
said. "They're right, Morse code IS antiquated." My jaw dropped, "say
it ain't so!" (E tu Brute?!) He then asked me about the licensing
structure and I explained the three-tier system presently in place.
"You've gotta keep the code test in place though." Ok, now I'm a tad
confused. "Why, if it's antiquated?" I asked.

"Values, my boy…values. Just ask yourself if this is what you want to
teach your own children? Should they apply this logic to other aspects
of their lives as they grow up? How about an aspiring Engineer, why
should s/he be forced to learn history? How about an aspiring history
teacher, why should s/he learn physics? There's a bunch of different
analogies than can be applied, some good and some not so good, but
there's one common thread…values. Knowledge is NEVER wasted and
"requiring" one to attain a "reasonable" level of knowledge to enjoy
increased privileges…whether it be in the ARS, the workplace, or life
in general is fundamental to nurturing a sense of values. Let that
decay and the result will be obvious…like the recent Regents exam
fiasco. Don't lower the bar across the board; help raise the
individual's standards. It appears to me that there already exists a
no-code exam and 5-wpm seems quite reasonable…so what's all the hubbub
about?"

Then I remembered why I chose my callsign.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

In article ,
(Bert Craig) writes:


Funny thing happened the other day. My father asked me what all the
hubbub was about re. the code. (Apparently, I had left my QST in the
car and he decided to peruse away.) I explained that some folks
consider Morse code antiquated and feel that there are better, more
modern, modes in use today. I went on to include that some also feel
that it's unfair to make newcomers "jump through hoops" to become
ARO's, thus constituting a "barrier" to some, otherwise qualified,
potential hams.

So Dad pondered for a moment and furled his 77 yr. old eyebrows and
said. "They're right, Morse code IS antiquated." My jaw dropped, "say
it ain't so!" (E tu Brute?!) He then asked me about the licensing
structure and I explained the three-tier system presently in place.
"You've gotta keep the code test in place though." Ok, now I'm a tad
confused. "Why, if it's antiquated?" I asked.

Gosh, what a heartwarming story, Egbert.

I wish I could come up with such a nine story...but my father died
in 1975. He was born in 1900, the same year as my father-in-law.
Father-in-law passed on in 1977, retired after a career as a polymer
chemist. My Dad was not a college graduate, got most of his
public schooling equivalent in the Swedish Army, was also an Army
taught musician. Back in 1918 the Swedish Army still used trumpet
signals in the field so he would have been a part-time "signalman."
Both gentlemen were interested in technology as a pastime, my
father-in-law specifically on photography, my father on time-keeping
and clocks. My Dad would check the accuracy of his clock
collection against WWV time signals back in the 1960s...no radio
clocks for less than $30 then. Dad was much impressed by the
General Radio Standard at Ramo-Wooldridge where I worked in
1960 and understood about quartz crystals and oscillators from my
explanations. He was fascinated by mechanical clock movements
but at the same time loved radio and broadcasts from faraway places
like London during the WW2 blitz. Both genetlemen kept up to date
on science and technology from periodicals. Both watched the ffirst
human beings set foot on the moon in real-time television from a
quarter million miles away, each at his respective living room. That
was something astounding since both were born a year before the
first radio signals crossed the Atlantic and three years before two
bicycle mechanics made the first heavier-than-air flight.

It would be trite and cliched to say that "my Dad can beat up your
dad" but I'll lay odds that either my father or my father-in-law could
argue your father's points. Remember that they came from older
times than your father, much more conservative in upbringing and
social values, from an era when technology was just beginning to
develop and an industrial revolution had just begun.

So, I'll just have to imagine what they would say, knowing enough
about both to be reasonably accurate -

"Values, my boy…values. Just ask yourself if this is what you want to
teach your own children? Should they apply this logic to other aspects
of their lives as they grow up?

So far, no real disagreement, by my father would probably look at my
father-in-law as if to say "whatinhell is he talking about?"

How about an aspiring Engineer, why should s/he be forced to learn history?

Why not, from a socio-economic standpoint, that is logical. But,
despite thoughts common to all, the federal government does NOT
specify or regulate any college or university curriculum in the USA.

How about an aspiring history teacher, why should s/he learn physics?

My father-in-law also had a pastime of US civil war history and that
whole period...AFTER getting a degree in chemistry. Again, there
is no USA federal law controlling curricula in colleges or universities.

There's a bunch of different
analogies than can be applied, some good and some not so good, but
there's one common thread…values. Knowledge is NEVER wasted and
"requiring" one to attain a "reasonable" level of knowledge to enjoy
increased privileges…whether it be in the ARS, the workplace, or life
in general is fundamental to nurturing a sense of values.

Amateur radio is de facto a HOBBY, an avocation. It was never
otherwise despite the steady propaganda of the ARS membership
organizations. A "workplace" it is NOT.

Let that
decay and the result will be obvious…like the recent Regents exam
fiasco.

Both of my dads would agree the above analogy is trying to make a
fruit salad out of potatoes and pistachios. Wholesome ingredients
but the mixture is wrong.

Don't lower the bar across the board; help raise the
individual's standards. It appears to me that there already exists a
no-code exam and 5-wpm seems quite reasonable…so what's all the hubbub
about?"

When your father was about 27 I was already assigned to Army radio
station ADA, in communications all over the Pacific, and without ever
using, or having to use magnificent morse code or get into some kind
of pseudo "family values" that "must be forever a part of a Hobby."

The United States Army, like all the major U. S. military branches is
far older than radio, older than telegraphy, and is very mindful of
tradition and honor and service...rightfully so considering their history.
While all branches retain traditions, they do NOT let any of that
intefere with doing the job, getting it done by the best way they can
think of. The USN doesn't have wooden sailing vessels as warcraft,
the USAF doesn't fly spruce-wire-fabric biplanes, and the USA doesn't
use muskets or wear tri-cornered hats in battle. They all adapted to
the times, advanced, were not mired in old ways just because some
much-longer-ago old men said "they had to keep old values...
because that's the only values those old men knew."

Amateur radio isn't the military. It isn't a workplace. It isn't a guild
or craft or union or association of professionals. It's a HOBBY.
My fathers would try to point that out to your father, I'm sure, but
mine would add some harsh cuss words in Swedish if not English
(he could speak, read, and write in either quite well). I've not seen
any "Dr. Phil" program or other psemi-pseudo-pscientific group
emphasize olde-tyme ham radio or morse code as a "family values"
attribute or that it should be passed down through the ages... :-)

Change happens. It must. One must learn to separate tradiiton
from reality. Radio is still evolving 107 years after it was "born."

Okay, if your father insists that morse code testing has to stay
then I'll bet MY fathers are having a high old time guffawing at those
reasons, looking down at the adamant status quo insistence of
the still-living old-farts down here. :-)

Give my regards to Gisella. You might point out that her written
comments on the RMs would be better if she copied Kippi Speroni's
comments, not yours.

Happy status quo maintenance. Ciao.

LHA

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

Amateur radio isn't the military. It isn't a workplace. It isn't a guild
or craft or union or association of professionals.

Which means that the methods and standards of the military, the workplace, the
guild/craft/union or professional associations don't apply to amateur radio.

It's a HOBBY.

It's an avocation. Meaning it's done for its own sake.

But however someone chooses to describe it, does the fact that amateur radio
isn't the military, a workplace, a guild or craft or union or association of
professionals mean that there is no need for amateur radio to have values, and
standards? That seems to be your main message here.

You seem to be telling us that amateurs should not have any values, standards
or practices except those necessary to prevent amateurs from interfering with
users of other radio services. And you denigrate and insult anyone who
disagrees with you.

We've seen *your* values, standards and practices in action here, Len. They
leave a lot to be desired.

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

Amateur radio isn't the military. It isn't a workplace. It isn't a guild
or craft or union or association of professionals.

Which means that the methods and standards of the military, the workplace, the
guild/craft/union or professional associations don't apply to amateur radio.

It's a HOBBY.

It's an avocation. Meaning it's done for its own sake.

In common English an avocation is a hobby.

Hobbies aren't required to be so anal retentive about RULES and
REGULATIONS rigidly enforced by participants who greatly
desire CONTROL over directions of activities.

YOU aren't the regulatory body controlling amateur radio or
much else. The FCC is that body.

The FCC doesn't require any commissioners or staff to be
proficient in morse code in order to regulate US amateur
radio...yet you INSIST that YOU must enforce, guide, direct,
and ORDER what takes place in amateur radio.

But however someone chooses to describe it, does the fact that amateur radio
isn't the military, a workplace, a guild or craft or union or association of
professionals mean that there is no need for amateur radio to have values, and
standards? That seems to be your main message here.

I cannot help you on your misunderstandings or failure to
read what is written.

The FCC regulates, NOT the "amateur radio community."

YOU keep wanting all the rules and regulations according to
YOUR standards and practices...which are amazingly like
the direction and guidance and near-commands issued from
ARRL.

NO ONE in amateur radio is required to follow your dictates.

NO ONE outside of amateur radio is required to follow your
dictates, "explanations," or arrogant presumptions of expertise
to do as you insist.

NO ONE is required to follow rigid regulations, standards,
practices AS IF IT WERE a union, guild, craft or workplace
organization.

You seem to be telling us that amateurs should not have any values, standards
or practices except those necessary to prevent amateurs from interfering with
users of other radio services.

Absolutely. "Here are your bands, have a nice day" would be
a very free, open, and enjoyable environment for a HOBBY...
except for a certain group who wish to play-act, fantasize that
they are some sort of "professionals" in communications...or
even experts at modern radio operations.

And you denigrate and insult anyone who
disagrees with you.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...YOU cannot take an opposite viewpoint so you
once again resort to that trite phrase of "being insulted."

Poor baby.

Do you wish honors and respect for trying to hold a hobby
activity entry to the standards and practices of 70 years
ago? If so, you are not really living in this reality.

If you take that as a "denigration and insult" then I could
care less. Those who oppose freedom for a hobby activity,
require anal retentive regulations for same, or with to live in
some fantasyland where they are "leaders of technology
and expertise" are not worthy of honor or respect, just
contempt from the rest of the radio world.

We've seen *your* values, standards and practices in action here, Len. They
leave a lot to be desired.

Poor baby. FREEDOM FROM OPPRESSION is a "bad"
standard and practice, is it?

You don't have your whig on straight.

If you so adamantly oppose change and demand all shall
adhere rigidly to your own personal viewpoints, then the FCC
will accept a petition from you to forever hold the US amateur
radio service to long-ago standards and practices, especially
to love, honor, and obey morse code as the epitome of radio.

I suggest you also demand a change of the name to:

Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service

Make it a living museum of the airwaves, the last resting
place of once-mighty morsemanship. Restore the titles of
nobility on the worthy worshippers of King Kode, the
gallant knights of the brass. Make all bow before your
blue-blooded beeping highnesses. Oppose all opposition,
demand rigid adherence to the royal roiling righteous
round-tables of dits and dahs.

Most important of all: Make morse a FAMILY VALUES
attribute, to be passed from father to son, ad infinitum.

The rest of the world will treat you kindly in your delusions.
Your avocation is only a hobby, condescendingly tolerated
by the far more numerous in other radio who live in reality.

The Jukes family descendants would be proud...

LHA

Jim,

Thanks, but...

Message click
Block Sender click
Yes click
"Plonk!"

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

Amateur radio isn't the military. It isn't a workplace. It isn't a
guild
or craft or union or association of professionals.

Which means that the methods and standards of the military, the workplace,
the
guild/craft/union or professional associations don't apply to amateur
radio.

It's a HOBBY.

It's an avocation. Meaning it's done for its own sake.

But however someone chooses to describe it, does the fact that amateur
radio
isn't the military, a workplace, a guild or craft or union or association
of
professionals mean that there is no need for amateur radio to have values,
and
standards? That seems to be your main message here.

You seem to be telling us that amateurs should not have any values,
standards
or practices except those necessary to prevent amateurs from interfering
with
users of other radio services. And you denigrate and insult anyone who
disagrees with you.

We've seen *your* values, standards and practices in action here, Len.
They
leave a lot to be desired.

Let that
decay and the result will be obvious…like the recent Regents exam
fiasco. Don't lower the bar across the board; help raise the
individual's standards.


You missed the PBS article where they interviewed a Texas educator who now
is at the Federal level pushing "numbers" and standards except he fudged the
numbers back in Texas to make himself look good.

In article ,
(Bert Craig) writes:

(snip of excellent description of the 5 wpm code test)

Here's another way for those unfamiliar with Morse to look at it:

Imagine a test where the person being tested has to listen to a series of words
spoken at a slow rate (one word every 2.4 seconds) and write down the the first
letter of the word spoken. The same word is used for each occurrence of a
particular letter. So a person being tested would hear something like
"Table....History...Imagination....Salamander..... ...Imagination...Salaman
der......Nexus...Oval...Table
........History.....America......Raster.....Domini on......(etc.)

and when the letters were written down, a simple message would be spelled out.
Person being tested could go back and make corrections, too.

That's all the Morse test is - except that instead of words, there are series
of short and long tones.

Funny thing happened the other day. My father asked me what all the
hubbub was about re. the code. (Apparently, I had left my QST in the
car and he decided to peruse away.) I explained that some folks
consider Morse code antiquated and feel that there are better, more
modern, modes in use today. I went on to include that some also feel
that it's unfair to make newcomers "jump through hoops" to become
ARO's, thus constituting a "barrier" to some, otherwise qualified,
potential hams.

So Dad pondered for a moment and furled his 77 yr. old eyebrows and
said. "They're right, Morse code IS antiquated." My jaw dropped, "say
it ain't so!" (E tu Brute?!) He then asked me about the licensing
structure and I explained the three-tier system presently in place.
"You've gotta keep the code test in place though." Ok, now I'm a tad
confused. "Why, if it's antiquated?" I asked.

"Values, my boy…values. Just ask yourself if this is what you want to
teach your own children? Should they apply this logic to other aspects
of their lives as they grow up?

You can bet they'll try!

How about an aspiring Engineer, why
should s/he be forced to learn history? How about an aspiring history
teacher, why should s/he learn physics?

(irony mode=ON)

And this can be applied at any age level. Consider how, in this age of
give-away calculators, young children are forced by law to learn addition,
subtraction, multiplication and division tables. Why? When arithmetic had to be
done by hand, perhaps there was a case for it, but now we have methods that are
faster, easier, less error-prone, etc. If a kid wants to learn how to do long
division, fine, but why must arithmetic methods that go back to the ancient
Greeks be required of all children? Because "we've always done it that way"? Or
"I had to do it, so you do, too"? Heck, professionals don't rely on manual
calculations for anything important.

(irony mode=OFF)

There's a bunch of different
analogies than can be applied, some good and some not so good, but
there's one common thread…values. Knowledge is NEVER wasted and
"requiring" one to attain a "reasonable" level of knowledge to enjoy
increased privileges…whether it be in the ARS, the workplace, or life
in general is fundamental to nurturing a sense of values. Let that
decay and the result will be obvious…like the recent Regents exam
fiasco. Don't lower the bar across the board; help raise the
individual's standards. It appears to me that there already exists a
no-code exam and 5-wpm seems quite reasonable…so what's all the hubbub
about?"

BINGO.

If someone doesn't like the term "values" then the words "attitude" or
"standards" can be used.

Then I remembered why I chose my callsign.

Thanks for the reminder. Use that callsign with pride.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Andre Sarkissian"
writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote:
In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:
You seem to be telling us that amateurs should not have any values,
standards
or practices except those necessary to prevent amateurs from interfering
with
users of other radio services.

Absolutely. "Here are your bands, have a nice
day" would be
a very free, open, and enjoyable environment

That's CB.

Andre,

Thank you for clarifying Len's answer perfectly. It's quite clear that he wants
amateur radio to be nothing other than a multiband version of cb.

73 de Jim, N2EY

73 de Jim, N2EY

Thank you for clarifying Len's answer perfectly. It's quite clear that he
wants
amateur radio to be nothing other than a multiband version of cb.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Thats what all the No-Coders want,they will not admit it, but thats what there
shooting for.

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article ,
(Bert Craig) writes:

(snip of excellent description of the 5 wpm code test)

Here's another way for those unfamiliar with Morse to look at it:

Hundreds of thousands have "looked at morse" over the years,
shrugged their shoulders, and dismissed it.

Professional communications services don't use it because it
was never considered for their service to begin with, or other
services that did use it have either stopped using it altogether
or relegate it to the back room.

There's not even any landline telegraphy used in the USA and
the Morse-Vail telegraph system debuted here (Baltimore to
Washington, D.C.) in 1844.

SOME radio amateurs are still infatuated with it...but over two
hundred thousand US amateurs got into US amateur radio without
taking any code test whatsoever...in just a dozen years.

You like "Slow English?" Check with the Voice of America, maybe
they still have a few broadcasts with it.

Want to send a 100-word message with morse code at 20 WPM?
That will take 5 minutes to complete. An ancient Apple ][ with a
2400 baud modem can do that in less than a couple seconds.


So Dad pondered for a moment and furled his 77 yr. old eyebrows and
said. "They're right, Morse code IS antiquated." My jaw dropped, "say
it ain't so!" (E tu Brute?!) He then asked me about the licensing
structure and I explained the three-tier system presently in place.
"You've gotta keep the code test in place though." Ok, now I'm a tad
confused. "Why, if it's antiquated?" I asked.

"Values, my boy…values. Just ask yourself if this is what you want to
teach your own children? Should they apply this logic to other aspects
of their lives as they grow up?

You can bet they'll try!

Try what? Hold back progress?

Let's bring on Family Values of proper horsemanship, get rid of those
stinky, polluting automobiles. [and create a methane pollution no
one can imagine!]

Let's bring on Family Values of doing away with power tools to build
things or appliances to prepare and cook food. Get down to Basic
Values of physically working hard very long hours using only hand
tools. Let's have the cooks and womenfolk slave away in the kitchen
and bakery for most of the day to restore Family Values!

Let's get rid of all those damn aeroplanes that kill so many people.
On December 17 this year there's a centennial on heavier-than-air
flight. "If man was meant to fly, God would have given him wings!"
FAMILY VALUES. Old things. Walk, don't run. Stay on the
ground.

The Amish have the right idea, you think? FORBID the NEW.


"I had to do it, so you do, too"? Heck, professionals don't rely on manual
calculations for anything important.

Professionals in communications have STOPPED using morse code
for anything important to be sent.

OH, yes...your idea of Family Values in amateur radio is to love, honor,
cherish morse code. Just because you had to do it to get that much
prized extra license.

Your idea of Family Values is to act the petty little dictator by arrogant
superiority of Knowing What Is Best For All Amateurs!

Tradition. Family Values. Hold back progress. Forbid the new.

Emphasize the MODE, not the communication. That's a Family
Value?

Family? That's more like the Jukes family...

LHA

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article , "Andre Sarkissian"
writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote:
In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:
You seem to be telling us that amateurs should not have any values,
standards
or practices except those necessary to prevent amateurs from interfering
with
users of other radio services.

Absolutely. "Here are your bands, have a nice
day" would be
a very free, open, and enjoyable environment

That's CB.

Andre,

Thank you for clarifying Len's answer perfectly. It's quite clear that he
wants
amateur radio to be nothing other than a multiband version of cb.

Try not to strain yourself putting words into others' messages.

Don't get all passionate about your piquish puerile parsonage.

You were much better on the pulpit with your old Sermons On
The Antenna Mount.

I'm not at all interested in joining the Archaic Radiotelegraphy
Service.

Tens of thousands of radio people feel exactly the same way.

What did YOU do back in 1958 when U. S. Class D Citizens
Band was created?

NO test whatsoever back then, but licensed it was.

YOU've had 45 years to correct things. Doesn't appear that
YOU did anydamnthing except snap your suspenders and
look down at others from a safe distance.

Go back to Electric Radio and console yourself with state of
the art of antique radio and "designing your own gear" by
building kits.

LHA

Better yet, why bother?

Wait until the code test requirement is removed, and they
won't have to learn something they may never need to
or want to, or have the desire to do.

Clint


--


"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
Every one in awhile, I like to remind some here of what it is we're
actually talking about. Kinda like to get the big picture out there
for any potential newbies whom might be fooled into believing the
"barrier" argument that characterizes the Element 1 requirement as
being forced to "jump through hoops."

Step 1. Preparation requires that one listen to a training CD or tape
(ARRL, W5YI, etc.) to learn the sound of two or three characters per
day. There are 43 letters, numbers, punctuation marks, and Pro-signs
in all that one must memorize. Approx. two 20 min. sessions per day is
more than enough to be "reasonably" prepared to pass Element 1 after
approx. one month. (Only have time for one 20 min. session per day?
.make it two months.)

Step 2. Visit some of the websites that have sample CW QSO's.
Familiarize yourself with the format of a simple CW QSO, i.e. RST,
QTH, name, rig, antenna, etc.

Step 3. Just take the test. (And if, for some reason, you don't
pass.take it again.)

Behold the much-feared behemoth:

__________________ BT _R R_T 58_ 589. Q_H IS _HI_ADEL_HIA, _A. BT NA_E
HR IS _OHN ES A_E IS 35 Y_RS O_D. W_ HR IS CLO_DY. RI_ IS _EN_OO_. BT
AN_EN_A IS _I_OL_E.

Five minutes of very clear CW is piped into your headphones at 5-wpm,
not 13-wpm, and not 20-wpm. In the example above, N0CW has missed both
callsigns and pretty much a character or two from almost every word.
But if s/he uses just a little common sense combined with the "few
minutes" s/he's given at the end to fill in the blank, it becomes
quite clear that putting together a string of 25 correct characters is
actually quite easy. Particularly so because numbers, punctuation
marks and pro-signs count as 2 each.

N0CW DE KN0WCW BT UR RST 589 589. QTH IS PHILADEPLPHIA, PA. BT NAME HR
IS JOHN ES AGE IS 35 YERS OLD. WX HR IS CLOUDY. RIG IS KENWOOD. BT
ANTENNA IS DIPOLE.

Funny thing happened the other day. My father asked me what all the
hubbub was about re. the code. (Apparently, I had left my QST in the
car and he decided to peruse away.) I explained that some folks
consider Morse code antiquated and feel that there are better, more
modern, modes in use today. I went on to include that some also feel
that it's unfair to make newcomers "jump through hoops" to become
ARO's, thus constituting a "barrier" to some, otherwise qualified,
potential hams.

So Dad pondered for a moment and furled his 77 yr. old eyebrows and
said. "They're right, Morse code IS antiquated." My jaw dropped, "say
it ain't so!" (E tu Brute?!) He then asked me about the licensing
structure and I explained the three-tier system presently in place.
"You've gotta keep the code test in place though." Ok, now I'm a tad
confused. "Why, if it's antiquated?" I asked.

"Values, my boy.values. Just ask yourself if this is what you want to
teach your own children? Should they apply this logic to other aspects
of their lives as they grow up? How about an aspiring Engineer, why
should s/he be forced to learn history? How about an aspiring history
teacher, why should s/he learn physics? There's a bunch of different
analogies than can be applied, some good and some not so good, but
there's one common thread.values. Knowledge is NEVER wasted and
"requiring" one to attain a "reasonable" level of knowledge to enjoy
increased privileges.whether it be in the ARS, the workplace, or life
in general is fundamental to nurturing a sense of values. Let that
decay and the result will be obvious.like the recent Regents exam
fiasco. Don't lower the bar across the board; help raise the
individual's standards. It appears to me that there already exists a
no-code exam and 5-wpm seems quite reasonable.so what's all the hubbub
about?"

Then I remembered why I chose my callsign.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

Thats what all the No-Coders want,they will not admit it, but thats what
there
shooting for.

Nope.

What YOU guys won't admit is that you refuse to seperate the issues of
removing the morse code from testing requirements and removing morse
code from the air. The former issue has all the backers and the strength
of numbers; the latter does not.

however, you guys know that your side of the fence is doomed so your
trying to mischaracterize the NCTA by hoping to make everybody forget
the "T" in the word, and thus draw hams into the argument that may not
otherwise have an opinion, or be against you.

Just like I said before, nasty socialist politicians unfairly use races of
people in politics in the form of the race card to draw minorities to
thier camp as they need the extra help in thier weak argument; you guys
are, likewise, using the "they want to remove ALL code from the bands!"
argument to draw code loving hams to your side when they may not have
a problem with removing code testing.

I'm a code using ham, i've had to pass morse code tests to get my
license, but I likewise DO see code test removal as a step in the right
direction.

Sorry, but your attempt to control the debate by defining the words
and controlling the language (an old debate folly) has failed.

Clint
KB5ZHT

I just had a great QSO in the Extra part of 80cw with a 84 year old guy.
Really enjoyed it. I was running my 40 year old Hallicrafters gear and had
a blast with it.

And I came here. Bye....back to CW.

Dan/W4NTI

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message
...
Better yet, why bother?

Wait until the code test requirement is removed, and they
won't have to learn something they may never need to
or want to, or have the desire to do.

Clint


--


"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
Every one in awhile, I like to remind some here of what it is we're
actually talking about. Kinda like to get the big picture out there
for any potential newbies whom might be fooled into believing the
"barrier" argument that characterizes the Element 1 requirement as
being forced to "jump through hoops."

Step 1. Preparation requires that one listen to a training CD or tape
(ARRL, W5YI, etc.) to learn the sound of two or three characters per
day. There are 43 letters, numbers, punctuation marks, and Pro-signs
in all that one must memorize. Approx. two 20 min. sessions per day is
more than enough to be "reasonably" prepared to pass Element 1 after
approx. one month. (Only have time for one 20 min. session per day?
.make it two months.)

Step 2. Visit some of the websites that have sample CW QSO's.
Familiarize yourself with the format of a simple CW QSO, i.e. RST,
QTH, name, rig, antenna, etc.

Step 3. Just take the test. (And if, for some reason, you don't
pass.take it again.)

Behold the much-feared behemoth:

__________________ BT _R R_T 58_ 589. Q_H IS _HI_ADEL_HIA, _A. BT NA_E
HR IS _OHN ES A_E IS 35 Y_RS O_D. W_ HR IS CLO_DY. RI_ IS _EN_OO_. BT
AN_EN_A IS _I_OL_E.

Five minutes of very clear CW is piped into your headphones at 5-wpm,
not 13-wpm, and not 20-wpm. In the example above, N0CW has missed both
callsigns and pretty much a character or two from almost every word.
But if s/he uses just a little common sense combined with the "few
minutes" s/he's given at the end to fill in the blank, it becomes
quite clear that putting together a string of 25 correct characters is
actually quite easy. Particularly so because numbers, punctuation
marks and pro-signs count as 2 each.

N0CW DE KN0WCW BT UR RST 589 589. QTH IS PHILADEPLPHIA, PA. BT NAME HR
IS JOHN ES AGE IS 35 YERS OLD. WX HR IS CLOUDY. RIG IS KENWOOD. BT
ANTENNA IS DIPOLE.

Funny thing happened the other day. My father asked me what all the
hubbub was about re. the code. (Apparently, I had left my QST in the
car and he decided to peruse away.) I explained that some folks
consider Morse code antiquated and feel that there are better, more
modern, modes in use today. I went on to include that some also feel
that it's unfair to make newcomers "jump through hoops" to become
ARO's, thus constituting a "barrier" to some, otherwise qualified,
potential hams.

So Dad pondered for a moment and furled his 77 yr. old eyebrows and
said. "They're right, Morse code IS antiquated." My jaw dropped, "say
it ain't so!" (E tu Brute?!) He then asked me about the licensing
structure and I explained the three-tier system presently in place.
"You've gotta keep the code test in place though." Ok, now I'm a tad
confused. "Why, if it's antiquated?" I asked.

"Values, my boy.values. Just ask yourself if this is what you want to
teach your own children? Should they apply this logic to other aspects
of their lives as they grow up? How about an aspiring Engineer, why
should s/he be forced to learn history? How about an aspiring history
teacher, why should s/he learn physics? There's a bunch of different
analogies than can be applied, some good and some not so good, but
there's one common thread.values. Knowledge is NEVER wasted and
"requiring" one to attain a "reasonable" level of knowledge to enjoy
increased privileges.whether it be in the ARS, the workplace, or life
in general is fundamental to nurturing a sense of values. Let that
decay and the result will be obvious.like the recent Regents exam
fiasco. Don't lower the bar across the board; help raise the
individual's standards. It appears to me that there already exists a
no-code exam and 5-wpm seems quite reasonable.so what's all the hubbub
about?"

Then I remembered why I chose my callsign.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

Amateur radio isn't the military. It isn't a workplace. It isn't a
guild
or craft or union or association of professionals.

Which means that the methods and standards of the military, the workplace,
the
guild/craft/union or professional associations don't apply to amateur
radio.

Even under such an argument, the role and purpose of amateur
test requirements must be justified by more than just tradition, values and
other vague and subjective aspects.

It's a HOBBY.

It's an avocation. Meaning it's done for its own sake.

But however someone chooses to describe it, does the fact that amateur
radio
isn't the military, a workplace, a guild or craft or union or association
of
professionals mean that there is no need for amateur radio to have values,
and
standards? That seems to be your main message here.

The message is the same as that stated by the FCC in R&) for 98-143...
Rules must be justified.

(SNIP)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

I just had a great QSO in the Extra part of 80cw with a 84 year old guy.
Really enjoyed it. I was running my 40 year old Hallicrafters gear and had
a blast with it.

And I came here. Bye....back to CW.

Dan/W4NTI

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message

Some folks just can't cut it on newsgroups. Say goodnight, Dan.

"Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out"... (courtesy of
L. Roll)

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

Amateur radio isn't the military. It isn't a workplace. It isn't a
guild
or craft or union or association of professionals.

Which means that the methods and standards of the military, the workplace,
the
guild/craft/union or professional associations don't apply to amateur
radio.

Even under such an argument, the role and purpose of amateur
test requirements must be justified by more than just tradition, values and
other vague and subjective aspects.

With all due respect, Bill,

Isn't that statement really a subjective opinion? I mean, when you get
right down to it, almost everything in the test process is there or is
not there because of someone's subjective opinion that it's
"reasonable" or "necessary".

It's a HOBBY.

It's an avocation. Meaning it's done for its own sake.

But however someone chooses to describe it, does the fact that amateur
radio
isn't the military, a workplace, a guild or craft or union or association
of
professionals mean that there is no need for amateur radio to have values,
and
standards? That seems to be your main message here.

The message is the same as that stated by the FCC in R&) for 98-143...
Rules must be justified.

(SNIP)

Sure - that's the easy part. The tough part is "what constitutes
justification?"

And the point I was making still remains valid. Since amateur radio is
not the military, a workplace, a guild or craft or union or
association of professionals, its requirements should not be governed
by those groups.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:


With all due respect, Bill,

Isn't that statement really a subjective opinion? I mean, when you get
right down to it, almost everything in the test process is there or is
not there because of someone's subjective opinion that it's
"reasonable" or "necessary".

It's all an opinion, Jim. Those who believe they are blessed with the
"facts" in this issue are practicing self delusion.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

With all due respect, Bill,

Isn't that statement really a subjective opinion? I mean, when you get
right down to it, almost everything in the test process is there or is
not there because of someone's subjective opinion that it's
"reasonable" or "necessary".

It's all an opinion, Jim.

My point exactly. And those opinions change over time. From the early '30s to
1951, FCC thought 3 license classes was the right number. Then they went to 6,
then to 5, then back to 6, then back to 5, then back to 6 yet again. Then in
1999 they decided 3 is the right number.

The more things change...

73 de Jim, N2EY

Those who believe they are blessed with the
"facts" in this issue are practicing self delusion.

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

Amateur radio isn't the military. It isn't a workplace. It isn't a
guild
or craft or union or association of professionals.

Which means that the methods and standards of the military, the
workplace,
the
guild/craft/union or professional associations don't apply to amateur
radio.

Even under such an argument, the role and purpose of amateur
test requirements must be justified by more than just tradition, values
and
other vague and subjective aspects.

With all due respect, Bill,

Isn't that statement really a subjective opinion? I mean, when you get
right down to it, almost everything in the test process is there or is
not there because of someone's subjective opinion that it's
"reasonable" or "necessary".

If you feel that way, so be it.

It's a HOBBY.

It's an avocation. Meaning it's done for its own sake.

But however someone chooses to describe it, does the fact that amateur
radio
isn't the military, a workplace, a guild or craft or union or
association
of
professionals mean that there is no need for amateur radio to have
values,
and
standards? That seems to be your main message here.

The message is the same as that stated by the FCC in R&) for 98-143...
Rules must be justified.

(SNIP)

Sure - that's the easy part. The tough part is "what constitutes
justification?"

Well we have (on code testing) pretty good knowledge as
to what doesn't constitute justification.

And the point I was making still remains valid. Since amateur radio is
not the military, a workplace, a guild or craft or union or
association of professionals, its requirements should not be governed
by those groups.

Yet if you go back to 1968, wasn't an argument in favor of
incentive licensing by the FCC attributed to the needs of
industry for technically inclined people?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message
om...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message

ink.net...

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article ,



(Len Over 21) writes:


Amateur radio isn't the military. It isn't a workplace. It isn't a

guild

or craft or union or association of professionals.

Which means that the methods and standards of the military, the

workplace,

the

guild/craft/union or professional associations don't apply to amateur

radio.

Even under such an argument, the role and purpose of amateur
test requirements must be justified by more than just tradition, values

and

other vague and subjective aspects.

With all due respect, Bill,

Isn't that statement really a subjective opinion? I mean, when you get
right down to it, almost everything in the test process is there or is
not there because of someone's subjective opinion that it's
"reasonable" or "necessary".


If you feel that way, so be it.

Do you believe what you post on ARS testing as a fact?

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

It's all an opinion, Jim. Those who believe they are blessed with the
"facts" in this issue are practicing self delusion.

You mean...gasp...only those with YOUR delusion have the
"correct delusion?"

Whatta concept!

LHA

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

In article , "Andre Sarkissian"
writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote:
In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:
You seem to be telling us that amateurs should not have any values,
standards
or practices except those necessary to prevent amateurs from interfering
with
users of other radio services.

Absolutely. "Here are your bands, have a nice
day" would be
a very free, open, and enjoyable environment

That's CB.

Andre,

Thank you for clarifying Len's answer perfectly. It's quite clear that he
wants
amateur radio to be nothing other than a multiband version of cb.

Try not to strain yourself putting words into others' messages.

What "words have I put in others messages", Len?

It's clear from your many, many posts here that you want amateur radio to
become a multiband version of cb.

You rail against "rank, status and privilege", and you make it clear you want
one class of license, or no licenses at all.

You're against any sort of standards, values, or traditions in amateur radio.

You're constantly criticizing ARRL without justification, and even accusing
them of fraud - again, with no evidence.

You deny the homebrewing success of others, and the public service
contributions of radio amateurs.

Quite clear what you would like amateur radio to become, good buddy ;-)

Don't get all passionate about your piquish puerile parsonage.

I'm simply pointing out where your many complaining posts lead. If all of the
things you complain about were eliminated from amateur radio, it would become
quite like cb. You'd like that, I think.

You were much better on the pulpit with your old Sermons On
The Antenna Mount.

Typical personal insult from Len rather than debating the issue.

I'm not at all interested in joining the Archaic Radiotelegraphy
Service.

What is that?

Tens of thousands of radio people feel exactly the same way.

How do you know?

What did YOU do back in 1958 when U. S. Class D Citizens
Band was created?

Not much. But by the time I became aware of it, I was repelled by the immature
behavior of some of the users there.

What did YOU do to keep that service from becoming such a wasteland?

NO test whatsoever back then, but licensed it was.

All it took was a fee and a signed form saying the licensee understood the
rules and would abide by them. Yet within a few years of 1958, many of the
licensees simply ignored the rules and did whatever they pleased on that
service.

YOU've had 45 years to correct things.

Not my responsibility, Len. I'm not a cb user. Never have been. All I did was
listen there, and tune away in disgust.

I'm know many cb users are fine people, but the service is a mess, has been for
decades, and it was a mistake to have ever been created.

You seem to think it's a paragon to be emulated.

Doesn't appear that
YOU did anydamnthing except snap your suspenders and
look down at others from a safe distance.

Not my job to fix cb. It's *your* job, Len - you're the "professional in
radio", right? You've been there since before the beginning, right?

What have YOU done to fix cb?

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

Try not to strain yourself putting words into others' messages.

What "words have I put in others messages", Len?

Those following -

It's clear from your many, many posts here that you want amateur radio to
become a multiband version of cb.

That's just your DELUSION and fantasy.

You rail against "rank, status and privilege", and you make it clear you want
one class of license, or no licenses at all.

I've never been for "no license at all." Poor baby, still delerious.

You're against any sort of standards, values, or traditions in amateur radio.

I'm not interested in the standards, values or traditions of the
Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service.

Stop trying to be a proselyte for the Past.

You're constantly criticizing ARRL without justification, and even accusing
them of fraud - again, with no evidence.

Plenty of evidence of hypocrisy, false "representation," no verification
of their alleged ability to "know what is best for amateur radio."

You deny the homebrewing success of others, and the public service
contributions of radio amateurs.

I've never "denied it," delusional fellow.

You've never offered proof YOUR wonderful amazing state-of-the-art
homebrew radios worked...or even existed.

Quite clear what you would like amateur radio to become, good buddy ;-)

I'm NOT your "good buddy." Haven't you got your eyes in?


I'm simply pointing out where your many complaining posts lead. If all of the
things you complain about were eliminated from amateur radio, it would become
quite like cb. You'd like that, I think.

No, you are just voicing your fantasies and delusions and terrible
parsimonous pique and not honoring and respecting your noble
viewpoints.

You were much better on the pulpit with your old Sermons On
The Antenna Mount.

Typical personal insult from Len rather than debating the issue.

You are preachy to a fault. You need a refresher at the
seminary. Or a retreat.


Not much. But by the time I became aware of it, I was repelled by the immature
behavior of some of the users there.

:-)

How old were you in 1958? How "mature" were you that you could
"judge" others?

What did YOU do to keep that service from becoming such a wasteland?

Irrelevant. CB has far too many users for too little bandspace.

What have YOU done to eliminate CB or reduce all that waste?

YOU seem to know all, be all, yet do nothing of value except
extoll your own alleged expertise in OLD radio arts.


YOU've had 45 years to correct things.

Not my responsibility, Len. I'm not a cb user. Never have been. All I did was
listen there, and tune away in disgust.

Poor baby. "Disgust," is it? :-)




I'm know many cb users are fine people, but the service is a mess, has been
for decades, and it was a mistake to have ever been created.

Poor thing. You could have DONE something for the betterment
of mankind in 45 years, yet you have not...


What have YOU done to fix cb?

Irrelevant. What needs to be "fixed?" Restore it to radio amateurs?

You can always file a petition with FCC to abolish CB. Go ahead,
make everyone's day. :-)

It might be done some time. It only took 24 years to make the first
dent in the 40m problem with SW BC interfering with the "rightful
ownership by hams" there. :-)

LHA

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

Try not to strain yourself putting words into others' messages.

What "words have I put in others messages", Len?

Those following -

It's clear from your many, many posts here that you want amateur radio to
become a multiband version of cb.

That's just your DELUSION and fantasy.

Not at all. It's the sum total of what you've been preaching here for
years and years. It explains the motive behind every single post
you've made here.

Wrong. You are still in the delusion of living in PAST standards
and practices of amateur radio. Anything against your fraternal-
order idea of amateur radio is labeled by you as "wrong" or some
evil personified by Citizens Band Radio Service.

The FCC is not required to sanctify or regulate a fraternal order
as ordained by the ARRL. That is your fantasy and delusion.

Citizens Band Radio Service has been in existance for longer
than 45 years and several private land mobile radio services (now
collected under PLMRS) have been in existance longer than that.
Times have changed. ARRL can no longer assume guardianship
over US amateur radio service as it did before Internet and improved
citizen ability to communicate directly with the FCC. The OTHER
U.S. radio services have changed and adapted to modern times.

Why do you NEED all thsoe "classes" in an a voluntary, avocational
recreational radio activity? Is it just to give yourself an elitist "title
of nobility" to "sign" behind your name (or in lieu of it)? Do you
NEED the artificiality of class-distinction to "prove" yourself to the
world...or to prove you are "better" than others...so that you can
feel justified in putting down others?

It would seem that you DO have such a NEED.

I find all of radio and electronics in general to be a fascinating area
of technology, so much so that I became a hobbyist in that a long
time ago and made it my life's work...even though experienced and
with an aptitude for a totally different kind of work. But, you and
other "titled," self-important radio amateurs want to put that down,
stoutly maintaining an absolute rigidity to the artificiality of rank,
status, privilege AS IF amateur radio were the SAME as a guild or
union. Everyone (according to yourself) MUST follow the "rules,"
not the regulations, but the "rules" as laid down by one membership
organization which still is just a minority "representative" political
action entity.

Do not deny that ARRL is a political-interest group. Their federal
tax returns are evidence that they retain a lobbying service in DC
as well as a law firm. They are NOT a government entity, just a
large fraternal order that survives on publication and product
resale and advertising profits. ARRL deludes you and others into
thinking they are always "representative" of radio amateurs...but
over the years of successful brainwashing through self-promotion,
they remain a minority political entity on "representation."

You will not accept such a minority status yet it is obvious reality.
The FCC has recognized this some time ago but you still support
defend and sometimes "fight" for the ARRL on matters and blame
the FCC for your perceived "evils" while turning hypocritical and
extoling the ARRL as "doing the right thing" when decisions align
themselves with your ARRL-influenced personal opinions.

Case in point: As of the close of 28 October 2003, the FCC ECFS
had a total of 3,877 comments on 14 petitions for regulation
changes on retention (7) or elimination (7) of the morse code test
for U.S. amateur radio. Comments were from all over the nation,
individuals to groups, licensed and unlicensed in amateur radio.
There is far more access and FREEDOM for all citizens to make
our grievances known to our government...directly if we desire,
not having to use a "middleman" group to do our collective
communications...a "middleman" that pretends to be "representative
for all" yet is not, by all evidence, representative to any but a small
coterie within that organization.

You desire to have such commentary CLOSED to any but the elite
already-licensed. Such is against the very basic First Amendement
to the United States Constitution. The FCC is not obligated in any
way to sanctify its regulations in the maintenance of an essentially
private fraternal order. Yet you insist that this "fraternal order" MUST
be maintained. Others insist more fervently, ready to fight at
all costs. Such a "must" is delusional, fantasyland imagining.

Amateur radio is a voluntary, avocational, recreational activity done
for no pecuniary reason. A hobby. Fun. But some want to rule,
to regulate the "fun" solely for their self-interests. Not technical
regulations but the activity itself and this strange absolute NEED to
be just like a professional service group with rigid adherence to
activity rules, jargon, even paper forms ("official" radiogram blanks).
This strange NEED for rigid adherence extends to absolute honoring
of tradition AND an intolerance to anything new that threatens the
perceived glory and honor of any tradition or its history. All who
have any interest whatsoever MUST be licensed to the imaginary
"dedication and committment to the ARS community."

All who refuse to Believe in such a fantasy are heretics, lesser
humans, worthy of contempt by the self-perceived nobility...as
evidenced by all the archives in the Google.

The first message of this particular thread started off with an
emotion-loaded play to readers of a father (authority figure) that
was supposed to uphold tradition, honor, glory, etc. as a "positive
attribute" or "family value" to pass along to generations. Over
morse code proficiency that has been dropped or never considered
by every other radio service? That's fantasy, delusional thinking,
suitable only for fraternal orders looking for status quo stability.

My father and father-in-law would no doubt have great fun at such
"important family values" to pass on had they been alive today.
They were both born a year before the first radio signals crossed
the Atlantic and three years before the Wright brothers successfully
flew a heavier-than-air vehicle...and both saw the first humans set
foot on the moon by live television from a quarter million miles away.

Change happened in their lifetimes. Great, profound changes.
Change will continue to happen in many things and in many lives.
We can all adapt and meld with the future, become part of it, or
remain in the past in a fantasyland of old things, old ideas, old
standards, old skills that no longer apply to the majority living in
reality.

I am for the now, the future, reality and freedom. I will not live in
your delusional fantasyland. Neither will millions of others.

LHA

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

Try not to strain yourself putting words into others' messages.

What "words have I put in others messages", Len?

Those following -

It's clear from your many, many posts here that you want amateur radio to
become a multiband version of cb.

That's just your DELUSION and fantasy.

Not at all. It's the sum total of what you've been preaching here for
years and years. It explains the motive behind every single post
you've made here.

Wrong.

No, it's quite right. It's what you want for amateur radio, Len. You've been
saying it for years now, and it goes far beyond code test elimination.

You are still in the delusion of living in PAST standards
and practices of amateur radio.

Be specific. What are YOUR standards and practices? What would YOUR standards
and practices for the amateur radio service be?

Anything against your fraternal-
order idea of amateur radio is labeled by you as "wrong" or some
evil personified by Citizens Band Radio Service.

Not at all. And the question is about YOUR proposed standards and practices.
It's clear you will not stand for anyone to say anything that doesn't admire
the way cb has evolved.

The FCC is not required to sanctify or regulate a fraternal order
as ordained by the ARRL. That is your fantasy and delusion.

So what do you suggest?

Citizens Band Radio Service has been in existance for longer
than 45 years and several private land mobile radio services (now
collected under PLMRS) have been in existance longer than that.
Times have changed.

What, exactly, does that mean? 27 MHz CB started out on 23 channels and got 17
more back in the '70s. Started out with AM and got SSB - both modes are still
in use. Started out with licenses but dropped them in the 70s.

In fact, cb hasn't changed much since the '70s, has it?

The amateur radio of today is quite different from the amateur radio of 30
years ago, but the cb of today isn't much different from the cb of 30 years
ago. Yet you would have the amateur radio service emulate the cb radio service.
Why?

ARRL can no longer assume guardianship
over US amateur radio service as it did before Internet and improved
citizen ability to communicate directly with the FCC.

We've alwyas had direct access to FCC. Didn't you know about typewriters and
the post office?

The OTHER
U.S. radio services have changed and adapted to modern times.

You mean like cb has adapted?

Let's see, we hams have a wider variety of modes, equipment, and operating
activities than ever before.

Why do you NEED all thsoe "classes" in an a voluntary, avocational
recreational radio activity?

License classes allow beginners to get started with an easy-to-get license and
work their way up to full privileges over time. Of course if someone wants to
get a full-privileges license "right out of the box", they can choose to do
that, too. Right now, FCC thinks 3 classes is the right number.

Why does all this bother you? You don't have an amateur license and you don't
seem to want one. In fact, you want to prevent people under the age of 14 from
getting amateur licenses.

Is it just to give yourself an elitist "title
of nobility" to "sign" behind your name (or in lieu of it)?

It's an identifier. There may be other folks out there with a name similar to
mine, but nobody else has my amateur radio callsign.

I *earned* the callsign N2EY by passing the required tests. I've held it and
used it for 26 years and I'm proud of it. Is that wrong, Len? You seem to think
it's wrong for me to be proud of my accomplisments in amateur radio.

You've never had any amateur radio callsign and never operated any amateur
radio station (as the control operator, anyway) yet you preach to us endlessly
about amateur radio.

Do you
NEED the artificiality of class-distinction to "prove" yourself to the
world...or to prove you are "better" than others...so that you can
feel justified in putting down others?

Not at all.

Does my use of my callsign in postings cause you to feel "put down", Len? Poor
baby!!!!!!

It would seem that you DO have such a NEED.

Just your "delusion and fantasy", Len. Perhaps you're jealous.

All you're really saying is that you favor just one class of amateur license.
Why not just come right out and say that? You're not being paid by the word.

I find all of radio and electronics in general to be a fascinating area
of technology, so much so that I became a hobbyist in that a long
time ago and made it my life's work...even though experienced and
with an aptitude for a totally different kind of work.

And you remind us that you're a "PROFESSIONAL IN RADIO!!!!!!!!!!!" in almost
every posting here. Then you get mad because we don't bow down to you.

But, you and
other "titled," self-important radio amateurs want to put that down,
stoutly maintaining an absolute rigidity to the artificiality of rank,
status, privilege AS IF amateur radio were the SAME as a guild or
union.

Is there something wrong with guilds or unions - particularly ones that anyone
can join?

Everyone (according to yourself) MUST follow the "rules,"
not the regulations, but the "rules" as laid down by one membership
organization which still is just a minority "representative" political
action entity.

What *are* you talking about, Len? Give us an example of these "rules".

And what would YOUR "rules" be? Should we hams follow the example set by cb?
You'd like that....

Do not deny that ARRL is a political-interest group.

Where have I done that? It's a good thing ARRL is a political-interest group.
Do you think anyone else could lead the fight against BPL? I sent them a check
to do just that.

Oh wait - no strong national organization ever emerged for cb....

Their federal
tax returns are evidence that they retain a lobbying service in DC
as well as a law firm.

So? Those are good things. (where's that checkbook?)

They are NOT a government entity, just a
large fraternal order that survives on publication and product
resale and advertising profits.

And membership dues. Only $39/yr.

ARRL deludes you and others into
thinking they are always "representative" of radio amateurs...but
over the years of successful brainwashing through self-promotion,
they remain a minority political entity on "representation."

That's just your delusion and fantasy, Len. All anyone needs to do is to find
out what ARRL policies are, and decide whether they agree or not. I don't agree
with all ARRL policies, and I let the directors know that.

You will not accept such a minority status yet it is obvious reality.

You're a minority of one, Len.

The FCC has recognized this some time ago but you still support
defend and sometimes "fight" for the ARRL on matters and blame
the FCC for your perceived "evils" while turning hypocritical and
extoling the ARRL as "doing the right thing" when decisions align
themselves with your ARRL-influenced personal opinions.

You're just ARRL bashing again. Typical.

Case in point: As of the close of 28 October 2003, the FCC ECFS
had a total of 3,877 comments on 14 petitions for regulation
changes on retention (7) or elimination (7) of the morse code test
for U.S. amateur radio. Comments were from all over the nation,
individuals to groups, licensed and unlicensed in amateur radio.

So? FCC has *always* accepted comments from all interested parties. Back in the
'60s, when their were far fewer hams and commenting to FCC meant making an
original and a pile of paper copies, FCC got over 6000 comments to their
restructuring proposals.

There is far more access and FREEDOM for all citizens to make
our grievances known to our government...directly if we desire,
not having to use a "middleman" group to do our collective
communications...a "middleman" that pretends to be "representative
for all" yet is not, by all evidence, representative to any but a small
coterie within that organization.

The freedom has always been there, Len. We had typewriters and postal service
back then. Anyone could comment. ARRL encouraged it then and they encourage it
now. So do I. You don't.

You desire to have such commentary CLOSED to any but the elite
already-licensed.

That's not correct. You are mistaken. In error. Flat out wrong.

I'm for anyone interested being able to comment.

I challenge you to show where I have been against *ANYONE* commenting to FCC.
Even you.

Of course, if someone expresses an opinion or comment, they have to be able to
"take the heat" of having others disagree with, and debate, their opinions and
commentary. You can't tolerate being disagreed with.

Such is against the very basic First Amendement
to the United States Constitution.

I'm for anyone interested being able to comment.

I challenge you to show where I have been against *ANYONE* commenting to FCC.
Even you.

Didn't you write:

"Shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel."

right here in rrap a day or so ago, Len? Is that in the spirit of the very
basic First Amendment to the United States Constitution?

If that's how "PROFESSIONALS IN RADIO!!!!" behave, I'll stick with amateurs,
thank you very much.

The FCC is not obligated in any
way to sanctify its regulations in the maintenance of an essentially
private fraternal order. Yet you insist that this "fraternal order" MUST
be maintained. Others insist more fervently, ready to fight at
all costs. Such a "must" is delusional, fantasyland imagining.

So are you telling me to "shut the hell up"?

Amateur radio is a voluntary, avocational, recreational activity done
for no pecuniary reason. A hobby. Fun.

How would you know, Len? You aren't a ham and never have been.

But some want to rule,
to regulate the "fun" solely for their self-interests.

That would be you, Len.

Not technical
regulations but the activity itself and this strange absolute NEED to
be just like a professional service group with rigid adherence to
activity rules, jargon, even paper forms ("official" radiogram blanks).
This strange NEED for rigid adherence extends to absolute honoring
of tradition AND an intolerance to anything new that threatens the
perceived glory and honor of any tradition or its history. All who
have any interest whatsoever MUST be licensed to the imaginary
"dedication and committment to the ARS community."

So what are YOUR standards and practices for the amateur radio service, Len?
How would you set things up?

You tell us endlessly what you don't like, but except for a constant insistence
on dropping the one remaining Morse code test and bashing ARRL and traditions
you don't tell us how *you* would order things. Oh wait, you wanted an age
requirement of 14 years for any amateur license. CB used to have an age
requirement, back when they had licenses....

All who refuse to Believe in such a fantasy are heretics, lesser
humans, worthy of contempt by the self-perceived nobility...as
evidenced by all the archives in the Google.

Give us an example.

The first message of this particular thread started off with an
emotion-loaded play to readers of a father (authority figure) that
was supposed to uphold tradition, honor, glory, etc. as a "positive
attribute" or "family value" to pass along to generations.

I'm not him, Len.

How many children have you raised?

Over
morse code proficiency that has been dropped or never considered
by every other radio service? That's fantasy, delusional thinking,
suitable only for fraternal orders looking for status quo stability.

No, it was an observation of the value of standards. Maybe you don;t like those
standards - fine. Tell us, specifically, what *your* standards would be.

How many classes of license? Requirements for same? Callsigns? Operating
procedures? Subbands by mode and license class? Power limits? Authorized modes?


Get specific. This isn't a Zen experience where we describe things by saying
what they aren't.

My father and father-in-law would no doubt have great fun at such
"important family values" to pass on had they been alive today.

Were they radio amateurs? Did they even know what amateur radio is?

Are you going to tell us how they could cuss us out in foreign languages for
daring to disagree with them?

If my ancestors could outcuss your ancestors, would it make them right?

Would your ancestors be proud of you telling a complete stranger to:

"Shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel." ???

Those are *your* words, Len. No smiley, either.

Hey - I've got an idea! Let's start a thread that's a collection of quotes from
"Len The Zen", where he shows us how "PROFESSIONALS IN RADIO" behave in "civil
debate"! We can start out with that "USMC feldwebel" one, and add more as they
are found.

They were both born a year before the first radio signals crossed
the Atlantic and three years before the Wright brothers successfully
flew a heavier-than-air vehicle...and both saw the first humans set
foot on the moon by live television from a quarter million miles away.

How does that make them somehow qualified to judge amateur radio policy today?

btw, it's been 31 years since any humans got to the moon. Commercial supersonic
air travel has recently ended. If someone still as a working TV from 1969, they
can still use it to watch today's programs...

And cb is still a mess.

Change happened in their lifetimes. Great, profound changes.
Change will continue to happen in many things and in many lives.
We can all adapt and meld with the future, become part of it, or
remain in the past in a fantasyland of old things, old ideas, old
standards, old skills that no longer apply to the majority living in
reality.

Give us some specifics besides dropping the Morse code test, Len.

I am for the now, the future, reality and freedom.

Yeah, me too, Mom's apple pie, truth, justice and the American way...

I will not live in
your delusional fantasyland.

You often sound like you just visited the Magic Kingdom, Len....;-)

Neither will millions of others.

Who are these "millions"? Do you claim to represent them? Talk about delusions
and fantasies....

All that over a 5 wpm code test for a license in a radio service you have no
interest in joining. Fascinating.

And what the heck is a "feldwebel"?

Answering my own question:

And what the heck is a "feldwebel"?

"Corporal"

Godwin's Law invoked.

73 de Jim, N2EY