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.

"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

"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 -

"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

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.