"Kim" wrote in message ...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Alun
writes:

I think you're missing the point. I took _code_ tests to get _phone_
subbands. There's no logic in that. Never was, even from the beginning.

Sure there is. Here it is, though you may argue that it doesn't hold
much
water
today:


In addition, anyone one who thinks they took the code tests to get phone
subbands isn't really viewing it from the right perspective anyway. The
code test, as well as the additional writtens, was to get HF privileges or
should have been. It happens that phone privileges are included when one
earns HF privileges.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


I endured the study of and took the test for CW *just* for the phone
privleges on 10M, specifically to join in on a nightly ragchew with a whole
bunch of local folks--which is no longer going on but it was neat while it
did. That is the *only* reason I did anything involving CW. So, you can
word it any way you want, Dee, but what compels one person to work with CW
at all, may not be what compels someone else.

Exactly!

And consider this:

I know hams who "endured" the study and *written* tests for the
Technician, General, Advanced and Extra, because they wanted the
*CW/data* privileges. (Code test was no problem for them).

Hans' proposal would cause all new hams to "endure" the study for and
taking of a written test just to *keep* an amateur license beyond 10
years.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo wrote:



I still think there is a fundamental problem I have with Morse code
- although I have come a long way, the effort I have to put in compared
to what others apparently have to do is nothing short of phenomenal. A
half hour at lunch, another half hour to an hour in the evening, 6 days
a week, and I am still struggling. I know I am nowhere near stupid, and
I've tried enough different methods to know that there is something
somewhere that makes my brain process sounds a bit differently than
those that find Morse easy.

But in most matters, I am one of those steely nerved types, and
consider myself too dumb to panic.

But, I persevere! I'm starting to catch whole words on the air (at
faster speeds) now, and it is exciting, despite my whining about it!

It's like anything else, some things come easy for some people, some
things don't.

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

So please cite the statistical data that shows
people have had enough exposure to Morse
code to be able to evaluate it even though
they don't know it.


I'll tell you what, Dee. You show me where such statistical data is
collected and I'll cite it for you. Until then, it is clear that my
comments
were nothing more than opinions. Of course, you knew that before
responding.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

You made a statement that most people had such exposure and while I
naturally knew that was only your opinion, you stated it as if it were a
fact. Therefore I was justified in asking you to provide the data to
support that statement.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t...

But, I persevere! I'm starting to catch whole words on the air (at
faster speeds) now, and it is exciting, despite my whining about it!


That puts you ahead of me. I still don't catch whole words just the
individual letters and catch the letters as they come. There are some
exceptions to that though. "CQ" and "CQ TEST" come through immediately as
words.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

So please cite the statistical data that shows
people have had enough exposure to Morse
code to be able to evaluate it even though
they don't know it.


I'll tell you what, Dee. You show me where such statistical data is
collected and I'll cite it for you. Until then, it is clear that my
comments
were nothing more than opinions. Of course, you knew that before
responding.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


The angle of argument that Dee is trying to use is old, tired and
*yawn*....

Kim W5TIT

No Kim it is not. He made a statement as if it were fact rather than his
personal opinion that most people had had exposure to Morse code. I
challenged him to prove it. This is standard operating procedure in debate.
Since he is the originator of the statement, then in a debate, he must be
prepared to back it with facts. That the subject here is Morse code does
not negate debate procedures even if he wishes it did.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article t, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"KØHB" wrote:

Nope, you keep getting it wrong, Dwight.
I'd also drop the Extra examination, and
institute a **new** Class A examination,
similar in difficulty (but with obviously
different content) than the current Extra.


I don't think so, Hans. You're advocating a test "similar in difficulty"
to the Extra. However, an Extra hasn't just taken that one test - he also
took the Tech and General prior to that.

Depending on when someone gets their Extra, they may have taken as many as 5
separate written tests (Novice, Tech, General, Advanced, Extra - March 1987 to
April 2000) or as few as two (General and Extra, 1951 to 1967)

The total number of questions has varied similarly, but the current total is
the lowest since the 1951 restructuring.

The material on each test is
different, with later tests building on the material in the earlier tests.

Depends on the subject.

To cover the same material an Extra has covered today ("similar
difficulty"), your new test would have to include the material covered in
all three current tests (with over 120 questions in one sitting).

"Similar difficulty" doesn't mean the same material. Obviously a lot of the
basics would be covered in the Class B. And with the simplified structure, some
of the questions like subbands-by-license-class would go away.

However, since the Class B would be a simplified test, the Class A would
probably need to be 150 questions...

So, are
you advocating that, advocating some type of reduced content test (less
questions), or did you simply forget the material on the first two tests?

I suggest something different.

There's no need to retest what has been already tested.

Also, a big test should be broken down into pieces-by-subject and graded that
way. IOW, a safety part, a regs part, a theory part, etc. And you have to pass
each part (subelement) to pass the test - aceing the theory shouldn't allow you
to get all the safety questions wrong, for example.

--

Related question for Hans: Would existing Extras get Class A licenses
automatically, or would they have to retest?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

Related question for Hans: Would existing Extras get Class
A licenses automatically, or would they have to retest?

My inclination would be for current Extras to remain Extras unless they took
the new test. Lots of guys (Larry comes to mind) attach a certain cachet to
their current license, having "done it the old way". I've no problem with
honoring that.

And I like your notion of splitting the Class A test into broad subject
areas --- off the top of my head "Electronics/Communications theory",
"Regulations and Safety", and "Operating Practices" would make a nice three
way division with perhaps 35 questions per segment.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

You made a statement that most people
had such exposure and while I naturally
knew that was only your opinion, you
stated it as if it were a fact. Therefore I
was justified in asking you to provide the
data to support that statement.


That doesn't change my response. Again, show me where such statistical
data is collected and I'll cite it for you. Of course, you know it isn't
collected, and therefore my comment could not have been based on that, so
your question was clearly disingenuous.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

No Kim it is not. He made a statement as
if it were fact rather than his personal opinion
that most people had had exposure to Morse
code. I challenged him to prove it. This is
standard operating procedure in debate.
Since he is the originator of the statement,
then in a debate, he must be prepared to
back it with facts. That the subject here is
Morse code does not negate debate
procedures even if he wishes it did.


This is a newsgroup, not a debating society, Dee. As such, there are no
debate procedures. Instead, simple common sense applies in newsgroup
discussions (as in most discussions). Since you're aware that nobody
collects such data, simple common sense should have prevented you from even
asking for that.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

(snip) Dat's gonna be one big test!


Yep. And covering a massive variety of information.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/