|
"Alun" wrote in message
... "Bert Craig" wrote in : "Alun" wrote in message ... "Bert Craig" wrote in et: "Alun" wrote in message ... What is annoying is that a skill test is foisted on those who don't have the desire to use the skill. Alan, I'm gonna let you in on a secret...although I know that you're already aware of it. Preparing for and passing the 5-wpm Elemnt 1 test does NOT leave one ready to use the skill OTA. It only gives one a taste so that one may make an educated choice as to whether or not they wish to persue CW any further. 5 wpm is certainly too slow to prove much, but it only still exists at that level as a residual requirement to meet the old s25.5, which has since been changed so that no code test is required atall. If the FCC truly thought that a CW test was necessary, the speed would be higher. Agreed, I was pointing out a very beneficial secondary benefit. It "requires" one to place themselves in a position from which to make an educated decision. As I mentioned in another post, the mode is really not the issue...the having to really learn it is. Do away with the published Q&A pools and watch the whining escalate. Well, I think that the real issue is that it's a different kind of test. Exactly. Also, if I hear CW on my frequency I may be able to read it with some difficulty, but if I hear RTTY or PSK31 there is no chance. You may have just touched on a selling point for CW. 73 de Bert WA2SI Whilst that is true, the point I was making is actually that since I can't read RTTY or PSK by ear, and they are legal modes, it doesn't help all that much that I can read CW (albeit not terribly well, since I never use it). 73 de Alun, N3KIP I understand the point you were making. If I could just ask you why you bothered to take the code test(s)? 73 de Bert WA2SI To get all the _phone_ frequencies Ah, good...for increased privileges. Obviously, noted by your class of license, you did NOT find this to be an insurmountable hurdle. After all, nobody forced you to either upgrade your ticket or aim for the General or Extra right from the starting gate. You *wanted* more *privileges* and these were a sufficient *incentive* for you to decide to make the effort to *earn* them. That's not being forced to do anything, Alun. Them's good old-fashioned values...and the basis for a principle that I'd be glad to see my kids apply to ALL of their endeavors in life. This whole issue is not really over the Morse code test. It's about ANY requirement that causes an applicant to really have to expend some mental elbow grease and/or impede his/her path toward instant gratification. Like I said before, pull those published Q&A pools and make 'em learn the subject matter and actually apply the principles and theory to pass the writtens...and witness the whine factor grow. Preparing to pass the 5-wpm Exam cannot even be called cerebral, it's rote memorization. The faster speeds become purely reflex oriented. Nobody's thinkin' when they copy hi-speed Morse. So all this blather about "jumping through hoops" and "barriers" is a bunch of hot air. Folks have just figured out a way to gain a *privilege* in a perceived easier fashion, collectively whine. It stands a great chance too. After all, the Gov't. agency they must cajole shares their goal, less work. So with great glee, their proponents espouse "the FCC doesn't agree that Morse is necessary." The "regulatory" angle is just that, an angle. If you ignore the angle, you realise that it was never about Element 1 in the first place. Why must our beloved hobby/service be reduced to the lowest common denominator? 73 de Bert WA2SI |
"Hans K0HB" wrote:
Nope, not at all. Under my proposal you'd be free to keep renewing your Technician (what a misnomer!) license until you assume room temperature. Why is that a misnomer, Hans? Is that (you don't like "Technician" as the name for this license) the real reason behind your attempt to change the names of the various licenses? Regardless, I've read about Technicians in your proposal. That still doesn't change any of my previous questions or comments about how potential newcomers will be affected by the changes suggested in that proposal. By the way, since we're discussing why here, perhaps you can explain why your proposal is needed at all. Exactly what are you trying to accomplish with the proposal and what evidence do you have that would suggest that need? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Alun" wrote in message
... "Bert Craig" wrote in : "Alun" wrote in message ... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in : "Bert Craig" wrote in message et... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... "Alun" wrote in message ... It just so happens that I don't like CW, in the sense of I have no desire to use it. That should be OK too, but for some reason it bothers you. Why? No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not to use it. They have made that decision from a position of knowledge and experience. This is radically different from a person judging it and saying they will never use it when they do not have that knowledge and experience to draw on. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Right on the money, Dee. Larry pointed this out earlier, but not as eloquently as you. 73 de Bert WA2SI It fascinates me that you won't accept someone's plain and simple truth that they don't like CW--even if they don't have experience with it--because you reason that they need to have "knowledge and experience" with it. Well, I know people who are quite well-versed in CW who don't like it, people who haven't ever even tried it and don't like it, and people who have taken and passed a 5wpm test and don't like it. I also know people from those same three categories that do like CW operation. It's pretty much as simple as folks who do or don't like most other things in life. Either ya like it or ya don't. Kim W5TIT I think that you have hit upon a very important point there, Kim. A good analogy might be not liking an item of food that you haven't tried, because it looks disgusting on your plate. If you eat some you might like it, or not, but there are probably all kinds of other things that contain the same nutrition. These guys are like a parent telling a child that they have to eat their brocolli. But they aren't my parents and I don't like brocolli, or CW. I take vitamins, and work phone. Slight difference, Alun. Nobody's forcing anybody to learn code. There exists a no-code Technician license for those who do not wish to have to pass the 5-wpm code exam. 73 de Bert WA2SI Not really true. Very true, Alun...very true. No HF privileges with that licence, as we all know. As with most things in life, increased *privileges* requires increased effort. The ARS is but a microsm or society as a whole. Despite the efforts of some to reduce it to "just a hobby" status, the values and principles we learn in our "avocations" will likely carry over into the other aspects of our lives. Many here were first licensed as children or young adults, that's no accident. The kids of today are referred to as the Nintendo generation, kinda hard to compete with. However, in our quest to gain quantity, we appear to be courting a slightly older prospective ham...products of the newer "I want it now" society. So what can we do, villify the "speed bump" of our licensing structure in an effort to remove any "barriers." I kinda liken it to kids that are graduating HS with a 5th, 6th, or 7th grade reading level. Gee, how'd they get through? Check out the recent regents debacle. Not enough kids pass, it must be to hard...so we'll throw 'em a curve. See the cycle there. Had someone had the courage to NOT throw some of these kids their earlier curves in the first place, their Regents scores would be higher. What does this have to do with amateur radio? Human nature. What we learn to do as we practice our avocation early in life, we tend to apply to other aspects later in life. Still believe this is about a 5-wpm Morse code test? Why must we reduce our beloved hobby/service to the lowest commen denominator? 73 de Bert WA2SI |
|
"N2EY" wrote:
(snip) So what it comes down to is that a little serious skill-learning is required to use Morse on the air, except for a very few people who have learned Morse elsewhere. I think that plain, simple fact bothers some of the most vociferous and abusive anti-code-test folks. That fact, as you call it, ignores other very real facts. Few people today (especially boys and men) have not learned code, or at least played around with it, at some point in their lives. When we were kids, many of us sent messages to friends using flashlights or walkie-talkies with code printed on the side. Many other games and toys over the years have featured messages, secret or otherwise, sent by Morse code. Others learned code in groups like the Boy Scouts. Still others learned it in the military. In reality, most adults today are familiar enough with code to know whether they have any real interest in it. Clearly, those with no interest are not exactly highly motivated to study up for a license exam. But the fact that some have no interest in code, and would freely choose not to learn it, really seems to bother some of the "most vociferous and abusive" pro-code folks. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"N2EY" wrote: Would you accept "it's obvious" as an answer to "why a code test"? I didn't offer "it's obvious" as an answer. Instead, I wrote... "Considering the power levels, the number of frequencies and bands, the overall safety considerations, the desirability of proper operation when using the various operating modes, and the importance of the rules associated with all that, the necessity of the written exams is clearly obvious." I disagree. Would you have skill testing for modes that few hams use, like EME or TV, on an equal par with those that are widely used, like voice and Morse? Those modes are already on equal par with voice (written with no skills test). What you haven't explained is why that shouldn't be the case with Morse. IOW, you know that if the same criteria of "is it necessary?" were applied to most of the written questions, the answer would be the same as you get for the code test. Nonsense. But you're darn fool, or think I'm one, if you expect me to get into a point-by-point discussion with you about the several hundred questions in the question pool to prove otherwise. Enough said. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Len Over 21" wrote: (snip) The TEST and the USE cannot be separated, Dwight. It is "necessary" to keep the test forever and ever so that there will be this "pool of trained operators (in CW)" to help earth survive on the next invasion of spacefaring aliens. LOL. Those darn aliens have had their eyes on Earth for some time now. Luckily, CW keeps us well prepared for any stunt they might try. I've even heard of a secret Air Force project to study the effects of CW on captured aliens. ;-) Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote: Really? You mean all those things I did to get a properly operating station (putting coax and connectors together, water- proofing, antenna tuning, SWR tests, ground radials, masts, guy wires, wiring a microphone, equipment grounding, lightning protection, RF exposure level estimates, and so on) wasn't really needed and didn't really require any skills to do properly? (snip) Soldering requires some modest skill but one can hire that done if desired. The other items are necessary but no skill is required just taking the time to do it. (snip) If you truly believe there is no skill involved to do those things properly, I suspect you haven't done most of them (at least not properly). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Bert Craig" wrote in
t: "Alun" wrote in message ... "Bert Craig" wrote in : "Alun" wrote in message ... "Bert Craig" wrote in et: "Alun" wrote in message ... What is annoying is that a skill test is foisted on those who don't have the desire to use the skill. Alan, I'm gonna let you in on a secret...although I know that you're already aware of it. Preparing for and passing the 5-wpm Elemnt 1 test does NOT leave one ready to use the skill OTA. It only gives one a taste so that one may make an educated choice as to whether or not they wish to persue CW any further. 5 wpm is certainly too slow to prove much, but it only still exists at that level as a residual requirement to meet the old s25.5, which has since been changed so that no code test is required atall. If the FCC truly thought that a CW test was necessary, the speed would be higher. Agreed, I was pointing out a very beneficial secondary benefit. It "requires" one to place themselves in a position from which to make an educated decision. As I mentioned in another post, the mode is really not the issue...the having to really learn it is. Do away with the published Q&A pools and watch the whining escalate. Well, I think that the real issue is that it's a different kind of test. Exactly. Also, if I hear CW on my frequency I may be able to read it with some difficulty, but if I hear RTTY or PSK31 there is no chance. You may have just touched on a selling point for CW. 73 de Bert WA2SI Whilst that is true, the point I was making is actually that since I can't read RTTY or PSK by ear, and they are legal modes, it doesn't help all that much that I can read CW (albeit not terribly well, since I never use it). 73 de Alun, N3KIP I understand the point you were making. If I could just ask you why you bothered to take the code test(s)? 73 de Bert WA2SI To get all the _phone_ frequencies Ah, good...for increased privileges. Obviously, noted by your class of license, you did NOT find this to be an insurmountable hurdle. After all, nobody forced you to either upgrade your ticket or aim for the General or Extra right from the starting gate. You *wanted* more *privileges* and these were a sufficient *incentive* for you to decide to make the effort to *earn* them. That's not being forced to do anything, Alun. Them's good old-fashioned values...and the basis for a principle that I'd be glad to see my kids apply to ALL of their endeavors in life. 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. This whole issue is not really over the Morse code test. It's about ANY requirement that causes an applicant to really have to expend some mental elbow grease and/or impede his/her path toward instant gratification. No, it's about learning code skills to use other modes. Like I said before, pull those published Q&A pools and make 'em learn the subject matter and actually apply the principles and theory to pass the writtens...and witness the whine factor grow. Preparing to pass the 5-wpm Exam cannot even be called cerebral, it's rote memorization. The faster speeds become purely reflex oriented. Nobody's thinkin' when they copy hi-speed Morse. So all this blather about "jumping through hoops" and "barriers" is a bunch of hot air. Learning an unrelated skill is a prime example of "jumping through hoops" (your phrase, not mine) Folks have just figured out a way to gain a *privilege* in a perceived easier fashion, collectively whine. It stands a great chance too. After all, the Gov't. agency they must cajole shares their goal, less work. So with great glee, their proponents espouse "the FCC doesn't agree that Morse is necessary." The "regulatory" angle is just that, an angle. If you ignore the angle, you realise that it was never about Element 1 in the first place. It has always been about the code test. No angles. If you think it's just a bid to reduce the requirements in general, then you just couldn't be more wrong. Why must our beloved hobby/service be reduced to the lowest common denominator? 73 de Bert WA2SI |
"Bert Craig" wrote in
t: "Alun" wrote in message ... "Bert Craig" wrote in : "Alun" wrote in message ... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in : "Bert Craig" wrote in message et... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... "Alun" wrote in message ... It just so happens that I don't like CW, in the sense of I have no desire to use it. That should be OK too, but for some reason it bothers you. Why? No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not to use it. They have made that decision from a position of knowledge and experience. This is radically different from a person judging it and saying they will never use it when they do not have that knowledge and experience to draw on. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Right on the money, Dee. Larry pointed this out earlier, but not as eloquently as you. 73 de Bert WA2SI It fascinates me that you won't accept someone's plain and simple truth that they don't like CW--even if they don't have experience with it--because you reason that they need to have "knowledge and experience" with it. Well, I know people who are quite well-versed in CW who don't like it, people who haven't ever even tried it and don't like it, and people who have taken and passed a 5wpm test and don't like it. I also know people from those same three categories that do like CW operation. It's pretty much as simple as folks who do or don't like most other things in life. Either ya like it or ya don't. Kim W5TIT I think that you have hit upon a very important point there, Kim. A good analogy might be not liking an item of food that you haven't tried, because it looks disgusting on your plate. If you eat some you might like it, or not, but there are probably all kinds of other things that contain the same nutrition. These guys are like a parent telling a child that they have to eat their brocolli. But they aren't my parents and I don't like brocolli, or CW. I take vitamins, and work phone. Slight difference, Alun. Nobody's forcing anybody to learn code. There exists a no-code Technician license for those who do not wish to have to pass the 5-wpm code exam. 73 de Bert WA2SI Not really true. Very true, Alun...very true. No HF privileges with that licence, as we all know. As with most things in life, increased *privileges* requires increased effort. The ARS is but a microsm or society as a whole. Despite the efforts of some to reduce it to "just a hobby" status, the values and principles we learn in our "avocations" will likely carry over into the other aspects of our lives. Many here were first licensed as children or young adults, that's no accident. The kids of today are referred to as the Nintendo generation, kinda hard to compete with. However, in our quest to gain quantity, we appear to be courting a slightly older prospective ham...products of the newer "I want it now" society. So what can we do, villify the "speed bump" of our licensing structure in an effort to remove any "barriers." If you admit that you view the code test as a "speed bump", then you are admitting it's not relevant, but just there to slow down the traffic. You view that as desirable, and I don't, which is one of the differences between us. I kinda liken it to kids that are graduating HS with a 5th, 6th, or 7th grade reading level. Gee, how'd they get through? Check out the recent regents debacle. Not enough kids pass, it must be to hard...so we'll throw 'em a curve. See the cycle there. Had someone had the courage to NOT throw some of these kids their earlier curves in the first place, their Regents scores would be higher. What does this have to do with amateur radio? Very little. It's like saying that allowing people to get a licence without a code test will affect their knowledge of RF. Human nature. What we learn to do as we practice our avocation early in life, we tend to apply to other aspects later in life. Still believe this is about a 5-wpm Morse code test? Yes. No hidden agenda here. Why must we reduce our beloved hobby/service to the lowest commen denominator? 73 de Bert WA2SI |
"Bert Craig" wrote:
(snip) I kinda liken it to kids that are graduating HS with a 5th, 6th, or 7th grade reading level. Gee, how'd they get through? Check out the recent regents debacle. Not enough kids pass, it must be to hard...so we'll throw 'em a curve. See the cycle there. Had someone had the courage to NOT throw some of these kids their earlier curves in the first place, their Regents scores would be higher. What does this have to do with amateur radio? Human nature. What we learn to do as we practice our avocation early in life, we tend to apply to other aspects later in life. (snip) It is not Amateur Radio's job or mandate to correct society's ills, Bert. Indeed, the current members of this avocation are not different enough from society overall to even have the moral high ground to attempt to do so. We're not gods or priests - we're simply radio operators. By the way, the word "too," as in "too hard," has more than one "o." Why must we reduce our beloved hobby/service to the lowest commen denominator? There is nothing in code testing that insures the highest common denominator, or anything more than a lowest common denominator. Incidentally, one would reasonably expect no spelling mistakes in a message written by a person bold enough to point out the limited educational skills of others. The word "common" is spelled with an "o," not an "e." Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
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: 'Phone signals take up far more spectrum than code signals. Back in the days when full carrier DSB AM was king, the ratio was even worse than it is with SSB. Ten to twenty code signals in the space of one AM 'phone signal is about right. Not to mention the whistles from heterodyning carriers. If you're going to argue about non-related privs, then why should anyone have to learn about VHF/UHF to use HF, or vice versa? Why require knowledge of 'phone and image to operate CW? Why require theory to operate manufactured equipment? Why require anyone to learn anything they don't think they'll use? Or anyhting they don't like? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
However that decision needs to be based on knowledge and experience not "I don't want to learn" arguments. There are some people who would like to have a Ham license, but will say "I don't want to learn what is on the written tests." - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Hans K0HB" wrote: Nope, not at all. Under my proposal you'd be free to keep renewing your Technician (what a misnomer!) license until you assume room temperature. Why is that a misnomer, Hans? Is that (you don't like "Technician" as the name for this license) the real reason behind your attempt to change the names of the various licenses? Regardless, I've read about Technicians in your proposal. That still doesn't change any of my previous questions or comments about how potential newcomers will be affected by the changes suggested in that proposal. By the way, since we're discussing why here, perhaps you can explain why your proposal is needed at all. Exactly what are you trying to accomplish with the proposal and what evidence do you have that would suggest that need? My thoughts exactly! I tend to prefer a system something like what we have now, preseumably sans the Morse code test, with something added to at least the General test, and likely the Extra test also. I want added test material for the advanced licenses to fill the vacuum left by the departure of Morse Code testing. I don't want the additions as a way of keeping people out - indeed if there are some more questions, it is just a matter of studying a little more. I want it to show that we are not just getting rid of things, and thereby simply making things easier to get a ticket. Seems like a much easier to implement system to me. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote
Why is that a misnomer, Hans? Because it is misleading. "Technician" implies an emphasis on technical training, skills, and qualifications. While the original Technician license stressed those areas and was specifically designed to encourage amateur experimentation in VHF/UHF portions of the spectrum, that charter has long shifted to the point that Technician is the entry level license to our service, and the qualfication process gives little more than a "wink and a nod" to technical training and experimentation. The name should be "Communicator". 73, Hans, K0HB |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Dwight Stewart wrote: "Hans K0HB" wrote: Nope, not at all. Under my proposal you'd be free to keep renewing your Technician (what a misnomer!) license until you assume room temperature. Why is that a misnomer, Hans? Is that (you don't like "Technician" as the name for this license) the real reason behind your attempt to change the names of the various licenses? Regardless, I've read about Technicians in your proposal. That still doesn't change any of my previous questions or comments about how potential newcomers will be affected by the changes suggested in that proposal. By the way, since we're discussing why here, perhaps you can explain why your proposal is needed at all. Exactly what are you trying to accomplish with the proposal and what evidence do you have that would suggest that need? My thoughts exactly! I tend to prefer a system something like what we have now, preseumably sans the Morse code test, with something added to at least the General test, and likely the Extra test also. I want added test material for the advanced licenses to fill the vacuum left by the departure of Morse Code testing. I don't want the additions as a way of keeping people out - indeed if there are some more questions, it is just a matter of studying a little more. I want it to show that we are not just getting rid of things, and thereby simply making things easier to get a ticket. Seems like a much easier to implement system to me. The FCC is not chartered to be an educational institution. The amateur radio license test is NOT a certificate of achievement, although some think it is so. There is NO "requirement" that all prospective radio amateurs "prove themselves" to the "amateur community" in order to satisfy YOUR demands of hard work, dedication, and application of "what is 'good' for amateur radio." It's amazing the amount of self-righteousness that exists among the already licensed in here. All newcomers MUST do as they did in order for "acceptance" to the group. LHA |
|
In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "Bert Craig" wrote: (snip) I kinda liken it to kids that are graduating HS with a 5th, 6th, or 7th grade reading level. Gee, how'd they get through? Check out the recent regents debacle. Not enough kids pass, it must be to hard...so we'll throw 'em a curve. See the cycle there. Had someone had the courage to NOT throw some of these kids their earlier curves in the first place, their Regents scores would be higher. What does this have to do with amateur radio? Human nature. What we learn to do as we practice our avocation early in life, we tend to apply to other aspects later in life. (snip) It is not Amateur Radio's job or mandate to correct society's ills, Bert. Indeed, the current members of this avocation are not different enough from society overall to even have the moral high ground to attempt to do so. We're not gods or priests - we're simply radio operators. By the way, the word "too," as in "too hard," has more than one "o." Dwight, you cannot argue with Believers. Their self-righteousness knows no bounds. They are correct by their own definitions. They KNOW what is best for amateur radio...and that is a maintenance of morse code proficiency forever and ever. A morse code test for amateur radio licensing has "always" been in the regulations (91 years) and it must always be there. Why must we reduce our beloved hobby/service to the lowest commen denominator? There is nothing in code testing that insures the highest common denominator, or anything more than a lowest common denominator. Incidentally, one would reasonably expect no spelling mistakes in a message written by a person bold enough to point out the limited educational skills of others. The word "common" is spelled with an "o," not an "e." Messaging sometimes goes down to the "lowest common denominator" in writing... :-) LHA |
In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "Dee D. Flint" wrote: "Dwight Stewart" wrote: Really? You mean all those things I did to get a properly operating station (putting coax and connectors together, water- proofing, antenna tuning, SWR tests, ground radials, masts, guy wires, wiring a microphone, equipment grounding, lightning protection, RF exposure level estimates, and so on) wasn't really needed and didn't really require any skills to do properly? (snip) Soldering requires some modest skill but one can hire that done if desired. The other items are necessary but no skill is required just taking the time to do it. (snip) If you truly believe there is no skill involved to do those things properly, I suspect you haven't done most of them (at least not properly). Dwight, morse code proficiency overrules all other things. It doesn't matter in other skills. Only one thing counts - morse code skill. LHA |
In article , Alun
writes: "Bert Craig" wrote in et: "Alun" wrote in message ... "Bert Craig" wrote in : "Alun" wrote in message ... "Bert Craig" wrote in et: "Alun" wrote in message ... What is annoying is that a skill test is foisted on those who don't have the desire to use the skill. Folks have just figured out a way to gain a *privilege* in a perceived easier fashion, collectively whine. It stands a great chance too. After all, the Gov't. agency they must cajole shares their goal, less work. So with great glee, their proponents espouse "the FCC doesn't agree that Morse is necessary." The "regulatory" angle is just that, an angle. If you ignore the angle, you realise that it was never about Element 1 in the first place. It has always been about the code test. No angles. If you think it's just a bid to reduce the requirements in general, then you just couldn't be more wrong. Alun, a morseodist will NEVER admit they are wrong or are defeated. A morse code test has "always" been in regulations (always = 91 years) so, therefore, by morseodist logic, it must ALWAYS be there. Any demands, however slight, to reduce or eliminate the code test are a blatant insult to individual Believers-in-Morse, heresy, an abomination unto the god of ham, and other assorted pejoratives. MISDIRECTION in replies in here is now an SOP. Sigh. Why must our beloved hobby/service be reduced to the lowest common denominator? A "lowest common denominator" is unity. One. United States amateur radio was created for only One. All must do as that One did. Forever and ever. Belief is love. Ergo, anything against the One is an insult. Lots of insults in here, especially by the Loving Believers who will not, ever, accept anything against their Beliefs of the One. LHA. |
In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "Len Over 21" wrote: (snip) The TEST and the USE cannot be separated, Dwight. It is "necessary" to keep the test forever and ever so that there will be this "pool of trained operators (in CW)" to help earth survive on the next invasion of spacefaring aliens. LOL. Those darn aliens have had their eyes on Earth for some time now. Luckily, CW keeps us well prepared for any stunt they might try. I've even heard of a secret Air Force project to study the effects of CW on captured aliens. ;-) ...probably at "Area 51." :-) I just hope everyone in "the pool" can stand all the chlorine necessary to keep it sanitary... :-) For anyone wanting serious thinking (a novel concept in here), there's always Brooks AFB in San Antonio, the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine. So far, the folks at Brooks haven't touched on aliens, not even the green-card types. LHA |
In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: (snip) So what it comes down to is that a little serious skill-learning is required to use Morse on the air, except for a very few people who have learned Morse elsewhere. I think that plain, simple fact bothers some of the most vociferous and abusive anti-code-test folks. That fact, as you call it, ignores other very real facts. Few people today (especially boys and men) have not learned code, or at least played around with it, at some point in their lives. When we were kids, many of us sent messages to friends using flashlights or walkie-talkies with code printed on the side. Many other games and toys over the years have featured messages, secret or otherwise, sent by Morse code. Others learned code in groups like the Boy Scouts. Still others learned it in the military. I was in the U.S. military for 8 years. Never learned any morse code, never had to. I used real walkie-talkies and handie-talkies (AN/PRC-8 and AN/PRC-6, respectively). Never needed any morse code proficiency to use those. I even transmitted on HF with many KiloWatts of RF power, never had to use any morse code proficiency thing for that. The only "code" I learned as a kid was deciphering "secret messages" sent over a radio show (Captain Midnight?) which amounted to "drink Ovaltine." :-) In reality, most adults today are familiar enough with code to know whether they have any real interest in it. Morse code manual telegraphy is 159 years old. It shows up in old- time movies and TV shows, especially Westerns. Clearly, those with no interest are not exactly highly motivated to study up for a license exam. Sloth! Abomination unto the god of ham! Clearly such infidels have NO reason for existance! But the fact that some have no interest in code, and would freely choose not to learn it, really seems to bother some of the "most vociferous and abusive" pro-code folks. Antichrist = anticode? :-) LHA |
"Alun" wrote in message
... "Bert Craig" wrote in t: "Alun" wrote in message ... "Bert Craig" wrote in : "Alun" wrote in message ... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in : "Bert Craig" wrote in message et... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... "Alun" wrote in message ... It just so happens that I don't like CW, in the sense of I have no desire to use it. That should be OK too, but for some reason it bothers you. Why? No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not to use it. They have made that decision from a position of knowledge and experience. This is radically different from a person judging it and saying they will never use it when they do not have that knowledge and experience to draw on. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Right on the money, Dee. Larry pointed this out earlier, but not as eloquently as you. 73 de Bert WA2SI It fascinates me that you won't accept someone's plain and simple truth that they don't like CW--even if they don't have experience with it--because you reason that they need to have "knowledge and experience" with it. Well, I know people who are quite well-versed in CW who don't like it, people who haven't ever even tried it and don't like it, and people who have taken and passed a 5wpm test and don't like it. I also know people from those same three categories that do like CW operation. It's pretty much as simple as folks who do or don't like most other things in life. Either ya like it or ya don't. Kim W5TIT I think that you have hit upon a very important point there, Kim. A good analogy might be not liking an item of food that you haven't tried, because it looks disgusting on your plate. If you eat some you might like it, or not, but there are probably all kinds of other things that contain the same nutrition. These guys are like a parent telling a child that they have to eat their brocolli. But they aren't my parents and I don't like brocolli, or CW. I take vitamins, and work phone. Slight difference, Alun. Nobody's forcing anybody to learn code. There exists a no-code Technician license for those who do not wish to have to pass the 5-wpm code exam. 73 de Bert WA2SI Not really true. Very true, Alun...very true. No HF privileges with that licence, as we all know. As with most things in life, increased *privileges* requires increased effort. The ARS is but a microsm or society as a whole. Despite the efforts of some to reduce it to "just a hobby" status, the values and principles we learn in our "avocations" will likely carry over into the other aspects of our lives. Many here were first licensed as children or young adults, that's no accident. The kids of today are referred to as the Nintendo generation, kinda hard to compete with. However, in our quest to gain quantity, we appear to be courting a slightly older prospective ham...products of the newer "I want it now" society. So what can we do, villify the "speed bump" of our licensing structure in an effort to remove any "barriers." If you admit that you view the code test as a "speed bump", then you are admitting it's not relevant, but just there to slow down the traffic. You view that as desirable, and I don't, which is one of the differences between us. I kinda liken it to kids that are graduating HS with a 5th, 6th, or 7th grade reading level. Gee, how'd they get through? Check out the recent regents debacle. Not enough kids pass, it must be to hard...so we'll throw 'em a curve. See the cycle there. Had someone had the courage to NOT throw some of these kids their earlier curves in the first place, their Regents scores would be higher. What does this have to do with amateur radio? Very little. It's like saying that allowing people to get a licence without a code test will affect their knowledge of RF. It's not about the code Alun, it's about the effort. Human nature. What we learn to do as we practice our avocation early in life, we tend to apply to other aspects later in life. Still believe this is about a 5-wpm Morse code test? Yes. No hidden agenda here. No, there's no hidden agenda. If you take away the passion and whining from BOTH sides of the equation, it becomes obvious that the code test is really not the issue. It's the effort. If the writtens were made more difficult and the published Q&A pools eliminated, the whining would then continue. The common denominator...the effort involved. Why must we reduce our beloved hobby/service to the lowest commen denominator? Oops, my bad. That should read "common." Gotta pay more attention. hihi 73 de Bert WA2SI Like I said before, Alun. It's ok to just agree to disagree. Take care. 73 de Bert WA2SI |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... KØHB wrote: On the contrary, my plan puts newcomers dead center in the mainstream of amateur radio, with all the same privileges of EVERY other licensee, just at a more modest power level of 50watts. How are you going to enforce that? - Mike KB3EIA - Well, no matter what Hans believes on this, power level enforcement or even monitoring just can't be done--unless there'd be a whole lot more dollars and effort going to it and we all know that's not going to happen. Kim W5TIT While enforcement might prove difficult, the implementation of a power limit would, I believe, not be violated by the majority of hams. Those of us that were Novices at one time lived with a 75 watt limit. Did some novices violate that? Probably, but by and large, most stayed within the legal limit. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Bert Craig" wrote in
et: "Alun" wrote in message ... "Bert Craig" wrote in t: "Alun" wrote in message ... "Bert Craig" wrote in : "Alun" wrote in message ... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in : "Bert Craig" wrote in message et... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... "Alun" wrote in message ... It just so happens that I don't like CW, in the sense of I have no desire to use it. That should be OK too, but for some reason it bothers you. Why? No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not to use it. They have made that decision from a position of knowledge and experience. This is radically different from a person judging it and saying they will never use it when they do not have that knowledge and experience to draw on. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Right on the money, Dee. Larry pointed this out earlier, but not as eloquently as you. 73 de Bert WA2SI It fascinates me that you won't accept someone's plain and simple truth that they don't like CW--even if they don't have experience with it--because you reason that they need to have "knowledge and experience" with it. Well, I know people who are quite well-versed in CW who don't like it, people who haven't ever even tried it and don't like it, and people who have taken and passed a 5wpm test and don't like it. I also know people from those same three categories that do like CW operation. It's pretty much as simple as folks who do or don't like most other things in life. Either ya like it or ya don't. Kim W5TIT I think that you have hit upon a very important point there, Kim. A good analogy might be not liking an item of food that you haven't tried, because it looks disgusting on your plate. If you eat some you might like it, or not, but there are probably all kinds of other things that contain the same nutrition. These guys are like a parent telling a child that they have to eat their brocolli. But they aren't my parents and I don't like brocolli, or CW. I take vitamins, and work phone. Slight difference, Alun. Nobody's forcing anybody to learn code. There exists a no-code Technician license for those who do not wish to have to pass the 5-wpm code exam. 73 de Bert WA2SI Not really true. Very true, Alun...very true. No HF privileges with that licence, as we all know. As with most things in life, increased *privileges* requires increased effort. The ARS is but a microsm or society as a whole. Despite the efforts of some to reduce it to "just a hobby" status, the values and principles we learn in our "avocations" will likely carry over into the other aspects of our lives. Many here were first licensed as children or young adults, that's no accident. The kids of today are referred to as the Nintendo generation, kinda hard to compete with. However, in our quest to gain quantity, we appear to be courting a slightly older prospective ham...products of the newer "I want it now" society. So what can we do, villify the "speed bump" of our licensing structure in an effort to remove any "barriers." If you admit that you view the code test as a "speed bump", then you are admitting it's not relevant, but just there to slow down the traffic. You view that as desirable, and I don't, which is one of the differences between us. I kinda liken it to kids that are graduating HS with a 5th, 6th, or 7th grade reading level. Gee, how'd they get through? Check out the recent regents debacle. Not enough kids pass, it must be to hard...so we'll throw 'em a curve. See the cycle there. Had someone had the courage to NOT throw some of these kids their earlier curves in the first place, their Regents scores would be higher. What does this have to do with amateur radio? Very little. It's like saying that allowing people to get a licence without a code test will affect their knowledge of RF. It's not about the code Alun, it's about the effort. I think the effort would be better placed doing something else. Human nature. What we learn to do as we practice our avocation early in life, we tend to apply to other aspects later in life. Still believe this is about a 5-wpm Morse code test? Yes. No hidden agenda here. No, there's no hidden agenda. If you take away the passion and whining from BOTH sides of the equation, it becomes obvious that the code test is really not the issue. It's the effort. It's the misplaced effort If the writtens were made more difficult and the published Q&A pools eliminated, the whining would then continue. The common denominator...the effort involved. You can chose to beleive that it's about the effort, but it isn't Why must we reduce our beloved hobby/service to the lowest commen denominator? Oops, my bad. That should read "common." Gotta pay more attention. hihi 73 de Bert WA2SI Like I said before, Alun. It's ok to just agree to disagree. Take care. 73 de Bert WA2SI |
|
|
"Mike Coslo" wrote: (snip) I want added test material for the advanced licenses to fill the vacuum left by the departure of Morse Code testing. I don't want the additions as a way of keeping people out - indeed if there are some more questions, it is just a matter of studying a little more. I want it to show that we are not just getting rid of things, and thereby simply making things easier to get a ticket. (snip) Several have said that, but I just don't see what can be added that wouldn't fundamentality change the nature of the Amateur Radio Service. As I see it, this is an amateur activity designed with three basic goals in mind - provide some radio services to others (public service), some benefit to the participants (recreational radio activities), and a mild introduction to the field of electronics. Since the first two (and international goodwill) don't seem to be a consideration, I'll ignore those for now. This leaves the last and a question about how far that should be taken. Most are not clear at all about that. Some seem to suggest we add content to more closely fit a college degree program. If so, do we add science, history, social studies, general math, politics, language, art, economics, health, and the other things colleges require? If not, can we honestly claim the license is comprehensive training? But if we add those things, what happens to the avocational nature of this activity? I've looked over the current written tests. I just don't see where they're lacking as far as the existing goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service are concerned. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Hans K0HB" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote Why is that a misnomer, Hans? Because it is misleading. "Technician" implies an emphasis on technical training, skills, and qualifications. (snip) That's a tired, old, debate, Hans. One that I'm rather surprised would still bother you. It's a "Technician" license in an "Amateur" Radio Service. That hardly suggests an overwhelming degree of training, skills, or qualifications. If you want to make those names into something more that that, some would certainly object to "Extra" as an adverb meaning unusual or exceptional. You're far from exceptional. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote
some would certainly object to "Extra" as an adverb meaning unusual or exceptional. I agree that some would, which is why my proposal has simple alphabetic characters to designate the two license levels. You're far from exceptional. K0CKB disagrees with you. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote
I've looked over the current written tests. I just don't see where they're lacking as far as the existing goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service are concerned. Translation: "After over 6 years as a Technician, I've almost got the General Class test memorized. Don't set me back by making me memorize a whole different set of questions." 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Len Over 21" wrote:
I just hope everyone in "the pool" can stand all the chlorine necessary to keep it sanitary... :-) For anyone wanting serious thinking (a novel concept in here), there's always Brooks AFB in San Antonio, the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine. So far, the folks at Brooks haven't touched on aliens, not even the green-card types. As for the chlorine, you might want to poke around Northeastern Utah and Southeastern Idaho. The Defense Department in that area has been hiring a lot of people with biology and chemistry degrees over the last decade or so. Considering the number of job listings, I cannot help but wonder what they're up to. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Len Over 21" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes: (snip) Clearly, those with no interest are not exactly highly motivated to study up for a license exam. Sloth! Abomination unto the god of ham! Clearly such infidels have NO reason for existance! But the fact that some have no interest in code, and would freely choose not to learn it, really seems to bother some of the "most vociferous and abusive" pro-code folks. Antichrist = anticode? :-) A vision of Samuel Morse told me to go forth and spread those words. I doubted my vision, so I prayed in front of my radio, but saw no more visions. I then crossed myself in the shape of a code key and posted what I had been told. ;-) Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"KØHB" wrote:
Translation: "After over 6 years as a Technician, I've almost got the General Class test memorized. Don't set me back by making me memorize a whole different set of questions." Very funny, Hans. However, as previously stated, I have no interest in getting the General at this time. In fact, I'm not even that active with my current license. I've looked over the license tests several times over the last few years, the most recent to was when the tests were redone to see if any significant changes were made. Only one situation might immediately cause me to consider a new license class - if there was a possibility for us to go overseas again for a length of time where getting another license would be difficult. In that case, I would get a General, and perhaps even the Extra, in case I might want that capability while overseas. Other than that, my interest in the other license classes will probably not go beyond casual curiosity anytime soon. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net... "Dwight Stewart" wrote I've looked over the current written tests. I just don't see where they're lacking as far as the existing goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service are concerned. Translation: "After over 6 years as a Technician, I've almost got the General Class test memorized. Don't set me back by making me memorize a whole different set of questions." 73, de Hans, K0HB "Hammer, meet nail." I don't even think we need to change the questions. Eliminate the published Q&A pools and reorder the answers, that'll do it. Q. Do what? A. Require just a hair more cerebral activity than rote memorization. 73 de Bert WA2SI |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
k.net... As I see it, this is an amateur activity designed with three basic goals in mind - provide some radio services to others (public service), some benefit to the participants (recreational radio activities), and a mild introduction to the field of electronics. That may well be as *you* see it, but according to their rules going back at least 50 years, FCC goals aren't about "a mild introduction" to electronics. From 1950's Part 12, paragraph 12.0(d) "Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of ...... ELECTRONICS EXPERTS". From the contemporary Part 97, paragraph 97.1(d) "Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of ...... ELECTRONICS EXPERTS". Some seem to suggest we add content to more closely fit a college degree program. I haven't seen any such suggestion here (or anywhere else). My proposal suggests that the standard full-privilege qualifications should be essentially equivalent to the current Amateur Extra written examination. Since there are numerous examples of pre-teen children who have met that level of qualification, it certainly doesn't rise to the level of a "college degree program". 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"KØHB" wrote:
That may well be as *you* see it, but according to their rules going back at least 50 years, FCC goals aren't about "a mild introduction" to electronics. From 1950's Part 12, paragraph 12.0 (d) "Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of ...... ELECTRONICS EXPERTS". From the contemporary Part 97, paragraph 97.1(d) "Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of ...... ELECTRONICS EXPERTS". Nice editing to fit an agenda, Hans. However, the actual wording of 97.1(d) talks about expanding the existing reservoir of "trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts," not just "electronics experts." The FCC never intended for this radio service to be made up of electronics experts, or for all operators to become electronics experts. Thanks to the introduction to electronics Amateur Radio offers, some will become interested enough to seek outside education in some field of electronics - the real experts. Most will never be interested enough to go that far (home-brewing or lesser electronics jobs). And perhaps the vast majority will happily go through life as trained operators. Whatever the case, the goals of 97.1(d) are fulfilled. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote
From the perspective of an FCC license requirement, is it necessary for you to participate in that event? Yes, it is required by 97.1(e). 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote
Nice editing to fit an agenda, Hans. I have no agenda. And perhaps the vast majority will happily go through life as trained operators. This convenient ploy is the rallying cry of the QCAO but it lacks any foundation of credibility when you consider that the successful applicant for *any* amateur license is authorized to build his own station. Would you want me putting my homebrewed "creation" on your favorite VHF band if I hadn't even demonstrated a working knowledge of Thévénins theorum? Get real! 73, de Hans, K0HB ----------------------------------------------------------------- News Release: QCAO Reorganizes ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Quarter Century Appliance Operators was founded in the early 1950's by a small group of Amateur Radio operators from the Pacific Northwest. They had been active in their hobby for over 25 years, yet still lacked the basic knowledge of radio electronics and had no idea of how their equipment worked. They banded together to try and protect each others honor and pride. At radio gatherings and club meetings in the 1950s one was considered unworthy of the name Ham Radio Operator if he or she couldn't not only name components, but know how to solder them together and make a radio work, or fix a broken set! When faced with insults and dreision, those few hardy pioneers banded together and formed the First Chapter and National Organization of the QCAO. This was known as the "Cold Solder" Chapter. They even coined the now-famous club byword "e pluribus ignoramae" which is Latin for "We don't have to know how to solder, we just wanna talk on our radios." No veterans of that first chapter are known to be active on the air today. In the late 1950s and early '60s, with the worldwide interest in science and space and technology, the QCAO membership went underground. It is with great pride and dignity that today in the 21st Century the revived QCAO stands ready to rise from the ashes, and become the standard of mediocrity it once proudly was. In honor of those first pioneering members, QCAO hereby invites all eligible applicants to step forward and join! The benefits of QCAO include not only the pride of membership. Think of the warm glow you will feel at club meetings and gatherings showing off your new all-plastic imprinted QCAO pocket protector! And that's not all! For your minimal membership fee, you will also receive a handsome, suitable-for-framing, certificate of honor, with hand-lettered name and Charter Membership Number. Other QCAO memorabilia will soon be available for members, including T-shirts, caps, pins, etc. At this date charter membership numbers are still available. Membership requires a 25 years (more or less) interest in Amateur Radio, coupled with a basic ignorance of how radios work and how to repair them. Think of meeting other QCAO members on the air! No more embarrassing pauses when someone in the QSO mentions an RF choke or a parasitic bleeder...Be able to exchange meaningful sharing, talk about real things, yes, even swap QCAO numbers with each other! And soon perhaps . . . a worldwide QCAO contest! You no longer have to shrink to the back of the room at post- meeting sessions of your radio club. Just display your QCAO protector and others will be able to identify you immediately. Who knows? Perhaps one of the originals from that old QCAO Chapter is just waiting for you to find him. Join now! Remember "We don't have to know how to solder, we just wanna talk on our radios"! Don't let technoids embarrass you and kick jargon in your face. Stand up for what's right! Join QCAO! "e pluribus ignoramae" |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote
Mike, You and I know it can't be enforced without invasion of privacy. You have to go on the operator's property and make local field strength measurements. The rules have a wide assortment of power level restrictions below 100W, some as low as 2.5W, Many of them apply to every license class. Can I presume from your flip answer that we can safely ignore those limits because it would be an "invasion of privacy" for FCC to enforce them? 73, de Hans, K0HB |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com