"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

"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

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

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

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 wish to BAN "wide bandwidth signals" in the U.S. amateur
bands, then submit a PETITION for such banishment.

Take everything back to 1950 or thereabouts, maybe even 1930.
BAN all those newfangled modes and modulations that don't meet
the criteria of simple, narrowband on-off keying. I keep suggesting
you also include in your petition a name change of the hobby to

Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service

If you feel "insulted" by such extremism, then change 'archaic' to
Amateur. You have the liberty to do that.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..."

Guess who said that? :-)

LHA

"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

"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.

Kim W5TIT

"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

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"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


I think I like that idea!

Kim W5TIT

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
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



It's only the wrong perspective because it's not your perspective

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.