Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old November 30th 03, 02:28 PM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default Response to "21st Century" Part One (Code Test)

This is a response to the paper "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century", prepared
by Jim Wiley, KL7CC, with assistance from other members of NCVEC working on
changes to the US Amateur rules. This response is intended to evaluate and
constructively comment on the merits of the various ideas and changes presented
in the paper, regardless of their source.

For purposes of clarity and brevity, the introductions and executive summaries
are not reproduced here.

"Part One" deals with the code test. "Part Two" and "Part Three" deal with the
proposed "Communicator" license.

Since the style of the paper is conversational, I inserted my comments into the
original paper in the same style, so that the paper reads like a conversation
between KL7CC and myself. My comments are preceded with "N2EY". The main text
of the original paper is preceded by "KL7CC".

Here is my response to "Amateur Radio In the 21st Century" (Part One)

N2EY: I'm a longtime active amateur, licensed 36 years. I was first licensed at
the age of 13 in 1967, and in less than three years had reached the Extra class
license. Amateur radio led me to earn bachelor's and master's degrees in
electrical engineering, and to an EE career.

KL7CC: Some of the thought processes, and the reasoning behind them:

Lets consider the matter of the Morse code. Even before anything else, keep in
mind the fact that every person on the committee that drafted the NCVEC
petition, now known as RM-10787, to remove the Morse code requirement, and also
every person on the committee that is working on the new entry level license,
is a "20 WPM" Extra class licensee. And, most if not all of them would list
Morse as one of their favorite modes, if not indeed the favorite mode. My own
favorite modes, in order, are Morse, AM Phone, SSB, and VHF FM. I also operate
occasionally on other modes, such as RTTY, packet, satellite, and I am thinking
about learning how to use PSK31. DXCC? Yes, about 200 officially, with
another 60 or 70 worked but not submitted yet. Most of them were on Morse
Code. One of our committee members, Fred, W5YI holds DXCC- CW only. Another,
Scotty, W4WW holds 5 Band DXCC and has been on the DXCC Honor Roll. John,
W3BE, uses CW almost daily, using it for traffic handling and chasing DX.

So, there are no "Morse code haters" on the committee. There is no conspiracy,
no secret agenda, no kickback from the manufacturers, no "black plan" from the
ARRL, no anything. Just some guys that want nothing more than to see our great
hobby prosper for the next hundred years, or longer.

N2EY: That's good to know. However, these ideas need to be considered on their
merits, not on the personalities of those who wrote them.

KL7CC: Will dropping the Morse requirement remove a "filter" that keeps out
poor operators, "CB Radio" types, scofflaws, and so on? I think not. Listen
to 75 meters on any given evening, or 20 meters above 14300 during the day, and
all too often what you hear is a cacophony of indecent language, illegal
operation, intentional interference, music, poor sportsmanship, you name it.
And every one of those characters passed a code test! Whether it was 5 or 13 or
20 WPM, they all passed a test. Some filter, huh?

N2EY: There are several problems with that line of thought:

First, no test will ever be a perfect "filter" of "bad apples". Particularly
not a one-time test, often taken decades ago. That doesn't mean there is no
filtering effect at all, just that it's not perfect.

Second, all of the violators you hear - indeed, all amateurs of any license
class - also took and passed several written tests to get their licenses. The
written tests have always contained questions about permissible on-air
behavior. If any test can be a "filter", shouldn't we expect those written
tests to have filtered out the "bad apples" even more so than the code test?
Yet you do not say "some filter, huh?" about the written tests. You do not
propose eliminating the written tests, even though it should logically be the
written tests' job to filter out such "bad apples".

Third, what mode are the violators using? It's not Morse code! They're almost
all on voice modes. Look at any listing of FCC enforcement actions, and you
will see that the overwhelming majority of behavior-type violations are by hams
using voice modes. The discrepancy is much, much more than can be explained by
the relative popularity of various modes. When was the last time FCC had a
similar enforcement problem with hams using Morse code?

Some might try to explain the discrepancy by saying "it's easier to behave that
way on voice". Maybe that's true - but so what? If a mode somehow promotes
better on-air behavior, isn't that a reason to support that mode?

Fourth, if you think some of the HF stuff is bad, look at some of the recent
FCC enforcement actions against hams using VHF. For example, four amateurs in
the 4th call district were recently cited for making illegal transmissions on
police frequencies. If that's not bad enough, a few months ago, there was the
case of the new amateur who made false distress calls on a VHF marine frequency
using a modified amateur transceiver. These weren't "newbie mistakes" - they
were deliberate and repeated violations, using voice modes and modified amateur
equipment. Read the FCC enforcement letters - they're not a good advertisement
for the ARS.

KL7CC: Will removing the Morse requirement let in some "bad apples"? Yes, it
will. But I firmly believe the number will be very small in comparison to the
gain our hobby will receive from decent, law abiding, talented, and
enthusiastic new hams. Just as letting code free new hams on to our VHF bands
has not, for the most part, resulted in chaos, the same will be true of our HF
assignments.

N2EY: The dropping of the code test for the Tech license in 1991 did not result
in a large, sustained growth increase in the number of hams, either. Compare
the growth in the 1980s with that in the 1990s. There was a surge of new hams
after the code test was dropped for Technician in 1991 - and then the growth
rate dropped back to only slightly more than what it was before.

Since the reduction of the code test to 5 wpm in 2000, the total number of US
hams has grown by less than 10,000. That's less than 2% in 3-1/2 years. If the
5 wpm code test is removed, and growth in the 3-1/2 years following is less
than 2%, will the code test be put back?

KL7CC: It will be up to us, as the "experts", to guide newcomers, passing on
the traditions of our hobby, the skills and operating techniques that make up a
ham that we can all point to and say "that is a good operator".

N2EY: That has always been the case. But there is only so much that Elmering
can do - otherwise, we wouldn't need licenses at all, just Elmers.

KL7CC: Will Morse code go away? Probably not in our lifetimes. Remember that
Morse code is still the easiest way to get on the air, the most effective means
of communicating under poor conditions, and where most of the DX will still be.


N2EY: That alone is justification for a basic test of Morse code skill.

KL7CC: We are not making Morse Code illegal; we are just making it equal to any
other mode that hams might enjoy. We don't have special tests before a ham
can operate SSB, or RTTY, or SSTV, or any other mode, so why for Morse code?

N2EY: Because only Morse Code requires a skill that most people do not possess
before getting an amateur license. And it cannot be learned by reading a book,
watching a video, or passively attending a few classes. The Morse code test
cannot be passed by memorization or word association of a published pool of
questions and answers.

Morse code is also the second most popular mode on amateur HF/MF, far ahead of
the data and image modes and only slightly behind SSB voice.

But Morse code is only useful if an operator has acquired the skills to use it.


KL7CC: When most operators (admit it, it's true) operate voice or data.

N2EY: It's also true that most operators also use manufactured equipment. Shall
we remove the theory questions from all of the written tests because most hams
don't build their own equipment? Which is more popular among hams - building
ham rigs or operating using Morse code?

KL7CC: Morse will probably retain most of it's exclusive band segments, at
least for now.

N2EY: There are NO exclusive band segments for Morse in any of the HF/MF
amateur bands. The only exclusive band segments for Morse code are, ironically,
the lowest 100 kHz of 6 and 2 meters. All of the non-phone subbands on amateur
HF are shared with data modes. They are CW/data subbands, not exclusive band
segments.

KL7CC: We are not addressing this issue at this time. This may change in the
future. Several countries no longer have exclusive segments, but depend
instead on voluntary band plans.

N2EY: Other countries (except Japan) also have far fewer radio amateurs than
the USA. Crowding of the HF amateur bands is much less of a problem in the rest
of the world.

KL7CC: In fact, our 160-meter band works this way today, with surprisingly few
problems.

N2EY: There are also relatively few amateurs on 160 meters at any given time,
due a number of factors such as the relatively large antennas needed. The lack
of mode and license class subbands on 160 is a result of the fractured nature
of the band when it was shared with LORAN.

KL7CC: Remember that when Ham Radio started, Morse code was all there was. It
wasn't even CW - we all used spark gap transmitters!

N2EY: Who is "we"? I wasn't on the air back in the spark days - were you?

N2EY: Besides, that state of affairs ended with World War 1. When amateurs
were allowed back on the air in 1919, some of them were using "CW" (tube
oscillator) transmitters instead of spark. Some of them began using voice modes
- in fact, the very first broadcasting stations were amateur stations.

KL7CC: One of the justifications for Amateur Radio, from the government's point
of view, is that we continue to lead, or at least follow closely behind,
advancements in the "state of the art" of electronic communications. That
means advancing, not standing still.

N2EY: What, exactly, is meant by "advancing, not standing still"? Does it mean
amateurs must stop doing what they think is best for amateur radio because of
changes in other services? For example, should amateurs stop using HF for
point-to-point nonemergency communication between fixed stations because almost
all other radio services have done so? That has been other radio services'
"advance", yet hams have "stood still" by still using HF for routine,
point-to-point (fixed) communications.

KL7CC: And by the way, the only reason there was ever a Morse requirement for
Amateur licensing in the first place is because of spark transmissions.

N2EY: This is incorrect. The Morse test requirement for amateurs was not even a
part of international regulations until 1927 - long after amateurs had stopped
using spark.

KL7CC: It was necessary for amateurs to understand the code so that they could
be told to stand by in case their transmissions were interfering with critical
government traffic, perhaps involving safety of life. Spark, by its very
nature, covers up a lot of frequencies - thus putting everyone, hams and
government alike, effectively on the same channel.

N2EY: Again, that state of affairs ended with World War 1, if indeed it ever
existed. The introduction of tuned receivers and the assignment of specific
wavelengths for different services effectively ended that situation by 1912.
Remember "200 Meters And Down"? Amateurs were not allowed on marine or
government wavelengths after 1912. Spark was outlawed for hams in 1927. Hams
had abandoned it years before then. Yet the code tests remaincd long after.

KL7CC: By the way, most hams use the terms "CW" and "Morse Code"
interchangeably, but if a person were to be picky, they are not the same. CW
means "Continuous Wave", or a continuous, unmodulated signal. Spark emissions
used a "damped wave", with a "high decrement", rich in harmonics and with wide
sidebands, which caused great amounts of interference. CW transmissions, on
the other hand, are restricted to a single frequency, or at least to a very
narrow range. Morse code, as used in most Amateur Radio situations, involves
keying a CW transmitter on and off in specific patterns, which we recognize as
letters, numbers, punctuation, and other symbols. However, to simplify things
and save on space, I will also use the terms interchangeably, as most Amateur
Radio operators do in everyday usage.

Will we lose something because we will no longer have the knowledge that all
hams can at least understand and send CW, even if very slowly? Maybe, maybe
not.

N2EY: We have already lost that knowledge. It happened more than a dozen years
ago.

KL7CC: You would be surprised at the number of applicants I see that actually
want to learn CW - they think it will be fun. There's a novel concept -
someone learning a skill because it is fun, not because the government says you
must do it.

N2EY: It's neither a surprise nor a novel concept. Will you also apply the same
criteria to the written tests - that a person should not be required to learnanything they are not immediately interested in?

KL7CC: Well, OK, that is all well and good, you say, but are there any reasons
we could offer that might support the idea of removing the Morse testing
requirement, and what are some of the expected implications?

Obviously, removing the Morse test requirement will make it easier for
thousands of interested persons to join our hobby.

N2EY: But will thousands more join? Eliminating the 13 and 20 wpm code tests
and reducing the written tests from 5 to 3 has resulted in growth of less than
2% in the past 3-1/2 years. If the removal of the last remaining vestige of
morse code testing does not result in significantly more growth, will the test
be put back?

KL7CC: There are many, who for whatever reason have a real, not imagined,
problem with learning the code. Call it stage fright, a psychological block,
hearing problems, poor recognition skills, whatever you want; there are indeed
those who literally cannot master the code, no matter how hard they try.
Lazy, you say? Anyone can make it to 5 WPM, you say? They just don't try, you
say?

N2EY: I don't say any of those things. Not ever.

KL7CC: Apparently you have not participated at hundreds of exam sessions. I
have.

N2EY: How many hundreds? From when to when?

KL7CC: I have seen grown men and women with tears in their eyes, frustrated,
angry, sometimes back next time, sometimes giving up on ham radio altogether.
Where's the gain in having someone give up?

N2EY: What is the failure rate of the code test compared to the written tests?
Does no one ever fail the writtens, or have extreme difficulty passing them?
How many people have not been able to pass the 5 wpm code test after giving it
serious study with modern learning tools?

If enough people who fail the Extra written come to you with 'tears in their
eyes', will you petition FCC to eliminate the Extra class written test?

The 5 wpm code test is not "mastery" by any definition. It's learning a skill
at the most basic level. The skill required is the ability to translate 43
sound patterns into letters, given 2.4 seconds per sound pattern. It's like
learning to recognize 43 words in a new language, nothing more. And the test
requires only the recognition of 25 of the sound patterns, not all 43.

KL7CC: Are you proud that you "made it"?

N2EY: Yes. Is there something wrong with pride of accomplishment? Should I be
ashamed?

KL7CC: Can you not find something that another person can do that you would
find extremely difficult if not impossible? Could you win the Tour de France
bicycle race - even if you trained every day for the rest of your life? Could
you invent the Laser? Could you paint the Mona Lisa?

N2EY: That's a completely invalid set of analogies. You are comparing
world-class feats of excellence with the acquisition of a skill at an extremely
basic level. 5 wpm is not equivalent to winning the Tour de France, or
inventing a laser, or painting the Mona Lisa. It's more the equivalent of
riding a bicycle at 5 mph for a mile on a level road, or assembling a
flashlight, or painting a recognizable human face. Not everyone can learn to do
those things, either.

Why do you exaggerate the difficulty of passing the code test?

KL7CC: Not that painting a work of art or riding a bicycle has all that much to
do with radio, it's just to point out that while you may have been able to
master the code with some degree of success, that doesn't necessarily mean that
everyone has the same ability as you.

N2EY: Morse code, however, has a lot to do with amateur radio. Also, 5 wpm is
not mastery.

KL7CC: I would argue that the ability to master the code has no apparent
connection with how "good" a ham a person is.

N2EY: The same can be said of the written tests. Shall they be stripped down to
the barest minimum, or eliminated entirely? They are not a 100% effective
filter for "bad apples". There are some people who would make great hams who
have real problems with math, with test phobia, with remembering details like
band edges and electronic symbols. Why are they being kept out of amateur
radio?

KL7CC: What we want, I think you will agree, is someone who will respect our
traditions, follow the rules, bring enthusiasm and vigor to the hobby, and make
a positive contribution.

N2EY: I agree 100% on that. How do we attract such people to amateur radio.

KL7CC: So, who's to say that mastering Morse code skills makes a better ham?

N2EY: Who is to say they do not? Either way, it's merely an opinion. Is it
wrong, or electro-politically incorrect, to express such an opinion?

KL7CC: I would not be so arrogant as to think such a thing. Every time I get
to feeling superior, I look around, and guess what? - - - I can find someone
who is better at something, anything, than me. I can also name several
individuals that I think are in one way or another "better hams" than I, better
operators, better engineers, better at some aspect of our hobby than me. Might
that be true with you too?

N2EY: Expressing an opinion on what the license requirements should be is
neither arrogant nor feeling superior. It's just an opinion. Saying that Morse
code skills do not make a better ham is just as arrogant as saying they do.

KL7CC: CW is a great mode. It's fun. I enjoy it. And, it's time to move on.


N2EY: What exactly does "time to move on" mean in this context? Should hams
stop using Morse code? Why? What are we supposed to "move on" towards?

KL7CC: We no longer require applicants to draw schematic diagrams, demonstrate
how to neutralize a triode vacuum tube amplifier, lots of other things.

N2EY: Schematic drawing was eliminated because they required a trained examiner
to grade, and also because it was not a 100% objective measure. Neutralization
questions were removed from the test because relatively few hams use
transmitters requiring neutralization adjustments. The written exams have been
revised over the years to reflect the technologies in general amateur use.

And a lot of hams today use Morse code. Particularly on the HF/MF amateur
bands.

KL7CC: Lets be gentlemen and give CW a decent, respectful, wave. Remembering
our old friend, but looking forward, not backward.

N2EY: What exactly does all that mean? You say "give CW a decent, respectful
wave" and "look forward, not backward" - does that mean no more Morse code
test, or no more Morse code?

KL7CC: Morse code will live forever. As long as someone cares about the history
and mystery of early radio, and lots of hams do, CW will be around. Like
anything else, when a person finds he or she has a need to use Morse code, they
will learn it. Want to work DX, or QRP, or weak signal VHF, or Moon-bounce?
Better learn the code, or you won't have a very satisfying experience.

N2EY: I hope that's true. But previously you wrote: "Will Morse code go away?
Probably not in our lifetimes." Now you say it will live forever. Which is it?

What will you say to someone who wants to remove everything but the basic
rules, regs and safety from the written tests? How do you answer a prospective
ham who says "I don't need to learn all that theory and propagation and other
stuff now, for any class of license - when I find I have a need for it, I'll
learn it"?

KL7CC: Are we "dumbing down" amateur radio? Are you kidding? Have you looked
at the new Extra class tests?

N2EY: Yes, I have. They're not very hard if someone knows a little about radio.
They have been passed by grade-school children.

KL7CC: Could you honestly say you could pass one, picked at random, "cold"?

N2EY: Without reservation, I can honestly say "YES - I CAN!"

KL7CC: I couldn't, at least not without some serious study of the books.

N2EY: Why not?

Part of the understanding between the FCC and licensees is that we will at
least keep current enough to pass the exams we expect others to take to become
hams. With all due respect, if a licensed amateur cannot pass the current tests
for the license they hold without serious study, then I think that amateur
should reconsider whether they should be in a position to make amateur radio
policy decisions. Just my opinion.

If experienced hams can't pass the current written tests for the licenses they
hold, why must new hams be required to pass them? Sounds like a case of "do as
I say, not as I do".

Do you begin to see why some folks use terms like "dumbing-down"?

KL7CC: I have been licensed since the late 50's, went through all of the steps,
starting at Novice, and getting my Extra in the 70's. Even had a "First Class"
commercial radiotelephone, with both the radar and aircraft endorsements -
passed all the elements in one sitting, missed at most 3 or 4 questions on any
given section - a couple were perfect. And, except for the Novice, did this
while sitting in front of the FCC themselves, no less. Never flunked a FCC
code or theory exam. Never. So what? That and a dollar will get me a cup of
coffee. I learned about ham radio from my peers, from watching and listening,
not from tests.

N2EY: It sounds like you're making a case to eliminate almost all testing, not
just code. If the result of all that testing is a "so what", why should new
hams have to do it?

I've been licensed since 1967, and Extra since 1970. There has never been a
time when I could not pass the then-current license tests without any special
preparation. I say "Bring 'em on!"

KL7CC: Will ham radio turn into CB? No, it won't.

N2EY: How do you know for sure? Nobody really knows what will happen. When FCC
created 27 MHz CB in 1958, no one thought that it would turn out the way it
did. How can you guarantee what will happen in the future?

KL7CC: In the first place, CB is essentially an unlicensed service. Secondly,
there are still the written exams, and add to that peer pressure from other
hams, and the fact that hams must use call signs, instead of "handles", and
there is just no comparison.
It isn't even an "apples and oranges" argument - it's more of an "apples and
cement mixers" discussion - there just isn't any common ground between the two
services. Hams will literally refuse to talk to someone without a call sign -
and a call sign removes the anonymity of CB.

N2EY: When CB was created, its users were required to obtain licenses and
callsigns, and had to certify that they had read, understood, and would comply
with all FCC rules of their service. Widespread disregard for the rules in the
CB service caused FCC to give up on trying to enforce those rules, and
ultimately to change them so that callsigns and licenses were no longer issued.


If enough hams misbehave on the air - and it doesn't take many to cause real
problems - FCC will either have to shut down the amateur service or allow
things to go the way they did with cb.

Hopefully this won't happen to amateur radio. But it did happen to cb, despite
licenses, callsigns, clear FCC rules for the service, and much, much more FCC
enforcement than has ever been expended on the amateur bands. In my opinion,
the reason it happened to cb was simply that many cb users had no personal
investment or commitment to their radio service. They simply didn't care to
follow the rules, and FCC and the rules-abiding cb users were simply
overwhelmed by sheer numbers.

How do we insure that most new licenses will have adequate personal investment
or commitment to the ARS?

KL7CC: Break the rules on the ham bands, and you will get caught, and fined or
even sent to jail.

N2EY: You cannot guarantee that. Neither can FCC.

KL7CC: We even have an "enforcer", in the person of Riley Hollingsworth, of the
FCC's enforcement division. Riley and his helpers do an excellent job of
keeping the ham bands clean, and his efforts in cooperation with Amateur Radio
volunteers, such as the ARRL's Official Observer corps, do the job. Yes, he
knows about the problems on 75 and 20, as well as elsewhere - and he is working
on them as you read this. He has a problem common to all law enforcement
types - he has to follow the rules, and the violators don't - but he will catch
up with them in the end, trust me on that. I have visited with Riley one on
one, and listened to him speak. He is a great guy, funny, personable, very
sharp, and dead serious about his job. I surely wouldn't want him mad at me!

N2EY: The problems in certain parts of the voice subbands on 75 and 20 are of
long standing. Where was FCC enforcement when those problems started? Why have
they been allowed to fester for so many years? Riley is trying his best and
doing great things - but he's only one person, trying to do an extremely
difficult job.

You cannot guarantee that Riley will catch all of the trouble makers or even
most of the worst ones. Particularly if their numbers increase. He's doing all
he can but his resources are finite. And the problems are not limited to 75 and
20 meters.

Most amateurs follow the rules not because they're afraid of Riley or the FCC
but because they have a personal investment or commitment to the ARS.

And remember what modes almost all of those bad apples are using. It isn't
Morse code!

(End of Part One - see Parts Two and Three for "Communicator" discussion )

73 de Jim, N2EY

  #4   Report Post  
Old December 1st 03, 11:58 AM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...

So, there are no "Morse code haters" on the committee. There is no

conspiracy,
no secret agenda, no kickback from the manufacturers, no "black plan" from

the
ARRL, no anything. Just some guys that want nothing more than to see our

great
hobby prosper for the next hundred years, or longer.

N2EY: That's good to know. However, these ideas need to be considered on

their
merits, not on the personalities of those who wrote them.


Jim, it would appear, at least on the surface, that you would also
welcome the comments of Len Anderson.


I used to, Brian.

But for years, Mr. Anderson has used his "comments" as a way to voice
unprovoked insults and denigration of those who oppose his views. His
"comments" are rarely if ever without such ad hominem attacks. He is
particularly nasty to those who prove him to be mistaken on any point of radio
theory or history, as I have done many times.

Thus, his credibility in this newsgroup has been eroded over the years, to the
point where it does not exist at all any more.

Your credibility is also eroded, for similar reasons.

The authors of the "21st Century" paper are trying to bolster the credibility
of their ideas by pointing to their own personalities rather than the merits
of their arguments.

I guess that saying the right thing is important, even if you don't
mean it, or even if it's impossible. It makes everyone feel good.


Try considering what I wrote in the context of a reply to the authors of the
21st Century paper.




  #5   Report Post  
Old December 1st 03, 08:23 PM
Len Over 21
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...

So, there are no "Morse code haters" on the committee. There is no

conspiracy,
no secret agenda, no kickback from the manufacturers, no "black plan" from

the
ARRL, no anything. Just some guys that want nothing more than to see our

great
hobby prosper for the next hundred years, or longer.

N2EY: That's good to know. However, these ideas need to be considered on

their
merits, not on the personalities of those who wrote them.


Jim, it would appear, at least on the surface, that you would also
welcome the comments of Len Anderson.


I used to, Brian.

But for years, Mr. Anderson has used his "comments" as a way to voice
unprovoked insults and denigration of those who oppose his views. His
"comments" are rarely if ever without such ad hominem attacks. He is
particularly nasty to those who prove him to be mistaken on any point of
radio theory or history, as I have done many times.


Believers can seldom coexist with infidels, heretics against Their
Beliefs.

Morseodists are ALWAYS right...by their own definitions.

Thus, his credibility in this newsgroup has been eroded over the years, to
the point where it does not exist at all any more.


All-time high for Jimmie's self-righteousness! :-)

Your credibility is also eroded, for similar reasons.


Ah, more self-righteousness. The Fury of the Reverend is at a peak.

The Sermon on the Antenna Mount continues...

The authors of the "21st Century" paper are trying to bolster the credibility
of their ideas by pointing to their own personalities rather than the merits
of their arguments.


Obviously, those 20 WPM code tested VECs are not of the True
Beliefs!

I guess that saying the right thing is important, even if you don't
mean it, or even if it's impossible. It makes everyone feel good.


Try considering what I wrote in the context of a reply to the authors of the
21st Century paper.


Step up the brightness on your True Light, Reverend.

Show us all the Way to Salvation, the Righteous Path of Morse.

Amen.

LHA


  #6   Report Post  
Old December 1st 03, 09:41 PM
Brian
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...

So, there are no "Morse code haters" on the committee. There is no

conspiracy,
no secret agenda, no kickback from the manufacturers, no "black plan" from

the
ARRL, no anything. Just some guys that want nothing more than to see our

great
hobby prosper for the next hundred years, or longer.

N2EY: That's good to know. However, these ideas need to be considered on

their
merits, not on the personalities of those who wrote them.


Jim, it would appear, at least on the surface, that you would also
welcome the comments of Len Anderson.


I used to, Brian.

But for years, Mr. Anderson has used his "comments" as a way to voice
unprovoked insults and denigration of those who oppose his views. His
"comments" are rarely if ever without such ad hominem attacks. He is
particularly nasty to those who prove him to be mistaken on any point of radio
theory or history, as I have done many times.

Thus, his credibility in this newsgroup has been eroded over the years, to the
point where it does not exist at all any more.


Some things impossible are now possible, right?

Your credibility is also eroded, for similar reasons.


More feel-good wishes?

The authors of the "21st Century" paper are trying to bolster the credibility
of their ideas by pointing to their own personalities rather than the merits
of their arguments.

I guess that saying the right thing is important, even if you don't
mean it, or even if it's impossible. It makes everyone feel good.


Try considering what I wrote in the context of a reply to the authors of the
21st Century paper.


Jim, you might be suprised to learn that the authors of the 21st Paper
felt it necessary to to bolster their credibility because of the ad
hominem attacks on them - as code haters, CB Plussers, and desirous of
destroying the ARS. I'm sure that you know what I mean.

So they present not only ideas with merit, but also personal and
professional credibility.

If their credibility is so bothersome to you, just wish it away.
  #7   Report Post  
Old December 2nd 03, 04:45 AM
Steve Robeson, K4CAP
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Attention One And All:

Sir Lennie of Putzonia shall now demonstrate how "Professional
Electrical Engineers" engage in "civil debate" (his description of how
he conducts himself in this forum).

You will please note the complete lack of any substantial
discussion and the liberal use of sarcastic adjectives in order to
overcome his lack of any meaningful discussion.

Again.

Steve, K4YZ


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

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...

So, there are no "Morse code haters" on the committee. There is no

conspiracy,
no secret agenda, no kickback from the manufacturers, no "black plan" from

the
ARRL, no anything. Just some guys that want nothing more than to see our

great
hobby prosper for the next hundred years, or longer.

N2EY: That's good to know. However, these ideas need to be considered on

their
merits, not on the personalities of those who wrote them.

Jim, it would appear, at least on the surface, that you would also
welcome the comments of Len Anderson.


I used to, Brian.

But for years, Mr. Anderson has used his "comments" as a way to voice
unprovoked insults and denigration of those who oppose his views. His
"comments" are rarely if ever without such ad hominem attacks. He is
particularly nasty to those who prove him to be mistaken on any point of
radio theory or history, as I have done many times.


Believers can seldom coexist with infidels, heretics against Their
Beliefs.

Morseodists are ALWAYS right...by their own definitions.

Thus, his credibility in this newsgroup has been eroded over the years, to
the point where it does not exist at all any more.


All-time high for Jimmie's self-righteousness! :-)

Your credibility is also eroded, for similar reasons.


Ah, more self-righteousness. The Fury of the Reverend is at a peak.

The Sermon on the Antenna Mount continues...

The authors of the "21st Century" paper are trying to bolster the credibility
of their ideas by pointing to their own personalities rather than the merits
of their arguments.


Obviously, those 20 WPM code tested VECs are not of the True
Beliefs!

I guess that saying the right thing is important, even if you don't
mean it, or even if it's impossible. It makes everyone feel good.


Try considering what I wrote in the context of a reply to the authors of the
21st Century paper.


Step up the brightness on your True Light, Reverend.

Show us all the Way to Salvation, the Righteous Path of Morse.

Amen.

LHA



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Response to "21st Century" Part Three (Communicator License) N2EY Policy 0 November 30th 03 02:28 PM
My response to Jim Wiley, KL7CC Brian Policy 3 October 24th 03 12:02 AM
Low reenlistment rate charlesb Policy 54 September 18th 03 01:57 PM
Some comments on the NCVEC petition D. Stussy Policy 13 August 5th 03 04:23 AM
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. Keith Policy 1 July 31st 03 03:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017