Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in

stuff sinpped for trying to figure out who said what....



Yeah, for me too! 6 months of daily studying, one failed test,
and finally passing it. I think that my brain processes audio differently
than does those people with normal hearing.



I have not posted this point for a long time, as it provokes extreme
reactions from the pro code test lobby, but I can beat your 6 months.
It took me 22 years. Can you honestly wonder that I feel the way I do?

That is quite a long time. What was the reason that it took you 22
years? My reason was hearing problems, and a presumed mental processing
of sound deficit.



I don't know. My hearing is OK as far as I know.


What was the total study time?


Hard to say. I gave up completely over and over again, but I kept coming
back to it because I still wanted to get on HF.


If it wasn't a hazing process, then I'm a Dutchman

Don't take it personally! Some people learn Morse pretty easily, and
for some it is hard. Is it a hazing process if it is easy? Same goes
for the writtens. I can assure you that no group of Hams ever sat down
and said "Let's give this Coslo guy a rough time and make him learn
Morse code".




As a guy who can't "hear" people unless he can see the mouth of
the person speaking, I have just a little trouble figuring out the
problem with normal people for which the test is too hard to make it
worth getting a license.

But it is! Witness all those who are dropping off the ranks when
their license expires.

I predict the next tack of the NCI's is that not allowing the
codeless Techs HF access is why they aren't renewing their
license.


Certainly that must be true of some of them. What proportion, I
couldn't say.

That would certainly be an interesting outlook for a person. Let
us say
that a person became a ham in 1994, and has a combined intense
interest in operation below 30 MHz, and deep seated conviction against
Morse code testing, leading to refusal to take the Element 1 test.

Somehow doesn't ring true.


It was true enough of me, although I became a no-code ham in 1980 (in
the UK), more or less in defeat at having tried unsuccessfully to
learn Morse code ever since 1970, and passed a code test in 1992.

Getting a no-code licence was something I only did because I was
resigned to not getting the HF access that I wanted. It was a case of
thinking it was silly to stay off the air altogether just because I
couldn't get on HF, and it took me a long time, i.e. 10 years, to
grudgingly reach that conclusion.

Eventually passing the code test was helped by software that didn't
exist back in 1970, and the help of dear friends who took turns to
send slow CW transmissions several times a week that I knew were being
done mainly just for my benefit. Sure, others tuned in, but they
stopped sending them when I passed! I owe them a great deal.

Here's another interesting fact. I was teaching ham radio classes for
years before I passed the bleeping code!

If none of this rings true, I can assure that every word is the truth.

I believe you. And you didn't do what my hypothetical Technician
did
either. You kept with it an eventually passed



Eventually is right


As I said, all of this has been posted here before, but not recently.
My own history hasn't proved as effective as an argument as simply
pointing out that none of the arguments in favour of retaining code
testing hold as much water as a leaky bucket!

Except here is what I see as the difference. You had difficulties
with
Element one, and so did I. You want the test eliminated because you had
a hard time of it. I don't want the test removed just because of my
personal trouble with it.



Six months isn't that long though, is it?

Well, we'd have to adjust it to compare with your metric. My six months
was an intense study period after several fits and starts. I'd probably
have to adjust it to a couple years to compare with your time, as I
passed my GEneral ~ 2 years after I passed my Technician. While I was
studying for the Technician test, I also studied for Element 1.


We all have walls to climb in life. Some peoples walls are higher
than
others. I'll climb my own walls, and not try to change everyone elses
walls. YMMV.




I think that those who want to get rid of Element one testing
would be
better off to not try that argument.

That would be reminiscent of the old "Jump Frog" joke!


Except that the circumstances I describe never struck me as a joke.

I had enough problems that it was no joke to me either. But my
point
wasn't about the test specifically, it was the conclusion that people
reach regarding Morse code testing and the people coming into or
leaving the ARS.



I think it's probably true that having the no-code licence has increased
turnover, but we don't know why. Nobody has done any research on this
point.

Doubtless some have used a no-code licence as a substitute for a cellphone.
Doubtless some who had only a passing interest got a Tech licence and then
moved on, but we have to factor in that they had no exposure to HF. I'm
sure that others found that the 'consolation prize' of 50MHz and up wasn't
enough of a consolation to bother renewing.


Just so you know what the joke was about:



A scientist was conducting an experiment.

He took a frog, and sat it on the floor. Then he said:

"Jump, frog, Jump!"

The frog jumps 6 feet.

The scientist writes in his notebook *Frog with four legs jumps 6
feet*.

Then he cuts off one of the frog's legs...

"Jump, frog, Jump!"

The frog jumps 4 feet.

The scientist writes in his notebook *Frog with three legs jumps 4
feet*.

He cuts off another leg.

"Jump, frog, Jump!"

The frog jumps 2 feet.

The scientist writes in his notebook *Frog with two legs jumps 2
feet*.

Then he cuts off the third leg.

"Jump, frog, Jump!"

With a mighty struggle, the frog jumps 1 feet.

The scientist writes in his notebook *Frog with 1 leg jumps 1
foot*.

Then he cuts off the final leg.

"Jump, frog, Jump!"

The frog just sits there.

"Jump, frog, Jump!"

The frog still just sits there.


The scientist writes in his notebook *Frog with no legs is deaf.




Funny in a macabre sort of way, but hard to see the connection.

Back when I originally made the "Jump frog jump comment, it was about
people making an incorrect or bizzare conclusion from plain evidence.

Where people Might say that the No-Code technicians quit because The
had a license that didn't have Element 1 as a test requirement.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dave Heil wrote in
:

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in
:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in
:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:


Mike Coslo wrote in
:



Alun L. Palmer wrote:



Mike Coslo wrote in
:

That is quite a long time. What was the reason that it took you
22
years? My reason was hearing problems, and a presumed mental
processing of sound deficit.


I don't know. My hearing is OK as far as I know.

What was the total study time?

Hard to say. I gave up completely over and over again, but I kept
coming back to it because I still wanted to get on HF.

I guess I really don't understand the mindset that allows one to give
up repeatedly at something one really wants. There were times that I
found the going tough, whether in trying to improve my morse speed or
in trying to learn some bit of theory but I never thought of quitting.


Uh, duh. Try because I couldn't do it. Hitting your head against a wall is
something one ought not to prolong endlessly. Sometimes it's better to go
away and do something else. I have realised from these kind of discussions
that you will never in a million years be able to comprehend just how hard
I found it, which is why I have avoided reposting this until now.

Here's another interesting fact. I was teaching ham radio classes
for years before I passed the bleeping code!

If none of this rings true, I can assure that every word is the
truth.

I believe you. And you didn't do what my hypothetical
Technician did
either. You kept with it an eventually passed


Eventually is right

But you did learn morse and pass the exam.


Oh yes, eventually. More than two decades to pass a code test to use HF
phone. That speaks for itself.


As I said, all of this has been posted here before, but not
recently. My own history hasn't proved as effective as an argument
as simply pointing out that none of the arguments in favour of
retaining code testing hold as much water as a leaky bucket!

Except here is what I see as the difference. You had
difficulties with
Element one, and so did I. You want the test eliminated because you
had a hard time of it. I don't want the test removed just because of
my personal trouble with it.


Six months isn't that long though, is it?

No, it really isn't.

We all have walls to climb in life. Some peoples walls are
higher than
others. I'll climb my own walls, and not try to change everyone
elses walls. YMMV.

Except that the circumstances I describe never struck me as a joke.

I had enough problems that it was no joke to me either. But my
point
wasn't about the test specifically, it was the conclusion that
people reach regarding Morse code testing and the people coming into
or leaving the ARS.


I think it's probably true that having the no-code licence has
increased turnover, but we don't know why. Nobody has done any
research on this point.

We can make some educated guesses.

Doubtless some have used a no-code licence as a substitute for a
cellphone. Doubtless some who had only a passing interest got a Tech
licence and then moved on, but we have to factor in that they had no
exposure to HF. I'm sure that others found that the 'consolation
prize' of 50MHz and up wasn't enough of a consolation to bother
renewing.

See! You did make some educated guesses.

...and those folks never gave a thought to tackling morse code at 5 wpm
to gain access to HF? They either had no curiousity about modes other
than FM on 2m repeaters, no curiousity about the 6m band and what it
offered or perhaps they couldn't muster enough enthusiasm to reach the
next plateau.

Dave K8MN

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

snip

Yeah, for me too! 6 months of daily studying,
one failed test,
and finally passing it. I think that my brain
processes audio
differently than does those people with normal hearing.

I have not posted this point for a long time, as it provokes
extreme
reactions from the pro code test lobby, but I can beat your 6
months.
It took me 22 years.

The most extreme reactions I see are those of a few anticode
types. Not
you,
Alun.

Can you honestly wonder that I feel the way I do?

Why did it take 22 years?


I'm not sure I really know

I gather that it was a lot of stops and starts, not 22 years of
constant effort.

And didn't you wind up passing the 20 wpm test?

Yes, that's true. Once you get over about 11-12 wpm it's not
much harder to get to 20

Which says to me it was more a matter of training method than
of the subject matter being "hard".

If it wasn't a hazing process, then I'm a Dutchman

Don't take it personally! Some people learn Morse pretty
easily, and for some it is hard. Is it a hazing process if
it
is easy? Same goes for the writtens.

Exactly!

Some people have a very hard time with math. Others with rote
memorization
of things like band edges.

I can assure you that no group of Hams ever sat down and said
"Let's
give this Coslo guy a rough time and make him learn Morse code".

As a guy who can't "hear" people unless he can see the
mouth
of
the person speaking, I have just a little trouble figuring out
the
problem with normal people for which the test is too hard to
make
it worth getting a license.

But it is! Witness all those who are dropping off the
ranks
when their license expires.

I predict the next tack of the NCI's is that not allowing
the
codeless Techs HF access is why they aren't renewing their
license.

Certainly that must be true of some of them. What proportion, I
couldn't say.

That would certainly be an interesting outlook for a
person.
Let us say
that a person became a ham in 1994, and has a combined intense
interest in operation below 30 MHz, and deep seated conviction
against Morse code testing, leading to refusal to take the
Element
1 test.

Somehow doesn't ring true.

It was true enough of me, although I became a no-code ham in 1980
(in
the UK), more or less in defeat at having tried unsuccessfully to
learn Morse code ever since 1970, and passed a code test in 1992.

Getting a no-code licence was something I only did because I was
resigned to not getting the HF access that I wanted. It was a case
of
thinking it was silly to stay off the air altogether just because
I
couldn't get on HF, and it took me a long time, i.e. 10 years, to
grudgingly reach that conclusion.

WHat were the tesrt requirements in the UK then? Here in the USA,
the
Novice
and Tech were 5 wpm in that time period.

12 wpm random groups with 96% copy

The US requirements for hams have never been anywhere near so
stringent.

The *toughest* they ever were was 1 minute solid copy out of 5 minutes
- plain language. 5, 13 and 20 wpm. That's 20% accuracy! About 20-25
years ago, fill-in-the-blank and multiple choice were added.


Eventually passing the code test was helped by software that
didn't
exist back in 1970, and the help of dear friends who took turns to
send slow CW transmissions several times a week that I knew were
being
done mainly just for my benefit. Sure, others tuned in, but they
stopped sending them when I passed! I owe them a great deal.

Code training software for PCs was common here in EPA by the early
1980s. I still have old copies that run on DOS 3.2..

In the 1970s and 1980s, HF was full of non-amateur Morse operation.
And
the
now-changed treaty required code tests.

Here's another interesting fact. I was teaching ham radio classes
for
years before I passed the bleeping code!

If none of this rings true, I can assure that every word is the
truth.

But why did it take you so long, Alun?

What study methods did you use?

Early on, mainly just listening to slow Morse transmissions

And then what?

And if the test were only 5 wpm, and you had a choice of
1 minute solid copy or fill-in-the-blank with 70% being the
passing grade, how long would it have taken you to learn
enough to pass the test?


And note that here in the USA, full privileges have been available
with just a 5 wpm code test *since 1990*. Of course a medical
waiver
was needed before 2000, but all such a waiver required was a simple
letter from a medical doctor.

As I said, all of this has been posted here before, but not
recently.
My own history hasn't proved as effective as an argument as simply
pointing out that none of the arguments in favour of retaining
code
testing hold as much water as a leaky bucket!

Apply you anticodetest arguments to the written tests. Tell us why
most
of the written tests must remain. Heck, NCVEC is already trying to
trash the writtens even more...

Is it *really* so unreasonable to require Element 1? Particularly
considering the training aids and accomodations now available?

73 de Jim, N2EY

5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone?

A couple of reasons:

For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to
use *manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments.

For the same reason hams have to pass written tests on VHF/UHF to
operate HF, high-power RF exposure questions to operate QRP, etc.

And because code is a big part of amateur radio, and a ham who doesn't
know any just isn't fully qualified.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Alun L. Palmer wrote:

5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone?

And there we have the crux of the situation, expressed in a simple
question.

If a person wants to operate phone, and that is it, then what do they
need to do that?

Nothing. The Citizen's Band is adequate proof of that

Buy a rig, an antenna, and pay some people to put it up. Presumably the
only requirement is to know how to read, talk and mash the PTT button.

But the problem is that the ARS isn't simply about operating phone. It
is about all kinds of operating modes. It is about all manner of
technical endeavors that we may engage in.

Operating phone is only one part of the hobby, and is arguably the
easiest part to do, as we have all learned to talk, so the prerequisites
have been met for most people.

The test requirements are there to give us some basic exposure to
elements of the hobby that are considered important by knowledgeable
people. While there may be argument about how well the tests function
for that purpose, there they are.

And what of people who only intend to operate phone QRP? The RF
exposure questions are kind of a waste of time for them. Satellite
operations? Just how many Hams do satellite operations? Why test on band
allocations, we can look them up in a book. Why should a person have to
do any basic electronics questions if they only want to buy a rig and
antenna and operate phone?

We can eventually argue away most of the test.

It is interesting that two people who have some similarities in
experience can draw such different conclusions from that experience.

Whereas you have chosen to be bitter about your experience (bitter may
be a bit strong of a word - at least you're not to happy about it)
regarding Morse code testing, and I actually ended up being pleased that
I was able to overcome my own physical limitations and pass the darn
thing. I don't advocate changing the rules because I had trouble with
one of them.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109065656.859950.28030
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

snip


5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone?

A couple of reasons:

For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to
use *manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments.

For the same reason hams have to pass written tests on VHF/UHF to
operate HF, high-power RF exposure questions to operate QRP, etc.

And because code is a big part of amateur radio, and a ham who
doesn't
know any just isn't fully qualified.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I think we can agree to differ on that last point.

Perhaps.

Do you agree that Morse code is a big part of amateur radio? Not that
it needs a test, but just that it is a big part of today's amateur
radio, particularly on HF?

As a matter of fact, even directly after passing the US 20wpm test I
couldn't have passed the UK 12wpm test.

Perhaps. But I thought we were discussing *US* code test requirements.

5wpm is not too difficult, especially the way it is tested in the US,
but
until recently it only gave access to the 'novice' subbands in the
US, all
of which except for 10m didn't allow phone. From my PoV, it would
only have
given me 10m at that time. I never took 5.

Since 1990 it has been possible to get an Extra (or any other
HF-privileges amateur radio license) with just the 5 wpm code test and
a waiver. 15 years - hardly "recently".

I probably could have passed 5 when I came to the US, but I simply
didn't
realise how much easier the tests were here. Thinking it would have
been as
hard as a UK test I didn't bother to take it.

The test procedures here aren't secret. Never were.

I was operating above 30MHz
on a 610A permit, and when the 'no code' licence was introduced I
decided
to get a US call. Having 'aced' the Novice and I think dropped one
question
in the Tech paper, I was given the General paper, for which I hadn't
looked
at the syllabus or question pool atall, and I passed that. Ditto the
Advanced, but they didn't have a spare Extra paper. None of this
really
surprised me, as the UK B licence had the same theory as the A
licence, and
I have an EE degree anyway, but it surprised the VEs.

Why should it? The US writtens were *never* very hard - if you knew a
little radio and some regs.

Back in 1968 I went for General at the FCC office in early summer. Did
not pass 13 wpm code because the examiner couldn't read my longhand.
Got credit for 5 wpm, took the written (which was same as General back
then), walked out with a Tech. Could not use the new privs until the
actual license arrived in the mail, though.

Went home, taught myself Signal-Corps-method block printing and more
practice until I could do 18 wpm W1AW bulletins solid. Went back and
passed 13 wpm code easily, sending and receiving.

Then the examiner says "why not try Advanced while you're here?". Now
in those days the Advanced was supposedly the toughest of the writtens,
with all sorts of math and circuits and such. But one did not say No to
The Man, so I tried, with zero preparation. Passed easily and wound up
with Advanced instead of General.

That was back before question pools, Bash books and computerized
practice tests. Didn't have an EE back then either - I was 14 years old
and it was the summer between 8th and 9th grades.

Two years later I went back to get the Extra. Would have been sooner
but in those days you had to have two years experience as General or
Advanced to even *try* the Extra.

This gave me 12 months to pass 13wpm if I didn't want to have to take
the
General and Advanced theory again. With the help of computer software
and
slow Morse transmissions I did it in six months.

Bingo.

How long do you think it would have taken to get to 5 wpm, tested the
way the USA does?

Note that Mike got there
in that amount of time from scratch even with hearing problems, and
it took
me that long when I wasn't starting from the beginning, and there's
no
problem with my hearing. Also, I had a relay of all the VEs sending
code on
2m five nights a week. They saw it a a challenge to teach me code. I
almost
passed 20, but I had to come back a couple of months later.

To get up to 13wpm meant copying whole characters instead of dits and
dahs,
no matter how easy the type of test. OK, so that's gone, but that
means the
remaining Element 1 doesn't test the ability to copy complete
characters,
so on the one hand it's relatively easy, but on the other hand it's
pointless.

Not at all.

If the code uses Farnsworth spacing, you copy characters, not dits and
dahs. This isn't anything new - W1AW has been sending code practice
that way since at least 1966 (first time I heard it, anyway).

Why preserve a test that doesn't test an adequate level of a
skill as a requirement for access to a particular part of the
spectrum,
when there's no requirement to use that skill anyway?

Same reason for written tests. Do the writtens guarantee that all who
pass can design/build/modify/repair/operate all amateur equipment they
are authorized to use? Or do they test basic knowledge?

5 wpm is basic Morse skill, that's all.

Why is it too much to ask?

Tradition? That's a
weak reason, but it seems to be the only one. Sure, 40% of HF may be
CW,
but I can (and do) operate 100% phone .

And my HF operation is 99% CW on 80/40/20, with 100 watts or less
output, yet I had to learn all kinds of stuff about high power, 'phone
modes, RTTY, SSTV, other HF bands, VHF/UHF, etc. Most of that knowledge
I've never needed, and some of it (like band edges) has changed since I
took the test. So why did I have to learn all that in the first place,
just to operate a QRP rig on 7015 CW?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in
:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:


Mike Coslo wrote in
:



Alun L. Palmer wrote:



Mike Coslo wrote in
:

some snippage



I don't know if any of us geniuses have though about it,
but
lets say
in a country where a business can get successfully sued for a
woman not knowing that here hot coffee was hot, and burning
herself
when trying to hold the darn thing between her legs. (sorry
Phil, but
what if she simply ruined her dress because the coffee was
wet?-
negligent design of the cup?)


I wrote a lot of the stuff you are commenting on, Jim. It's a hazard
of
us not trimming threads!

Same points apply

The case centered around the fact that the coffee was *extremely*
and
unreasonably hot.

Ask 10 people, and you'll get ten different answers if that was the
question. I assume that anything in a styro cup is Hot, until I can
examine it.

But hot enough to give you 2nd degree burns?

So lets have a newbie ham that fires up his/her kilowatt
rig, and is half fried because no one told him not to touch
the wirey
thingies on the back of the box thingy. Ohh, I can see the
successful
lawsuits already!

So what?

There's no license required to operate houshold appliances, nor
power
tools, which can be extremely dangerous. There's no skills test to
pump your
own gasoline. Or to climb a ladder.

I've nailed myself with 50 watts, enough to produce a
painful burn and a cute little scar on the boo-boo finger.
Some dunce that
catches a ride on a thousand watts might just have a very
successful
lawsuit if we don't train them well.


Who are they going to sue?

The manufacturers of equipment, the VEC that administered the test.
Find
some deep pockets and sue, sue, sue.

Then we better just give up, because there's no test to use a microwave
oven or a table saw.

One of the most dangerous substances the average person handles is
gasoline, yet there's no test for how to deal with it.

As a little example of the mindset, you might recall an accident
along
I-80 last year, a few miles from my QTH. Huge horrible pileup, many
vehicles, many people killed, and a fiery mess that took a long time
to
clean up. The accident was related to a snow squall that blew up
unexpectedly, and the excessive speed that the whole group was
traveling
at. While no charges were filed against anyone at the time, the
families
of the deceased are filing suit against the truck drivers *and* the
companies they worked for. Hopefully the trucking companies have a
good
safety program.

If someone was following too close for conditions, shouldn't they be
liable?

And on what grounds, compared to other
electronic devices?

Most of my appliances have warnings on them of electric shock
potential,
or of cutting, burning, whatever dangers also. There is a reason why
they are there.

Same warnings are on modern ham gear, aren't they?

Nobody can be protected completely from a lawsuit. But if you are
sued,
you are well served to have forewarned potential litigation
adversaries
of the possible dangers of the devices they may use.

Couple of stickers on the TS-50 and done. No need for a test, right?

RF Safety should be the FIRST order of the day, and NO one
should be a Ham until they are tested for RF safety to the
ability to
handle full legal limit.

The reason for the RF safety questions is to prevent exposing
*others*
to a hazard.

And the FCC has determined that the RF safety requirements of the
Tech test are adequate for hams who use up to 1500 W power output
on
"meat-cooking frequencies".

They're the *expert agency*, not the VEs or VECs. Heck, NCVEC wants to
*lower* the written exams - too much math and regs, sez they.

Shall we revisit "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century"? I wonder if Len
Anderson and Brian Burke have read that wonderful piece, and what they
think of it.

I recommend it to all. Tells ya what the next step is.

And those who think that limiting the finals voltage, or
some other weird thing is the answer, are advised to think
about things
such as Technician Hams operating under supervision. It only
takes a
second to drop a paper and reach behind a Rig. Less time than
the
control op can react. I want those Technicians to be exposed
to full
power safety requirements. Anything else is criminally
negligent.


But they are already tested on full-power requirements.

Yoiks! We're doing major time/subject shifting here, Jim! My
comments
several iterations of the thread ago were in relation to possible
changing of test requirements, ala the W5YI proposal, where the
newcomers are given a much simpler test, and things that I consider
critically important, such as not having your hobby kill ya, would be

dropped from the testing.

Not the W5YI proposal - trhe NCVEC proposal.


Everyone may disagree, but that's too bad.


73 de Jim, N2EY

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1108745797.245365.147250
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1108665611.010471.49400
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:



But emulating Sweden is OK huh?

n3kip

w3rv



Sure, why not?

BINGO: There it is. Old Europe. Sez it all.

Not in your lifetime Alun.

'Bye.

w3rv



We have very different political views.

OBVIOUSLY.

I don't know how you would classify
yourself, but by European standards you are very far to the right
indeed,

I'm a centrist Republican a la Sen. Arlen Specter, a member of a
disapperaing breed. Ted Kennedy is a right-winger by Old Europe
standards. Welcome to America.

as by no stretch is Sweden a socialist country.

Blather. It's a country which uses it's outrageous taxes on it's few
monster "capitalist" smokestack industries to hand out socialist
entitlements to it's population on a scale unheard of in any other
country. Entitlments being the heart of socialism in all it's forms.
Sven the fender-hanger at the SAAB plant didn't "feel good" yesterday
so he stayed home and watched the tube. No problem, he got paid anyway
under Swedish law. SAAB plant payrolls are bloated by 20% percent per
unit out the door vs. the U.S & Japan because 20% of the SAAB workers
"call in sick" every day. Absolute fact. GM got stupid and bought SAAB
mostly to save the marque otherwise SAAB would have died years ago but
GM is now mulling a pullout to cut their losses. The outflow of capital
from Sweden to other countries has been appalling, check out the
numbers and why it's happening and what the Swedish government is doing
to stanch the bleeding.

I can no doubt go ten blocks around the compass from here in the
suburbs of Philadelphia and find more businesses with ten or fewer
employees than you'll find in all of Sweden. Why is that Alun?? Could
it be that Swedish socialist economics stifles entrepreneurial
capitalism which is the engine behind the astounding growth of the
U.S. economy for over two centuries? Of course it is.


As for myself, I used to be a card carrying member of the
Conservative and
Unionist Party in the UK, but I freely admit that I have drifted
leftwards
since then, very likely as a result of seeing at first hand the huge
social
inequalities in the USA.

Certainly there are social inequalities in the U.S. The original
Constitution plus it's Bill of Rights guarantees equality in all
elections and in all courts in this country and nothing more.
Translates into a system in which the fate of individuals depends on
what they freely choose to do or not do with their lives. Those who
choose to be slackers suffer the consequences they freely imposed on
themselves so of course we wind up with "social inequalities" galore.


By your leftist standards our system has too many freedoms.

If it's called being a socialist to think that the ordinary working
man
should be able to get medical care without courting bankruptcy, then
I
suppose that makes me a socialist, but if you actually look in a
dictionary, then you will see that I am not, and neither are the
Swedes.

See above.

socialism // n.
1 a political and economic theory of social organization which
advocates
that the community as a whole should own and control the means of
production, distribution, and exchange.

Oh**** . . the second coming of Cecil and his friggin' dictionaries . .
!

2 policy or practice based on this theory.
socialist n. & adj.
socialistic // adj.
socialistically // adv.
[French socialisme (as social)]

w3rv

wrote:
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1108745797.245365.147250
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1108665611.010471.49400
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
But emulating Sweden is OK huh?

n3kip

w3rv

Sure, why not?

BINGO: There it is. Old Europe. Sez it all.

Not in your lifetime Alun.

'Bye.

w3rv

We have very different political views.

OBVIOUSLY.

I don't know how you would classify
yourself, but by European standards you are very far to the right
indeed,

I'm a centrist Republican a la Sen. Arlen Specter, a member of a
disapperaing breed.

Sadly disappearing!

Ted Kennedy is a right-winger by Old Europe
standards.

Yup.

Welcome to America.

as by no stretch is Sweden a socialist country.

Blather. It's a country which uses it's outrageous taxes on it's few
monster "capitalist" smokestack industries to hand out socialist
entitlements to it's population on a scale unheard of in any other
country. Entitlments being the heart of socialism in all it's forms.
Sven the fender-hanger at the SAAB plant didn't "feel good" yesterday
so he stayed home and watched the tube. No problem, he got paid
anyway
under Swedish law. SAAB plant payrolls are bloated by 20% percent
per
unit out the door vs. the U.S & Japan because 20% of the SAAB workers
"call in sick" every day. Absolute fact. GM got stupid and bought
SAAB
mostly to save the marque otherwise SAAB would have died years ago
but
GM is now mulling a pullout to cut their losses. The outflow of
capital
from Sweden to other countries has been appalling, check out the
numbers and why it's happening and what the Swedish government is
doing
to stanch the bleeding.

The reason the whole thing didn't collapse right away was that the
smokestacks are/were big exporters, bringing in hard currency.

I can no doubt go ten blocks around the compass from here in the
suburbs of Philadelphia and find more businesses with ten or fewer
employees than you'll find in all of Sweden. Why is that Alun?? Could
it be that Swedish socialist economics stifles entrepreneurial
capitalism which is the engine behind the astounding growth of the
U.S. economy for over two centuries? Of course it is.

As for myself, I used to be a card carrying member of the
Conservative and
Unionist Party in the UK, but I freely admit that I have drifted
leftwards
since then, very likely as a result of seeing at first hand the
huge
social inequalities in the USA.

Certainly there are social inequalities in the U.S. The original
Constitution plus it's Bill of Rights guarantees equality in all
elections and in all courts in this country and nothing more.
Translates into a system in which the fate of individuals depends on
what they freely choose to do or not do with their lives. Those who
choose to be slackers suffer the consequences they freely imposed on
themselves so of course we wind up with "social inequalities" galore.

Equality of rights and opportunities - not equality of outcomes.

Add in some other points about Sweden:

Compared to the USA, it's tiny in both population and land area. Also
virtually homogeneous (again compared to the USA). 'Diversity' means
something very different in Sweden. Heck, they split with Norway after
less than 100 years of alliance IIRC.

It's relatively easy and simple for a community/society to 'work' if
it's small and uniform. USA is neither, and never has been.

By your leftist standards our system has too many freedoms.

If it's called being a socialist to think that the ordinary working
man
should be able to get medical care without courting bankruptcy,
then
I
suppose that makes me a socialist, but if you actually look in a
dictionary, then you will see that I am not, and neither are the
Swedes.

See above.

Health care is only one issue. Is W3RV's info about SAAB accurate or
not?
Should American industry work the same way?

socialism // n.
1 a political and economic theory of social organization which
advocates
that the community as a whole should own and control the means of
production, distribution, and exchange.

Oh**** . . the second coming of Cecil and his friggin' dictionaries .
..
!

2 policy or practice based on this theory.
socialist n. & adj.
socialistic // adj.
socialistically // adv.
[French socialisme (as social)]

"community as a whole" = "the government"

Sure seems to fit!

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
ups.com...

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
[snip]
12 wpm random groups with 96% copy

The US requirements for hams have never been anywhere near so
stringent.

The *toughest* they ever were was 1 minute solid copy out of 5 minutes
- plain language. 5, 13 and 20 wpm. That's 20% accuracy! About 20-25
years ago, fill-in-the-blank and multiple choice were added.

Multiple choice exams are no longer allowed for element 1. It's too easy to
guess the answer if you have even minimal copy. As I recall when I took my
20wpm, I was able to successfully deduce that the only possible answer out
of the choices offered was Switzerland. The only letter that I had copied
was the W. Some of us were too good at deduction and guessing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Coslo wrote:

[snip]

clean up. The accident was related to a snow squall that blew up
unexpectedly, and the excessive speed that the whole group was
traveling
at. While no charges were filed against anyone at the time, the
families
of the deceased are filing suit against the truck drivers *and* the
companies they worked for. Hopefully the trucking companies have a
good
safety program.

If someone was following too close for conditions, shouldn't they be
liable?


Since both my current and previous husbands are/were truck drivers, I tend
to observe what trucks are doing on the road. Though I cannot speak for
this particular accident, normally it is the CARS following the trucks too
close for conditions. How can the truckers prevent that and the sometimes
tragic consequences?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Mike Coslo posted on Mon, Feb 21 2005 4:31 pm
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in

stuff sinpped for trying to figure out who said what....

most of Coslo-multi-quote-copying snipped as redundant

Funny in a macabre sort of way, but hard to see the connection.

Back when I originally made the "Jump frog jump comment, it was
about
people making an incorrect or bizzare conclusion from plain evidence.

Retention of the morse code test for an amateur radio license
is bizarre, outdated, with NO logical connection.

Where people Might say that the No-Code technicians quit because
The
had a license that didn't have Element 1 as a test requirement.

It would seem that those "who might say" that are PCTA!

PCTAs have been insisting and insisting that the "no-code"
Technicians would be expiring en masse 12 years after the
1991 creation of that class. They didn't! Sunnuvagun!

Fact: The Technician class license number keep INCREASING!

According to www.hamdata.com for 22 Feb 05, the Technician
class is GROWING at an average rate of 27 per day! General
class growth is about 2 per day, Extras about 5 per day.

No-code detractors (such as "N2EY") used to say the Tech
numbers were "meaningless since the Tech-Plus renewals
were being tossed into the Tech category" and that was
supposed to indicate the "meaninglessness." :-) Isn't so.

Hamdata.com's latest tabulation (direct from FCC database,
publicly available) shows that there are 723,551 individual
amateur licenses (732,945 less 9,394 Club licenses). Of
those, 290,874 are Technician class and 58,999 are
Technician-Plus class. Very near 2 out of 5 individual
amateur licenses are Technician class. From the hamdata
tabulation of a year ago, Technician license growth was
9899 and Technician-Plus license decrease was 9521. The
delta is 378 to indicate no-code Technician license minimum
growth or at least 2 every 3 days.

The chief of the numbers-game players ("N2EY") is still
going to insist (if past is truly prologue) the no-code Tech
numbers are "falling"...from some kind of inventive
rationalization. :-) Since it isn't PC to show losses of
any class but the evil no-coders (as AH0A does/did),
he will continue to maintain the no-coder "loss" is
"there." :-) If Tech+ classes were "upgrading" their
license classes, then the no-code Tech numbers would
be increasing even more! [sunnuvagun!]

The sky has NOT fallen on the no-coders...except in
the minds of the Chicken Little PCTAs. Paradigms were
punctured and fell on those mighty instead... :-)

"Dee Flint" wrote in
:


wrote in message
ups.com...

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
[snip]
12 wpm random groups with 96% copy

The US requirements for hams have never been anywhere near so
stringent.

The *toughest* they ever were was 1 minute solid copy out of 5 minutes
- plain language. 5, 13 and 20 wpm. That's 20% accuracy! About 20-25
years ago, fill-in-the-blank and multiple choice were added.

Multiple choice exams are no longer allowed for element 1. It's too
easy to guess the answer if you have even minimal copy. As I recall
when I took my 20wpm, I was able to successfully deduce that the only
possible answer out of the choices offered was Switzerland. The only
letter that I had copied was the W. Some of us were too good at
deduction and guessing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



That's how I passed. Never said I was any good at Morse, quite the opposite
in fact. I found that 70% copy was good enough for 7/10 multiple guess. If
there hadn't been multiple guess I would never have passed 20wpm, for sure.
When you're asked was the operator's name Hank, Frank, Bert or Gert, and
you copy _ANK you have got the 50/50 like on Who Wants to be a Millionaire
on TV.

The other trick that I assume still works is listening for .. ,,, (IS),
which precedes every answer. Name is _____, Ant is _____.

And another thing. Copy IS Y____ and you know that either the rig is a
Yeasu or the antenna is a Yagi, and if you know how many characters came
after the Y, you know which of those is right. I miss the beginnings of
words, but I know that ____OOD is Kenwood. It's still Kenwood even if you
miss the D but just copy the OO.

I approached it like a crossword puzzle. I couldn't make a minute solid
copy at 20wpm to save my life.

Michael Coslo wrote on Feb 22 2005 9:58 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:

5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone?

And there we have the crux of the situation, expressed in a simple

question.

If a person wants to operate phone, and that is it, then what do
they
need to do that?

Nothing. The Citizen's Band is adequate proof of that

So are all branches of the U.S. military operating on HF.
So are all civilian aircrew flying long routes using HF.
So are all private boat owners using HF.
So are various other civilian PLMRS users on HF.

Buy a rig, an antenna, and pay some people to put it up.
Presumably the
only requirement is to know how to read, talk and mash the PTT button.

"Mash" the push-to-talk button? That means those
owners have to know where to get the PTT control
fixed! :-)


The test requirements are there to give us some basic exposure to
elements of the hobby that are considered important by knowledgeable
people. While there may be argument about how well the tests function
for that purpose, there they are.

Right...cast in concrete...protected by armor plate...
forbidden EVER to change!

[time no march on very fast for some...tsk, tsk]



And what of people who only intend to operate phone QRP? The RF
exposure questions are kind of a waste of time for them. Satellite
operations? Just how many Hams do satellite operations? Why test on
band
allocations, we can look them up in a book. Why should a person have
to
do any basic electronics questions if they only want to buy a rig and
antenna and operate phone?

We can eventually argue away most of the test.

Of course to all PCTA, eliminating the morse
code test means "ALL tests are eliminated!"

Oh, my. That old merry-go-round started up!


I was able to overcome my own physical limitations and pass the darn
thing.

Your "hero of the American Amateur Corps" medal is
being struck right now. Watch for the event's
announcement in all leading news sources....

I don't advocate changing the rules because I had trouble with
one of them.

Right..."no gain, no pain." Not to mention NO GUTS
to try eliminating it by lawful means like "democratic
principles guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution."

You wanted to buy into the old beliefs. You did it.
Now you can have fun sneering at all who don't care
to buy that. You're a "somebody" in a radio hobby
activity! [applause, applause...] :-)

The ARRL is proud of you.

Jim, , wrote on Tues, Feb 22 2005 1:47 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:



5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone?

A couple of reasons:

For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to
use *manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments.

1. The FCC decided it needed to test radio amateurs as
part of their task of regulating all U.S. civil radio.

2. The VEC Question Pool Committee decides WHAT
the questions are; FCC only specifies a total number
and the percentage correct for passing.

3. Any other reason is meaningless... ;-)


For the same reason hams have to pass written tests on VHF/UHF to
operate HF, high-power RF exposure questions to operate QRP, etc.

FCC doesn't mandate morse code skill as
being necessary to operate about 30 MHz.

Technician class licensees don't have to take
morse code tests and they are banished to the
radioland above 30 MHz.

And because code is a big part of amateur radio, and a ham who doesn't
know any just isn't fully qualified.

" F U L L Y Q U A L I F I E D ! "

G o t t a l o v e i t !

Olde tymers had to test for morse..."ergo," newbies have
to test for morse code!!!

Excellence in U.S. amateur radio is all about morse code
ability!!!!

"Real" hams are MORSEMEN!

U.S. radio amateurs are the keepers of the
living museum of morsemanship! [all other
radio services have given up on morse code
for main communications]

Olde tyme hamme morsemen need playmates.

Keep the test to subsidize the "CW" playground
for the olde tymers!

Screw the newbies to HF...MAKE them learn
code to please the elitist olde tymers!

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Coslo wrote:


[snip]


clean up. The accident was related to a snow squall that blew up
unexpectedly, and the excessive speed that the whole group was

traveling

at. While no charges were filed against anyone at the time, the

families

of the deceased are filing suit against the truck drivers *and* the
companies they worked for. Hopefully the trucking companies have a

good

safety program.

If someone was following too close for conditions, shouldn't they be
liable?



Since both my current and previous husbands are/were truck drivers, I tend
to observe what trucks are doing on the road. Though I cannot speak for
this particular accident, normally it is the CARS following the trucks too
close for conditions. How can the truckers prevent that and the sometimes
tragic consequences?

The speeds were well over 70. A truck that was passing the line of
traffic jackknifed and the rest is history. The police did not see fit
to issue any citations. All were traveling over the speed limit, and
when the storm blew up, they were waaayy too fast for the conditions.

As for who is at fault, I have several times had to speed up to
ridiculous speeds to not get run over by truck drivers who want to get a
run for the next hill At speeds of 85 and more, they will get close
enough for you to count how many bugs were caught on their radiators.
I've seen a number of accidents where a truck has simply run right over
the car in front of them

I carry a CB, and I must say that there is an urban myth, believed by
most truck drivers, that they *never* do anything wrong. What was
especially funny was the time a truck jackknifed in front of a line of
cars during a bad snowstorm - about 10 years ago - also on I-80, and by
the time ten minutes had passed, the story passed around by radio was
that a 4 wheeler had passed the truck, and cut him off, causing the
jackknife. The offending 4 wheeler was never found. Not surprising to
those of us who were close enough to see the accident happen!

Truck drivers are professionals, and almost always much better drivers
than those in the automobiles. But that doesn't mean they are never to
blame.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109088706.576066.237160
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109065656.859950.28030
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

snip


5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone?

A couple of reasons:

For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to
use *manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments.

For the same reason hams have to pass written tests on VHF/UHF
to
operate HF, high-power RF exposure questions to operate QRP,
etc.

And because code is a big part of amateur radio, and a ham who
doesn't know any just isn't fully qualified.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I think we can agree to differ on that last point.

Perhaps.

Do you agree that Morse code is a big part of amateur radio? Not
that
it needs a test, but just that it is a big part of today's amateur
radio, particularly on HF?

Well?

Agreeing that something is a big part of amateur radio does *not*
mean that something deserves its own stand-alone test.

As a matter of fact, even directly after passing the US 20wpm test
I
couldn't have passed the UK 12wpm test.

Perhaps. But I thought we were discussing *US* code test
requirements.

5wpm is not too difficult, especially the way it is tested in the
US,
but until recently it only gave access to the 'novice' subbands in
the
US, all of which except for 10m didn't allow phone. From my PoV,
it
would only have given me 10m at that time. I never took 5.

Since 1990 it has been possible to get an Extra (or any other
HF-privileges amateur radio license) with just the 5 wpm code test
and
a waiver. 15 years - hardly "recently".

I probably could have passed 5 when I came to the US, but I simply
didn't realise how much easier the tests were here. Thinking it
would
have been as hard as a UK test I didn't bother to take it.

The test procedures here aren't secret. Never were.

I was operating above 30MHz
on a 610A permit, and when the 'no code' licence was introduced I
decided to get a US call. Having 'aced' the Novice and I think
dropped
one question in the Tech paper, I was given the General paper, for
which I hadn't looked at the syllabus or question pool atall, and
I
passed that. Ditto the Advanced, but they didn't have a spare
Extra
paper. None of this really surprised me, as the UK B licence had
the
same theory as the A licence, and I have an EE degree anyway, but
it
surprised the VEs.

Why should it? The US writtens were *never* very hard - if you knew
a
little radio and some regs.

Back in 1968 I went for General at the FCC office in early summer.
Did
not pass 13 wpm code because the examiner couldn't read my
longhand.
Got credit for 5 wpm, took the written (which was same as General
back
then), walked out with a Tech. Could not use the new privs until
the
actual license arrived in the mail, though.

Went home, taught myself Signal-Corps-method block printing and
more
practice until I could do 18 wpm W1AW bulletins solid. Went back
and
passed 13 wpm code easily, sending and receiving.

Then the examiner says "why not try Advanced while you're here?".
Now
in those days the Advanced was supposedly the toughest of the
writtens,
with all sorts of math and circuits and such. But one did not say
No to
The Man, so I tried, with zero preparation. Passed easily and wound
up
with Advanced instead of General.

That was back before question pools, Bash books and computerized
practice tests. Didn't have an EE back then either - I was 14 years
old
and it was the summer between 8th and 9th grades.

Two years later I went back to get the Extra. Would have been
sooner
but in those days you had to have two years experience as General
or
Advanced to even *try* the Extra.

This gave me 12 months to pass 13wpm if I didn't want to have to
take
the General and Advanced theory again. With the help of computer
software and slow Morse transmissions I did it in six months.

Bingo.

How long do you think it would have taken

*you*

to get to 5 wpm, tested the
way the USA does?

Hmm?

Note that Mike got there
in that amount of time from scratch even with hearing problems,
and it
took me that long when I wasn't starting from the beginning, and
there's no problem with my hearing. Also, I had a relay of all the
VEs
sending code on 2m five nights a week. They saw it a a challenge
to
teach me code. I almost passed 20, but I had to come back a couple
of
months later.

To get up to 13wpm meant copying whole characters instead of dits
and
dahs, no matter how easy the type of test. OK, so that's gone, but
that means the remaining Element 1 doesn't test the ability to
copy
complete characters, so on the one hand it's relatively easy, but
on
the other hand it's pointless.

Not at all.

If the code uses Farnsworth spacing, you copy characters, not dits
and
dahs. This isn't anything new - W1AW has been sending code practice
that way since at least 1966 (first time I heard it, anyway).

Why preserve a test that doesn't test an adequate level of a skill
as
a requirement for access to a particular part of the spectrum,
when
there's no requirement to use that skill anyway?

Same reason for written tests. Do the writtens guarantee that all
who
pass can design/build/modify/repair/operate all amateur equipment
they
are authorized to use? Or do they test basic knowledge?

5 wpm is basic Morse skill, that's all.

Why is it too much to ask?

I think that one major reason some people are so
against the code test is that it isn't something
you can learn by reading a book or watching a
video.

Tradition? That's a
weak reason, but it seems to be the only one. Sure, 40% of HF may
be
CW, but I can (and do) operate 100% phone .

And my HF operation is 99% CW on 80/40/20, with 100 watts or less
output, yet I had to learn all kinds of stuff about high power,
'phone
modes, RTTY, SSTV, other HF bands, VHF/UHF, etc. Most of that
knowledge
I've never needed, and some of it (like band edges) has changed
since I
took the test. So why did I have to learn all that in the first
place,
just to operate a QRP rig on 7015 CW?

73 de Jim, N2EY


I'm not sure this is getting us anywhere. This is all old ground.

Let's boil it down to basics:

Your argument is that nobody should have to learn Knowledge A in order
to
do Activity B if Activity B can be done without Knowledge A.

In this case

Knowledge A = basic Morse skill, Activity B = amateur radio HF phone

The problem is that if you accept that reasoning, you must logically a
accept a lot mo

Knowledge A = radio theory, Activity B = operate modern manufactured
rig

Knowledge A = limits of Band X, Activity B = operate on Band Y

Knowledge A = SSB theory, Activity B = operate Morse

Knowledge A = high power RF exposure safety, Activity B = operate QRP

and much more.

Despite all the colorful false analogies with buggywhips and such, no
one has been able to show why the above arguments don't follow.

In fact, the NCVEC proposal takes it to that level, not only dumping
code testing but further watering down the *written* requirements to
an almost absurd level.

Do you think NCVEC has the right idea?

Suppose someone proposed to eliminate the Extra and Advanced class
licenses, give those hams Generals - and give all Generals full
privileges.

And suppose the proposal argued that since a General was qualified to
use
all modes, bands and power levels allowed to Advanceds and Extras,
there
was no need for the two higher level license classes.

How would you counter that argument?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Coslo wrote:


[snip]


clean up. The accident was related to a snow squall that blew up
unexpectedly, and the excessive speed that the whole group was

traveling

at. While no charges were filed against anyone at the time, the

families

of the deceased are filing suit against the truck drivers *and* the
companies they worked for. Hopefully the trucking companies have a

good

safety program.

If someone was following too close for conditions, shouldn't they be
liable?



Since both my current and previous husbands are/were truck drivers, I
tend to observe what trucks are doing on the road. Though I cannot speak
for this particular accident, normally it is the CARS following the
trucks too close for conditions. How can the truckers prevent that and
the sometimes tragic consequences?

The speeds were well over 70. A truck that was passing the line of traffic
jackknifed and the rest is history. The police did not see fit to issue
any citations. All were traveling over the speed limit, and when the storm
blew up, they were waaayy too fast for the conditions.

As for who is at fault, I have several times had to speed up to ridiculous
speeds to not get run over by truck drivers who want to get a run for the
next hill At speeds of 85 and more, they will get close enough for you to
count how many bugs were caught on their radiators. I've seen a number of
accidents where a truck has simply run right over the car in front of them

I carry a CB, and I must say that there is an urban myth, believed by most
truck drivers, that they *never* do anything wrong. What was especially
funny was the time a truck jackknifed in front of a line of cars during a
bad snowstorm - about 10 years ago - also on I-80, and by the time ten
minutes had passed, the story passed around by radio was that a 4 wheeler
had passed the truck, and cut him off, causing the jackknife. The
offending 4 wheeler was never found. Not surprising to those of us who
were close enough to see the accident happen!

Truck drivers are professionals, and almost always much better drivers
than those in the automobiles. But that doesn't mean they are never to
blame.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Did not mean to imply that truckers are never to blame. I too have had
truckers run right up on my bumper at excessive speeds and then honk to
attempt to bully the other drivers to move. Just noting that I have all too
often observed drivers in cars behaving like idiots around trucks and then
blaming the trucker.

I actually saw a case where a woman was circling a truck and causing a
hazard to everyone on the road because she was bound and determined to find
the phone number on the guys truck so she could turn him in. All that he
had done was make a left turn onto the street that I was traveling on.
Naturally, something that big is going to impede traffic slightly no matter
what he does. He did NOT cut in front of any of us. We all had sufficient
time to see him and adjust our speeds. This woman apparently thought he
ought to wait until there was no one whatsoever on the road before entering
it. Well he'd have been sitting there until he died of old age as that
street is NEVER clear regardless of the weather or time of day. After this
truck got on the road, the woman first sped up and pulled in front of him
and looked in her mirror. When she couldn't find a phone number, she pulled
over into my lane and braked and slowed down to examine the side of the
truck. She paid no attention to the cars already in the lane and created a
major hazard. The car ahead of me had to brake severely to keep from
hitting her. When she found no phone number, she braked even more causing a
major slowdown on a busy street and pulled in behind the truck to try to
find it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

wrote:
Jim, , wrote on Tues, Feb 22 2005 1:47 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone?

A couple of reasons:

For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to
use *manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments.

1. The FCC decided it needed to test radio amateurs as
part of their task of regulating all U.S. civil radio.

2. The VEC Question Pool Committee decides WHAT
the questions are; FCC only specifies a total number
and the percentage correct for passing.

3. Any other reason is meaningless... ;-)

The USA VEC decided to return the Morse Code exam to 13-15WPM rate
despite FCC regulations to the contrary.

wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote on Feb 22 2005 9:58 am

Buy a rig, an antenna, and pay some people to put it up.
Presumably the
only requirement is to know how to read, talk and mash the PTT
button.

"Mash" the push-to-talk button? That means those
owners have to know where to get the PTT control
fixed! :-)

Yep, he said "mash," but must have been mistaken when he said they
would know how to read.

You see, people that use a microphone are clods. They would never
"depress" the ptt button, nor would they "press down" on it. They are
of low intelligence and barely human, and only know how to "mash" said
button. If no one is looking, they may actually step on the microphone
with bare, dirty feet and yell into it.

People who use a telegraph key are genteel. They know how to properly
close the contacts, form a character, and move on. They do so with
their pinkie finger extended, and have no dirt under their nails.

For it is written.

"bb" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote on Feb 22 2005 9:58 am

Buy a rig, an antenna, and pay some people to put it up.
Presumably the
only requirement is to know how to read, talk and mash the PTT
button.

"Mash" the push-to-talk button? That means those
owners have to know where to get the PTT control
fixed! :-)

Yep, he said "mash," but must have been mistaken when he said they
would know how to read.

You see, people that use a microphone are clods. They would never
"depress" the ptt button, nor would they "press down" on it. They are
of low intelligence and barely human, and only know how to "mash" said
button. If no one is looking, they may actually step on the microphone
with bare, dirty feet and yell into it.

People who use a telegraph key are genteel. They know how to properly
close the contacts, form a character, and move on. They do so with
their pinkie finger extended, and have no dirt under their nails.

For it is written.


I think I just found Larry Roll.

Kim W5TIT

"bb" wrote in news:1109208496.863217.225020
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:


wrote:
Jim, , wrote on Tues, Feb 22 2005 1:47 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone?

A couple of reasons:

For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to use
*manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments.

1. The FCC decided it needed to test radio amateurs as
part of their task of regulating all U.S. civil radio.

2. The VEC Question Pool Committee decides WHAT
the questions are; FCC only specifies a total number
and the percentage correct for passing.

3. Any other reason is meaningless... ;-)

The USA VEC decided to return the Morse Code exam to 13-15WPM rate
despite FCC regulations to the contrary.



Not exactly. It's Farnsworth method with an overall speed of 5wpm. That
gives the brain longer to decode each character, and the hgiher speed of
the individual characters still doesn't force you to read the character as
a whole. It's still possible to read the individual dots and dashes.
Bearing all that in mind, I have no problem with it.

What did annoy me was that the NCVEC did eliminate the multi-choice option
in direct response to the abolition of the 13 and 20wpm tests, so the 5wpm
test is now harder than it was before, for no other reason than to make it
harder.

"Kim" wrote in news:tPbTd.56982$iC4.24423
@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com:

"bb" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote on Feb 22 2005 9:58 am

Buy a rig, an antenna, and pay some people to put it up.
Presumably the only requirement is to know how to read, talk and
mash the PTT button.

"Mash" the push-to-talk button? That means those
owners have to know where to get the PTT control fixed! :-)

Yep, he said "mash," but must have been mistaken when he said they
would know how to read.

You see, people that use a microphone are clods. They would never
"depress" the ptt button, nor would they "press down" on it. They are
of low intelligence and barely human, and only know how to "mash" said
button. If no one is looking, they may actually step on the microphone
with bare, dirty feet and yell into it.

People who use a telegraph key are genteel. They know how to properly
close the contacts, form a character, and move on. They do so with
their pinkie finger extended, and have no dirt under their nails.

For it is written.


I think I just found Larry Roll.

Kim W5TIT




I almost plonked him before I realised it was just Lenny being sarcastic!

Alun N3KIP

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
"bb" wrote in news:1109208496.863217.225020
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:


wrote:
Jim, , wrote on Tues, Feb 22 2005 1:47 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone?

A couple of reasons:

For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to
use
*manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments.

1. The FCC decided it needed to test radio amateurs as
part of their task of regulating all U.S. civil radio.

And that testing includes both written and code testing. FCC has
decided
that both are necessary for HF/MF license privileges. Of course that
could have been changed any time after mid-July of 2003, but so far FCC
has decided not to.

2. The VEC Question Pool Committee decides WHAT
the questions are; FCC only specifies a total number
and the percentage correct for passing.

INCORRECT!

*ALL* questions in the written exam pools have to be approved by FCC,
both for inclusion and removal. While the questions, answers and
distractors are
created by the QPC, they must be approved by FCC.

3. Any other reason is meaningless... ;-)

The plain, simple fact of the matter is that the same arguments used
against the code test can be used - and are being used - against
almost all of what is in the written test.

The USA VEC decided to return the Morse Code exam to 13-15WPM rate
despite FCC regulations to the contrary.

INCORRECT!

The use of Farnsowrth-spaced Morse is simply a recommended practice,
not a requirement. If someone wants non-Farnsworth Morse for Element 1,
the VEs will accomodate them.

Not exactly. It's Farnsworth method with an overall speed of 5wpm.
That
gives the brain longer to decode each character, and the hgiher speed
of
the individual characters still doesn't force you to read the
character as
a whole. It's still possible to read the individual dots and dashes.

It may be possible for *some* individuals to count dits and dahs at
13-16 wpm character speed, but for most people who have been evaluated
it is easier to hear the letter or number as a unit of sound. The
exaggerated spacing between the letters/numbers allows more recognition
time, and particularly more time to write or type the letter/number.
Hence Farnsworth spacing usually makes it *easier* to pass the test.

Bearing all that in mind, I have no problem with it.

Nor I.

What did annoy me was that the NCVEC did eliminate the multi-choice
option
in direct response to the abolition of the 13 and 20wpm tests, so the
5wpm
test is now harder than it was before, for no other reason than to
make it
harder.

IIRC, FCC outlawed multiple choice code tests. While NCVEC may have
commented against them, FCC makes the rules.

Multiple-choice was eliminated because FCC decided it didn't really
test the skill as required. There was a *lot* of comment against the
multiple choice code test.

Perhaps a compromise could be used. Suppose the code test were replaced
with a test of - say - skill in solving transmission-line problems with
the Smith Chart...

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 24 Feb 2005 11:04:24 -0800, wrote:

Perhaps a compromise could be used. Suppose the code test were replaced
with a test of - say - skill in solving transmission-line problems with
the Smith Chart...

Or more practical skills which I have found sorely lacking even in
appliance operators but are essential even for a non-code Tech:

Questions on how modern equipment is set up and tuned. Not for
specific models, but for equipment in general:

Understanding how a receiver is set up for SSB, FSK, CW, AM
reception. Functions of bandwidth and notch filters and
filters, and when to use or not to use them. How to detect
receiver overload/spurious responses and what to do about it.

Understanding on how a transceiver is set up for simplex and
repeater operation. What the offset and tone code functions
do, and how to determine what the settings should be for any
desired operations.

Electrical and rf safety considerations in installation and
operation of ham gear.

My two electrons worth.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

bb wrote:
wrote:


Michael Coslo wrote on Feb 22 2005 9:58 am


Buy a rig, an antenna, and pay some people to put it up.

Presumably the

only requirement is to know how to read, talk and mash the PTT

button.

"Mash" the push-to-talk button? That means those
owners have to know where to get the PTT control
fixed! :-)


Yep, he said "mash," but must have been mistaken when he said they
would know how to read.

You see, people that use a microphone are clods. They would never
"depress" the ptt button, nor would they "press down" on it. They are
of low intelligence and barely human, and only know how to "mash" said
button. If no one is looking, they may actually step on the microphone
with bare, dirty feet and yell into it.

People who use a telegraph key are genteel. They know how to properly
close the contacts, form a character, and move on. They do so with
their pinkie finger extended, and have no dirt under their nails.

For it is written.


People around my area say "mash" as in referring to "pressing"
something I say it too at times. In general it is said in contesxt such
as "Hey Bob, mash that light switch will ya?

I'll quite saying mash if it offends all of you that much.


- Mike KB3EIA -

(who does mash his PTT when he works SSB)

"Kim" wrote in message
. com...
"bb" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote on Feb 22 2005 9:58 am

Buy a rig, an antenna, and pay some people to put it up.
Presumably the
only requirement is to know how to read, talk and mash the PTT
button.

"Mash" the push-to-talk button? That means those
owners have to know where to get the PTT control
fixed! :-)

Yep, he said "mash," but must have been mistaken when he said they
would know how to read.

You see, people that use a microphone are clods. They would never
"depress" the ptt button, nor would they "press down" on it. They are
of low intelligence and barely human, and only know how to "mash" said
button. If no one is looking, they may actually step on the microphone
with bare, dirty feet and yell into it.

People who use a telegraph key are genteel. They know how to properly
close the contacts, form a character, and move on. They do so with
their pinkie finger extended, and have no dirt under their nails.

For it is written.


I think I just found Larry Roll.

Kim W5TIT



Listen W5TWIT, I done told ya....stick with what you know.....NOTHING.

Dan/W4NTI

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
bb wrote:
wrote:


Michael Coslo wrote on Feb 22 2005 9:58 am


Buy a rig, an antenna, and pay some people to put it up.

Presumably the

only requirement is to know how to read, talk and mash the PTT

button.

"Mash" the push-to-talk button? That means those
owners have to know where to get the PTT control
fixed! :-)


Yep, he said "mash," but must have been mistaken when he said they
would know how to read.

You see, people that use a microphone are clods. They would never
"depress" the ptt button, nor would they "press down" on it. They are
of low intelligence and barely human, and only know how to "mash" said
button. If no one is looking, they may actually step on the microphone
with bare, dirty feet and yell into it.

People who use a telegraph key are genteel. They know how to properly
close the contacts, form a character, and move on. They do so with
their pinkie finger extended, and have no dirt under their nails.

For it is written.


People around my area say "mash" as in referring to "pressing" something I
say it too at times. In general it is said in contesxt such as "Hey Bob,
mash that light switch will ya?

I'll quite saying mash if it offends all of you that much.


- Mike KB3EIA -

(who does mash his PTT when he works SSB)


A real "communicator" will say 'key the mike', or 'key the circuit'.

Dan/W4NTI

From: "bb" on 23 Feb 2005 17:38:53 -0800

wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote on Feb 22 2005 9:58 am
Buy a rig, an antenna, and pay some people to put it up.
Presumably the
only requirement is to know how to read, talk and mash the PTT
button.

"Mash" the push-to-talk button? That means those
owners have to know where to get the PTT control
fixed! :-)

Yep, he said "mash," but must have been mistaken when he said they
would know how to read.

You see, people that use a microphone are clods. They would never
"depress" the ptt button, nor would they "press down" on it. They are

of low intelligence and barely human, and only know how to "mash" said

button. If no one is looking, they may actually step on the
microphone
with bare, dirty feet and yell into it.

[sounds like Dan of a few years ago, reminiscing of how hams
used to do early FM by YELLING into their VFOs...:-) ]

People who use a telegraph key are genteel. They know how to properly

close the contacts, form a character, and move on. They do so with
their pinkie finger extended, and have no dirt under their nails.

Agreed. Amateur morsemen are the very EPITOME of
"radio operators." None are their equal.

They are Superhams, faster than a speeding TTY, able to
jump tall pile-ups at a single bound. They wear hair shirts
emblazoned with a Big S and carry shiny Raddio Kopp
shields to ward off evildoers speaking of Change.

All who do not love, honor, worship, and obey them are
Full of Hate For All Radio Amateurs!

For it is written.

...in here. :-)

Kim wrote:
"bb" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote on Feb 22 2005 9:58 am

Buy a rig, an antenna, and pay some people to put it up.
Presumably the
only requirement is to know how to read, talk and mash the PTT
button.

"Mash" the push-to-talk button? That means those
owners have to know where to get the PTT control
fixed! :-)

Yep, he said "mash," but must have been mistaken when he said they
would know how to read.

You see, people that use a microphone are clods. They would never
"depress" the ptt button, nor would they "press down" on it. They
are
of low intelligence and barely human, and only know how to "mash"
said
button. If no one is looking, they may actually step on the
microphone
with bare, dirty feet and yell into it.

People who use a telegraph key are genteel. They know how to
properly
close the contacts, form a character, and move on. They do so with
their pinkie finger extended, and have no dirt under their nails.

For it is written.


I think I just found Larry Roll.

Kim W5TIT

Oh, dear God! I forgot the smiley!!!

Sorry Kim, that must have been a real blast from the past.

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"Kim" wrote in message
. com...
"bb" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote on Feb 22 2005 9:58 am

Buy a rig, an antenna, and pay some people to put it up.
Presumably the
only requirement is to know how to read, talk and mash the PTT
button.

"Mash" the push-to-talk button? That means those
owners have to know where to get the PTT control
fixed! :-)

Yep, he said "mash," but must have been mistaken when he said they
would know how to read.

You see, people that use a microphone are clods. They would never
"depress" the ptt button, nor would they "press down" on it. They
are
of low intelligence and barely human, and only know how to "mash"
said
button. If no one is looking, they may actually step on the
microphone
with bare, dirty feet and yell into it.

People who use a telegraph key are genteel. They know how to
properly
close the contacts, form a character, and move on. They do so
with
their pinkie finger extended, and have no dirt under their nails.

For it is written.


I think I just found Larry Roll.

Kim W5TIT



Listen W5TWIT, I done told ya....stick with what you
know.....NOTHING.

Dan/W4NTI


Hey Dan, how 'bout scrapin that dirt from under yer fingernails.

Michael Coslo wrote:
bb wrote:
wrote:


Michael Coslo wrote on Feb 22 2005 9:58 am


Buy a rig, an antenna, and pay some people to put it up.

Presumably the

only requirement is to know how to read, talk and mash the PTT

button.

"Mash" the push-to-talk button? That means those
owners have to know where to get the PTT control
fixed! :-)


Yep, he said "mash," but must have been mistaken when he said they
would know how to read.

You see, people that use a microphone are clods. They would never
"depress" the ptt button, nor would they "press down" on it. They
are
of low intelligence and barely human, and only know how to "mash"
said
button. If no one is looking, they may actually step on the
microphone
with bare, dirty feet and yell into it.

People who use a telegraph key are genteel. They know how to
properly
close the contacts, form a character, and move on. They do so with
their pinkie finger extended, and have no dirt under their nails.

For it is written.


People around my area say "mash" as in referring to "pressing"
something I say it too at times. In general it is said in contesxt
such
as "Hey Bob, mash that light switch will ya?

I'll quite saying mash if it offends all of you that much.


- Mike KB3EIA -

(who does mash his PTT when he works SSB)

Mike, it's just that unconscious bias against all things not Morse
showing through. It is the mark of the true Morseman.

bb

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
bb wrote:
wrote:


Michael Coslo wrote on Feb 22 2005 9:58 am


Buy a rig, an antenna, and pay some people to put it up.

Presumably the

only requirement is to know how to read, talk and mash the PTT

button.

"Mash" the push-to-talk button? That means those
owners have to know where to get the PTT control
fixed! :-)


Yep, he said "mash," but must have been mistaken when he said they
would know how to read.

You see, people that use a microphone are clods. They would never
"depress" the ptt button, nor would they "press down" on it. They
are
of low intelligence and barely human, and only know how to "mash"
said
button. If no one is looking, they may actually step on the
microphone
with bare, dirty feet and yell into it.

People who use a telegraph key are genteel. They know how to
properly
close the contacts, form a character, and move on. They do so
with
their pinkie finger extended, and have no dirt under their nails.

For it is written.


People around my area say "mash" as in referring to "pressing"
something I
say it too at times. In general it is said in contesxt such as "Hey
Bob,
mash that light switch will ya?

I'll quite saying mash if it offends all of you that much.


- Mike KB3EIA -

(who does mash his PTT when he works SSB)


A real "communicator" will say 'key the mike', or 'key the
circuit'.

Dan/W4NTI

Sorry, but real "communicators" refer to "key" when they load an
encryption code.

BOL, bb