From: "Bill Sohl" on Sat,May 21 2005 3:07 am

wrote in message
oups.com...
From: "Bill Sohl" on Fri,May 20 2005 1:15 pm

wrote in message
groups.com...


A few things are evident in this newsgroup. Firstly,
there are the cast-in-concrete conservatives who have
been brainwashed into believing that the ULTIMATE
skill in amateur radio is morsemanship. Secondly,
there is that handful of irregular regulars in here
trying to "win out" over anyone expressing any
opinion other than theirs...those stop at nothing to
attempt damaging their "opponents" credibility
through the usual attempted intimidation and personal
insults.

Personally, if someone wants to believe that morse
is THE ULTIMATE skill in amateur radio, that's
their right and opinion. Clearly neither you nor I
agree with that.

Agreed on that agreement. Others go way over the line
of the subject on their "replies." That isn't deniable.
It's archived in Google (for those that want to relive
past messaging, seeking to "avenge their wrongs").

For years and years the ARRL has emphasized morsemanship
over and above all other skills in amateur radio. The
Why of that is rooted in a time before us, back in the
30s when T.O.M. ruled. Three-quarters of a century later
times have changed.

It matters not - in this newsgroup environment - that
the rest of the radio world has "put morse to the test"
and found it wanting in favor of better communications
modes. The only practitioners of morsemanship still
active and USING it are in amateur radio in the USA.
All the other radio services in the USA have given up
on using any form of morse code for communications.
[automated station IDs in morse tones is not
communications]

Actually there are others in amateur radio "outside"
the USA that also embrace morse as a favored mode.

Fine for them. However, that doesn't have any bearing on
morse code use OR testing IN the United States of America.


Sorry Len, I can't agree with your statements here.
Like it or not, morse operating IS real operating radio...
just as driving my antique cars is real automobile driving.

Bill, in all honesty, I was talking about the PCTA Extra
Double Standard brainwashed diehards in here...NOT
yourself...OR driving antique cars.

OK, but that's not how it read.

Tsk. You are "not able" to recognize these PCTA Extra
Double Standard bearers parroting the ARRL over-
emphasis on morsemanship?!? That's surprising. Most of
their myths seem self-evident.

I was NOT speaking of driving antique cars. Were there
any actual running "cars" ("horseless carriages" self-
contained, carrying people and driven by people) in 1844
when the first Morse-Vail Telegraph System began operating?

Witness the constant statements of that "expert military
communicator" who keeps insisting I was "only a radio
mechanic" or the critic who never served but "had dinner
with the Captain (of an aircraft carrier)." :-)

I try to avoid all personal attack commentary.

If time permits, I'll meet it head-on...and usually defeat
the insulters...whether they admit it or not (very few have
the courage to do anything but harass, heckle, and insult
in "replies").

The big difference is that I DO have documentary evidence
on what I write...and it is referenced elsewhere.

Morsemanship IS PART of radio operating...but ONLY of a
radio that actually DOES USE on-off keying of the RF
carrier with morse code.

Which covers a considerable amount of radios. Additionally,
it is not simply CW (on-off keying of carrier) that allows
use of morse. I can send morse as an on/off tone via any
FM capable transmitter.

You have now entered the area of reducto ad absurdum.

Yes, you CAN whistle morse code characters on any voice
transmitter. Or use a little code practice oscillator set
with a speaker beeping into the microphone...if there isn't
any pucker left in your whistle. :-)

But WHY? Because you "can?" :-) How does that demonstrate
"real operating?"

Bill, to venture into the absurd, I can rig up an AFSK kluge
to send Data over a voice transmitter...and "read" it via
most any available audio-connected-only commercial "TOR" modem.
All that "proves" is that kluges are possible. It is much
better to connect them electronically, follow the technical
requirements in Title 47, and do it properly.

On that alleged "contest" of morse code versus TXT-ing on TV,
it would have been more fair to have the morsemen whistle or
beep or make whatever sound-equivalent to a morse code signal
over cellphones rather than using ham radio equipment. Or
use VOICE on the cell phones in a competition with morse code
over ham radios. But...that would defeat the purpose of this
"test" which was intended as a "funny" put-down of a popular
fad among young people of today.

Morsemanship is NOT REQUIRED
by anyone operating an aircraft radio - either civilian
or military. Morsemanship is NOT REQUIRED of anyone
operating a broadcast services transmitter. Morsemanship
is NOT REQUIRED for anyone sending a GMDSS distress or
safety message. Morsemanship is NOT REQUIRED of any of
the radios (in the millions) used in Public Safety or
Private Land Mobile Radio Service. Not in the FCC
regulations for those radio services...and others.

Agreed and nothing I said contradicts that.

Bill, you were NOT being "contradicted."


Given that you (Len) believe morse is NOT operating
radio, would it be your desire to see morse banned
as a mode of use by amateurs?

Bill, that's NOT a "given." IF and only IF morse
code skills ARE REQUIRED in radio operation, then
morsemanship IS a PART of radio operation.

Well at this point, morse as a requirement is only
required for General and Extra class licenses...which
is a requirement I am totally on record as opposing.

Do not try to put words in there that I am "banning
morse code operation" in amateur radio. I am NOT.

Good...thanks for the clarification.

WHAT "clarification," Bill?

You made a most-definitely-LOADED statement. It was akin
to "when did you stop beating your wife" kind of thing.

I've said before that I am NOT for "banning morse code
operation by amateurs." Look all over in Google as you
wish and you will see that.

By the way, when did YOU stop beating your wife? :-)

[see how easy it is? :-) ]


Others - in here - have already tried that. They
have failed...but they keep persisting in their
misguided attempts to suppress the real subjects by
their personal attacks and misstatements against others.

You haven't posed a viable question.

The question was posed to see what role, if any,
you accept as valid via amateur radio.

It was? :-)

Tsk. I thought you were simply trying a "civil" rejoinder
or something about my alleged "hatred of amateur radio." :-)

Lots in amateur radio are into "role" playing. Several of
those are in here, all busy busy making "claims" of radio
experience (not to mention "hostile action" participation
in the military) that they can't back up. Several in here
put on self-appointed robes of "jurists" busy trying to
"sentence" all who disagree with them. :-)


Call it a "loaded test" akin to a "loaded question."
A SETUP.

Call it whatever. It makes no difference as I see it.

I didn't see the Friday night episode of the "Tonight Show"
and had to ask a friend over at NBC on Alameda about it.
Quite a different take on it, but supporting my
contention, when information is gathered from the show's
production people. [NBC Western Hq is on Alameda Blvd
in Burbank, CA, about a few miles away from my house]

Cellular telephony does not, nor was it ever designed, to
send textual communications. Cellular telephony was
designed and implemented to communicate by VOICE.

Agree totally...which is why I would expect morse
to win as it did.

So, you CAN agree that it was a very biased "contest?"

The win did not prove nor did I see any amateur
in this newsgroup suggest that the win showed
that morse was "better than any other mode."

Bill, I will have to put you down as a LITERALIST then.
A "literalist" is one who takes all written text as it
is, unable to read in anything "between the lines" and
acting like some "language purist."
I'm sorry you've turned into that.

I will wear the badge of "literalist" with pride. Frankly
there's too much reading between the lines anyway.
If people can't be straight-up, then I'm not here to
second guess their true intentions.

Okay, so EVERYONE has to dot their "i" and cross their "t"
properly and BELIEVE what the ARRL tells them is true? :-)

Very little "second guessing" is needed with this bunch.
Their agendas are clear and easy to see as a neon sign.


Yes, I've been around
this newsgroup long enough to know that there is
a handful (or at least was at one time) of hams that
might have held such "morse is better than any other
mode" perspective, but I think the issue has
ckarified significantly in recent years to the point that
the issue is the TEST and only the test for most
hams.

This newsgrope group is NOT "most hams." :-)

I didn't say it was.

Ah, but the handfull of PCTA Extra Double Standard bearers
seem fond of using their royal "we" (of the "amateur
community") is "critiquing" those that don't agree with
them!

Bill, you are NOT on "trial" here and these public messages
are NOT private and directed solely to you. [just a
reminder] :-)

It is a handful of PCTA Extra Double Standard bearers
on some personal "mission" to "win supremacy" in a
newsgroup. They will readily fall-to anyone speaking
against the league-speak and attack them like starving
vultures after ripe carrion. :-)

The newsgroup has "some" folks that might fit your
description...but they are fewer today than before and
they are not sole participants in the newsgroup as
others (you, me, etc) clearly have differing viewpoints.

There are NO "differing viewpoints" with that group,
Bill. They claim the only "truth" and all others are
"liars," "in error," "simply mistaken," etc. :-)

To NOT agree with these PCTA Extra Double Standard self-
imposed "judges" of all is to invite a barrage of their
anger and hatred and scathing insult commentary that is
NOT limited to radio subjects. Quod erat demonstrandum,
QED (not a Q code abbreviation).

As such, I applaud the morse win over Text
messaging because it was a good opportunity to
get some publicity for ham radio.

"Publicity," yes. But at what price? By putting other
means of communications DOWN in a rigged test?

Should we have a pity party for the poor text messaging
record holder. If the text message folks feared a put
down then they had the option to not play. They decided to
play and they lost....fair, square, contrived or how ever
you feel it was inevitable that text messaging would lose.

Okay, then you agree it was a SETUP? :-)

If that's the only means of "getting publicity" nationally,
then it is of rather low taste.

Why is it of low taste? Did the losers get razzed by the morse
winners?

Not on the show. In HERE. :-)

Several anony-mouses spoke up about the "triumph" of morse
(as a 160-year-old "technology" according to one anony-
mouse). :-)

When was the last time you saw morse used on any TV
show...especially as a mode used by hams? I watch a fair
amount of TV and can't recall it.

The last time I remember was a bad rewrite of "The
French Atlantic Affair" as a movie-for-TV. That novel
of the same name was written by a radio amateur and
reviewed in one of the ham publications. Years ago.
Total rewrite of the plot characters...the ham heros
in the TV version were young teeners (with Extra
calls) instead of the medical doctor on the ship and
the TV writer in Beverly Hills doing the "CW" bit to
circumvent the hijacking of a French ocean liner.
Good suspensful novel, I thought (as did reviewers)
but an awful hokey rewrite for TV (as did reviewers).


But the issue of publicity is
simple. The airing of the morse vs text messaging contest
was a brief opportunity to expose amateur radio to
the public. I have no doubt that there would not be a sudden
wave of new interest because of that airing, but perhaps
it stirred some interest in a few...which is fine by me.

Okay...but, remember, you are not on trial here. :-)

Maybe David Letterman can come up with some better
publicity on his show? Something besides his "ten?"
And don't forget the CABLE channels...

Just think, the new Military channel could have Stebie
in a half hour interview explaining his "A" NCOIC ops on
Okinawa MARS as saving the free world. Or Kellie, in his
finest Banks suit, on the Food channel telling of the
dining (with the Captain) on aircraft carriers (served by
"drudges" of course)...perhaps his "shooting bears" would
still be Classified by Navy Intelligence. Tremendous
possibilities, Bill!

The History channel could do a whole hour documentary on
the successes - and failures - of the ARRL's first trans-
continental messaging system. Discovery channel could go
a whole hour on "Now You're Talking" about how morse code
is the "international language" in this new millennium
despite the pervasive Internet now linking most of the
world with no ionospheric problems.

Endless possibilities, Bill!


Then argue against the test. Your post appeared to be
far more focused against morse use in general rather
than specifically the test requirement.

To use an old military term...TS. :-)

Saying ANYTHING negative to the PCTA Extra Double Standard
bearers is to invite the usual starving-vulture feeding
frenzy of OUTRAGE that anyone would speak against morse!
:-)

In effect, you are "blaming me" for "inciting a riot" (in
here). :-)

I am supposed to sit idly by and take all the **** such as
"I was 'only' a radio mechanic" (as a real E-5 supervisor in
a station FAR bigger than anything any ham organization has),
I "dishonor" deceased members of my military unit by honoring
them, my wife got two Masters degrees by going to a
"correspondence school" (University of Illinois at Urbana),
I was "only a bench tech" in the aerospace industry, that an
independent ham publication was "no good," "defunct," after
22 years of independent periodical sales and considered the
best technical periodical on amateur radio? Not to mention
that wonderful little expression of "PUTZ" written by a non-
Yiddish person...or that I "didn't express 'interest' in radio"
because I didn't get a ham license first before going into the
radio-electronics industry, getting a commercial license first.

[there are many more examples...all are in Google archives]

Yes, Bill, you can lay ALL kinds of "blame" on ME. No
problem. That suits the complacency and proper "position in
the (closed) society" of amateur radio...all marching to the
same music as composed in Newington "for the good of all."
Critics of the "service" should all be SILENCED lest they
"upset the status quo." All for ORDER in the "service." :-)

This newsgroup is full of EXAMPLES of modern-day licensed
radio amateurs. Good "publicity" for amateur radio? Yes,
for INSIDE amateur radio where the controllers can hold all
miscreants silent while they berate the "infidels" who will
not toe the line as they command.

OUTSIDE of amateur radio, where amateur radio must coexist with
all other radio services, is another story. Even more so with
the general public who are not overly interested in the HOBBY
of some, not obligingly respectful of the claims of greatness
by those INSIDE the hobby. shrug

So, Bill, three minutes of "publicity" on national TV is "good."
After how many years of NONE AT ALL?


As before, I try to stay out of the personal attack
commentary that I've seen some of these discussions
reduced to.

Okay, we'll put you down as CONDONING the actions of some of
these licensed radio amateurs.

You did say that "some publicity" is better than none, right?


According to the U.S. Census Bureau figures for 2004, there
are 100 million cell phone subscriptions in the USA. How
many morse code operators are there in radio in the USA?

Your point?

"Point?" What "point?" I asked "how many morse code operators
are there in radio in the USA." [I didn't restrict that to just
radio amateurs]

One in three Americans has a cell phone subscription. It's a
safe bet that there are at least 100 million cell phone handsets
operational now. Hams are outnumberd by cell phone users at
least 100:1.

Again, according to the U. S. Census Bureau statement (of 2004),
in 2003 at least one in five Americans had some kind of Internet
access. That's roughly 60 million Americans. The Internet
enables all instant communications with every continent except
Antarctica. Was "good publicity" responsible for that?

Twenty years ago neither of those cell phone or Internet statistics
could have been stated. Suddenly (after 20 years) there they are.

Morse code has been around for 161 years. It was once the only
means possible for "instant" communications anywhere. No longer.
If morse code was so "good," "so triumphant" why didn't it
survive and grow?