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


Dee Flint wrote:

I and the OM also worked some of the VHF contest and noticed a very
strange
thing. Only 10% of the contacts that we made were Technician operators.
On
the other hand, 80% of them were Extra class operators. So where are all
the Techs who are "trapped" in VHF and above because they "can't" pass
the
code (as some would have us believe)?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, I'm going to guess (i.e., don't ask me for facts, figures,
substantive studies, reports from the FCC/ARRL, etc) that of the Techs
that have stayed in amateur radio, most have done so for the emergency
communications aspect of the service. As such, they would typically
stay on FM.

The ones who could learn Morse Code and have had to time to do so have
moved up. Those who didn't have the time or couldn't learn it have
moved on.


There are none who cannot learn the code.

Really? Why do you say that?

However there are those for whom
other activities can and should have priority on their time. However that
is no excuse for eliminating it as a test element since the same argument
can be applied to the theory.

You hold a very interesting point of view. You say that since everyone
can learn the code, that it must be retained as a test element?

I say that it should be removed as a test element because it no longer
serves a regulatory purpose.

"bb" wrote in message
oups.com...


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


Dee Flint wrote:

I and the OM also worked some of the VHF contest and noticed a very
strange
thing. Only 10% of the contacts that we made were Technician
operators.
On
the other hand, 80% of them were Extra class operators. So where are
all
the Techs who are "trapped" in VHF and above because they "can't" pass
the
code (as some would have us believe)?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, I'm going to guess (i.e., don't ask me for facts, figures,
substantive studies, reports from the FCC/ARRL, etc) that of the Techs
that have stayed in amateur radio, most have done so for the emergency
communications aspect of the service. As such, they would typically
stay on FM.

The ones who could learn Morse Code and have had to time to do so have
moved up. Those who didn't have the time or couldn't learn it have
moved on.


There are none who cannot learn the code.

Really? Why do you say that?


Because they have already learned many things far tougher than the code.

However there are those for whom
other activities can and should have priority on their time. However
that
is no excuse for eliminating it as a test element since the same argument
can be applied to the theory.

You hold a very interesting point of view. You say that since everyone
can learn the code, that it must be retained as a test element?


No it should be retained because it is one of the basics of amateur radio
along with things like Ohm's law, propagation, etc.

I say that it should be removed as a test element because it no longer
serves a regulatory purpose.


That's a matter of opinion.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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


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


Dee Flint wrote:

I and the OM also worked some of the VHF contest and noticed a very
strange
thing. Only 10% of the contacts that we made were Technician
operators.
On
the other hand, 80% of them were Extra class operators. So where are
all
the Techs who are "trapped" in VHF and above because they "can't" pass
the
code (as some would have us believe)?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, I'm going to guess (i.e., don't ask me for facts, figures,
substantive studies, reports from the FCC/ARRL, etc) that of the Techs
that have stayed in amateur radio, most have done so for the emergency
communications aspect of the service. As such, they would typically
stay on FM.

The ones who could learn Morse Code and have had to time to do so have
moved up. Those who didn't have the time or couldn't learn it have
moved on.


There are none who cannot learn the code.

Really? Why do you say that?

Because they have already learned many things far tougher than the code.

What kind of things?

However there are those for whom
other activities can and should have priority on their time. However
that
is no excuse for eliminating it as a test element since the same argument
can be applied to the theory.

You hold a very interesting point of view. You say that since everyone
can learn the code, that it must be retained as a test element?

No it should be retained because it is one of the basics of amateur radio
along with things like Ohm's law, propagation, etc.

No other operating mode/skill has a practical pass/fail exam. That
makes it arbitrary.

I say that it should be removed as a test element because it no longer
serves a regulatory purpose.

That's a matter of opinion.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Please state the regulatory purpose that a Morse Code exam and CW use
provides.

"bb" wrote in message
oups.com...


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


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


Dee Flint wrote:

I and the OM also worked some of the VHF contest and noticed a very
strange
thing. Only 10% of the contacts that we made were Technician
operators.
On
the other hand, 80% of them were Extra class operators. So where
are
all
the Techs who are "trapped" in VHF and above because they "can't"
pass
the
code (as some would have us believe)?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, I'm going to guess (i.e., don't ask me for facts, figures,
substantive studies, reports from the FCC/ARRL, etc) that of the
Techs
that have stayed in amateur radio, most have done so for the
emergency
communications aspect of the service. As such, they would typically
stay on FM.

The ones who could learn Morse Code and have had to time to do so
have
moved up. Those who didn't have the time or couldn't learn it have
moved on.


There are none who cannot learn the code.

Really? Why do you say that?

Because they have already learned many things far tougher than the code.

What kind of things?


Not all items apply to all people but here are a few: Walking, talking,
reading, writing, riding a bicycle, skating, mathematics, any sport at even
the the most rudimentary level, playing any musical instrument at even the
most rudimentary level, computer literacy, typing, college courses. The
list could go on, but just about everything mental or physical a person has
learned is harder than code.

However there are those for whom
other activities can and should have priority on their time. However
that
is no excuse for eliminating it as a test element since the same
argument
can be applied to the theory.

You hold a very interesting point of view. You say that since everyone
can learn the code, that it must be retained as a test element?

No it should be retained because it is one of the basics of amateur radio
along with things like Ohm's law, propagation, etc.

No other operating mode/skill has a practical pass/fail exam. That
makes it arbitrary.


All the tests are arbitrary as well as is the material chosen for coverage.

I say that it should be removed as a test element because it no longer
serves a regulatory purpose.

That's a matter of opinion.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Please state the regulatory purpose that a Morse Code exam and CW use
provides.


The regulator purpose of the exam is that it shows the candidate knows that
particular basic of ham radio.

No one has ever claimed that CW use or the use of any other mode (SSB,
non-code digital) provides a regulatory purpose. However throwing that
comment into the discussion illustrates that you wish to get rid of not only
the test but the use of CW. So I will not continue to participate in this
thread.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
news

"bb" wrote in message


No one has ever claimed that CW use or the use of any other mode (SSB,
non-code digital) provides a regulatory purpose. However throwing that
comment into the discussion illustrates that you wish to get rid of not
only the test but the use of CW. So I will not continue to participate in
this thread.


Correction:

"So I will not continue replying to your comments in this thread"

Some people here will interpret my previous comment to mean I'll not reply
to any people in this thread and that may or may not be the case depending
on how interesting their comments are.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
news

"bb" wrote in message

No one has ever claimed that CW use or the use of any other mode (SSB,
non-code digital) provides a regulatory purpose. However throwing that
comment into the discussion illustrates that you wish to get rid of not
only the test but the use of CW. So I will not continue to participate in
this thread.

Correction:

"So I will not continue replying to your comments in this thread"

Some people here will interpret my previous comment to mean I'll not reply
to any people in this thread and that may or may not be the case depending
on how interesting their comments are.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I'm sorry that legitimate, civil discourse on amateur radio policy has
you upset. The past couple of days exchanges has been more policy
discussion that this group has seen in years. It's too bad that you
want to abstain just when I thought we were getting somewhere. Your
core beliefs about amateur radio must have been shaken, so I wish you a
speedy recovery.

"bb" wrote in message
oups.com...


Dee Flint wrote:

I'm sorry that legitimate, civil discourse on amateur radio policy has
you upset. The past couple of days exchanges has been more policy
discussion that this group has seen in years. It's too bad that you
want to abstain just when I thought we were getting somewhere. Your
core beliefs about amateur radio must have been shaken, so I wish you a
speedy recovery.


Doesn't bother me in the least. Nor are my beliefs shaken. It is simply a
waste of your time and my time for either of us to continue further when it
is quite obvious that each of us is firm in our point of view.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
news

"bb" wrote in message


No one has ever claimed that CW use or the use of any other mode (SSB,
non-code digital) provides a regulatory purpose. However throwing that
comment into the discussion illustrates that you wish to get rid of not
only the test but the use of CW. So I will not continue to participate
in this thread.


Correction:

"So I will not continue replying to your comments in this thread"

Some people here will interpret my previous comment to mean I'll not reply
to any people in this thread and that may or may not be the case depending
on how interesting their comments are.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE




After he got cozy with Lennie the lizard I decided he is here to
agitate....oh...didn't someone say that already?

Dan/W4NTI

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


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


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


Dee Flint wrote:

I and the OM also worked some of the VHF contest and noticed a very
strange
thing. Only 10% of the contacts that we made were Technician
operators.
On
the other hand, 80% of them were Extra class operators. So where
are
all
the Techs who are "trapped" in VHF and above because they "can't"
pass
the
code (as some would have us believe)?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, I'm going to guess (i.e., don't ask me for facts, figures,
substantive studies, reports from the FCC/ARRL, etc) that of the
Techs
that have stayed in amateur radio, most have done so for the
emergency
communications aspect of the service. As such, they would typically
stay on FM.

The ones who could learn Morse Code and have had to time to do so
have
moved up. Those who didn't have the time or couldn't learn it have
moved on.


There are none who cannot learn the code.

Really? Why do you say that?

Because they have already learned many things far tougher than the code.

What kind of things?


Not all items apply to all people but here are a few: Walking, talking,
reading, writing, riding a bicycle, skating, mathematics, any sport at even
the the most rudimentary level, playing any musical instrument at even the
most rudimentary level, computer literacy, typing, college courses. The
list could go on, but just about everything mental or physical a person has
learned is harder than code.

Can you play the string bass?

There's an FCC sticker on teh back of my stereo. What if the FCC were
to make it a requirement that you have to pass a string bass exam in
order to play music on your stereo?

However there are those for whom
other activities can and should have priority on their time. However
that
is no excuse for eliminating it as a test element since the same
argument
can be applied to the theory.

You hold a very interesting point of view. You say that since everyone
can learn the code, that it must be retained as a test element?

No it should be retained because it is one of the basics of amateur radio
along with things like Ohm's law, propagation, etc.

No other operating mode/skill has a practical pass/fail exam. That
makes it arbitrary.


All the tests are arbitrary as well as is the material chosen for coverage.

They are?

I say that it should be removed as a test element because it no longer
serves a regulatory purpose.

That's a matter of opinion.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Please state the regulatory purpose that a Morse Code exam and CW use
provides.


The regulator purpose of the exam is that it shows the candidate knows that
particular basic of ham radio.

But why no other practical operating exam for other modes?

No one has ever claimed that CW use or the use of any other mode (SSB,
non-code digital) provides a regulatory purpose.

No mode is mandated, yet we have a practical operating pass/fail exam
for one mode. That is arbitrary.

However throwing that
comment into the discussion illustrates that you wish to get rid of not only
the test but the use of CW.

Dee, not at all. I wish only the arbitrary Morse/Farnsworth Exams to
be retired.

But recognize that the FCC mandates the use no particular mode. You
can use CW all you want or not us it at all. So why is there a
practical operating exam for this one mode but not all other modes?

And why is CW use allowed by No-Code Technicians on VHF, but not HF?

Why did Jim Miccolis N2EY say about Hans restructuring proposal, that a
CW exam would be a barrier to CW use?

So I will not continue to participate in this thread.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I understand how uneasy it must make you to have to face the truth of
arbitrary licensing requirements and still advocate a Morse/Farnsworth
Exam.

If you wish to discontinue healthy, legitimate discourse with respect
to amateur policy, I understand. It is not for the faint of heart.

Best of Luck, Brian

"bb" wrote in message
oups.com...


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


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


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


Dee Flint wrote:

I and the OM also worked some of the VHF contest and noticed a
very
strange
thing. Only 10% of the contacts that we made were Technician
operators.
On
the other hand, 80% of them were Extra class operators. So
where
are
all
the Techs who are "trapped" in VHF and above because they
"can't"
pass
the
code (as some would have us believe)?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, I'm going to guess (i.e., don't ask me for facts, figures,
substantive studies, reports from the FCC/ARRL, etc) that of the
Techs
that have stayed in amateur radio, most have done so for the
emergency
communications aspect of the service. As such, they would
typically
stay on FM.

The ones who could learn Morse Code and have had to time to do so
have
moved up. Those who didn't have the time or couldn't learn it
have
moved on.


There are none who cannot learn the code.

Really? Why do you say that?

Because they have already learned many things far tougher than the
code.

What kind of things?


Not all items apply to all people but here are a few: Walking, talking,
reading, writing, riding a bicycle, skating, mathematics, any sport at
even
the the most rudimentary level, playing any musical instrument at even
the
most rudimentary level, computer literacy, typing, college courses. The
list could go on, but just about everything mental or physical a person
has
learned is harder than code.

Can you play the string bass?

There's an FCC sticker on teh back of my stereo. What if the FCC were
to make it a requirement that you have to pass a string bass exam in
order to play music on your stereo?

However there are those for whom
other activities can and should have priority on their time.
However
that
is no excuse for eliminating it as a test element since the same
argument
can be applied to the theory.

You hold a very interesting point of view. You say that since
everyone
can learn the code, that it must be retained as a test element?

No it should be retained because it is one of the basics of amateur
radio
along with things like Ohm's law, propagation, etc.

No other operating mode/skill has a practical pass/fail exam. That
makes it arbitrary.


All the tests are arbitrary as well as is the material chosen for
coverage.

They are?

I say that it should be removed as a test element because it no
longer
serves a regulatory purpose.

That's a matter of opinion.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Please state the regulatory purpose that a Morse Code exam and CW use
provides.


The regulator purpose of the exam is that it shows the candidate knows
that
particular basic of ham radio.

But why no other practical operating exam for other modes?

No one has ever claimed that CW use or the use of any other mode (SSB,
non-code digital) provides a regulatory purpose.

No mode is mandated, yet we have a practical operating pass/fail exam
for one mode. That is arbitrary.

However throwing that
comment into the discussion illustrates that you wish to get rid of not
only
the test but the use of CW.

Dee, not at all. I wish only the arbitrary Morse/Farnsworth Exams to
be retired.

But recognize that the FCC mandates the use no particular mode. You
can use CW all you want or not us it at all. So why is there a
practical operating exam for this one mode but not all other modes?

And why is CW use allowed by No-Code Technicians on VHF, but not HF?

Why did Jim Miccolis N2EY say about Hans restructuring proposal, that a
CW exam would be a barrier to CW use?

So I will not continue to participate in this thread.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I understand how uneasy it must make you to have to face the truth of
arbitrary licensing requirements and still advocate a Morse/Farnsworth
Exam.


Ok, one more round but that's it. All the licensing requirements are
arbitrary. Every single one of them. There are several radio services for
which no testing is required. So if some services do not need testing, then
it is arbitrary for those that do. However the goals and purposes of
amateur radio make it desireable to test candidates for these licenses.

If you wish to discontinue healthy, legitimate discourse with respect
to amateur policy, I understand. It is not for the faint of heart.

Best of Luck, Brian


The problem with the Morse discussion is that every possible conceivable
argument on either side has been aired dozens, if not hundreds, of times.
It is not healthy to continue discussing this policy issue. No new data
comes to light. No new rational has come up. There's no point in rehashing
the same issues. Sooner or later the FCC will rule and we'll all have to
live with the consequences good or bad.

If the result is as the NCTA state that it will be, i.e. a big wave of new
hams plus a big wave of hams upgrading and getting on HF, just watch the DX
stations, especially the rare ones, hide down on CW even more than they are
now. If you exclude Japan, the US has more amateur radio operators than the
rest of the world combined. If the bands get as busy as the NCTAs imply
they will from this rush of new and upgrading hams, a lot of us will be
drifting even more to CW just to find some room.

On the other hand, if the PCTAs are correct, i.e. the impact will be
insignificant just as other changes of the recent past have been, then there
is NO reason to change the requirements. Changes that have little to no
noticeable impact aren't worth the bother of implementing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE