John Smith wrote:
N2EY:

I am afraid that task of inducting enough women is beyond me--no one has
ever succeeded...

The fact that something is beyond *you* doesn't mean it's beyond
others.

Just what percentage of amateurs are women? Do you even know?

I know it's at least 5% of US hams. Probably more like 8%. Which is
many
times the 1-2% you cited.

I bet you damn well know they are rarer then space aliens sightings!!!

Not where I live. Not on the air, either - if you check out modes other
than voice.

Right here in rrap, we have Kim, W5TIT, and Dee, N8UZE.

W3RV mentioned W3CUL, Mae, perhaps *the* premier amateur radio traffic
handler of her time. I did not know her, but I did know Lou, W3WRE,
quite well in the 1970s. She had been a commercial operator as well as
amateur, knew both the landline and radio codes, and was a topnotch
operator who had many nonradio interests. The fact that she was a half
century my elder did not prevent us from becoming friends. I learned
a heck of lot from Lou, not all of it radio, either.

I've also had the pleasure of working the youngest person ever to
earn the Amateur Extra license. She got that license at age 8, while
in the third grade, a few years ago. Good CW operator - she's a regular
in the contests, and turns in very respectable scores.



wrote in message
ups.com...
John Smith wrote:
... all the women I have ever tried to interest in radio...
all have
declined doing anything towards getting a license...
once they even see
a key and a code practice oscillator they look at me as
if I am crazy
and ask, "You are kidding, right?"

With all due respect, perhaps your skill at getting them
interested needs some improvement....

Given your attitude towards Morse Code, you'd be as
effective as the chairman of the National Beef Council
trying to get people to be vegetarians..

Then they grab their net-to-phone and/or keyboard and being
chatting
with canadians, so americans, mexicans, asians, aussies, brits,
etc...

Which takes no radio and no license. So it's not about Morse Code,
but about different interests.

... and at this point it is hard for me to pose a logical
argument--

;-)

women are just smarter than men... you can't fool them...

Not about fooling, but about what people are interested in.

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
... the amateur tests are a trivial problem to men with real
educations...

What about women with real educations?

Would you consider someone with a BSEE from the University of
Pennsylvania and an MSEE from Drexel University to have
"a real education"?

... the cw part

Is an amateur test. And is a trivial problem to people with
real educations..

makes as much sense as learning to play a "jew's
harp"--a lot of sense if you wish to, none if you don't...

Then why require someone with no interest in VHF-UHF to learn
those techniques in order to operate on HF? Why require
knowedge of FSK, PSK and other data modes to operate voice?
Why require knowledge of transistors and ICs to operate
vacuum-tube equipment?

IOW, why require anyone to learn anything about a subject they
are not interested in, just to get a license to do the things
they *are* interested in?

--

Perhaps what bothers some people the most about the code test
is that it isn't something most people already know. And it
isn't something that can be learned by reading a book, watching
a video, etc. It's a skill, not "book learning".

In learning the code, a Ph.D in EE has to start at the same place
as a grade-schooler. And the grade schooler may learn faster and
do better! Perhaps it is this characteristic of the test - its
ability to act as a Great Equalizer - that causes some to resent
it so much.

--

Warmest regards,
John

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
It was never about anyone stopping you from sending cw was
it...

A few anticode folks have stated they want Morse Code *use* by
hams
to
end, not just the test. They are a small minority, but they do
exist.

It is about stopping you from forcing others to learn cw when
they
would
never use it...

Who is "forced" to learn Morse Code?

It's a requirement if someone wants an FCC-issued amateur
license
with
HF privileges, that's all.

Always when one is being forced to do something they do not
wish
to,
they should question everything in sight... just as you began
when
you
thought someone was going to force you to quit...

The argument you present boils down to this: If someone doesn't
want
to
use Morse Code in ham radio, they shouldn't be required to learn
it
just
to pass a test (even a simple, basic test) to get a ham radio
license.
Those who choose to use it can learn it on their own.

Is that about right?

The problem is that the same argument can be made against almost
everything
in the written tests. For example, if someone doesn't intend to
use
certain
bands, why are they forced to learn the band edges of every band
their
license allows? If someone doesn't intend to use more than a few
watts
of
transmitted power, why must they learn all that RF exposure
stuff?
Indeed,
if someone doesn't intend to homebrew, why are they *forced* to
learn
all
that theory stuff?

Sure, the written tests look easy to someone with a background
in
radio,
electronics, computers or other related fields. But to someone
from
an
unrelated field, they're not easy.

Suppose you met a retired gentleman who had been a radioman in
the
military 50+ years ago. He'd always wanted to be a ham but never
had
the time or resources. Now he finds that ham radio still exists,
and
he wants in.

The gent can still do code well, and remembers the basics of
theory
as it was 50+ years ago. He gets an HF receiver and listens to
the
lovely Morse Code signals on the low ends of the HF bands.

But in order to join the folks on 7010 or 3520, he needs an
Extra.
And the written test is full of stuff he's never seen before,
and
that he will never use.

Why must he learn all that stuff he will never use just to pass
the
tests?

Sure, the stuff is easy for *you*, but not for *him*.

... let's at least keep my comment about the drums straight...

Let's see...

Warmest regards,
John

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
... that almost makes me miss the ancient drums my
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-etc.
ancestors
used
to
use to communicate with in the primordial jungles... I
wonder
if
we
could bring those back to?

Invalid analogy.

Drums for communication aren't in wide use.

Morse Code for communication is in wide use in ham radio.
Doesn't
need to be brought back because it's right here.

... perhaps require the new licensees to beat out a fancy
tempo
on
one
of those turkeys before we gave 'em a license!
evil-grin

Warmest regards,
John


Perhaps, John


But consider that some of us can send and receive cw faster
than
most
folks can type.

Yup.

I know you may be good at "cut and paste", but that doesn't
necessarily cut
it LOL.

Sure, voice appears faster, but when you get names and
addresses
that
are
hard to pronounce ....

Bingo.

For any message that needs to be written down, the speed
limitation
is
usually the writing speed of the receiving op. The fact that
someone
can theoretically talks 150 wpm doesn't mean anything if the
person
on the receiving end can only write legibly at 15 wpm.

Text modes are great if you have the hardware for them and if
you
are in a situation where you can look at a screen to read them.

Not saying that CW is the best, but some folks better come up
with
something
superior to AM and FM. There are a number of modes, but most
folks
want to
"talk". That won't cut it for 85 watt moonbounce on 24 GHz.




73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
ps - when I talk send and receive cw faster than some folks
type,
I'm
not
talking a nice, leisurely chat at 30 or 35 words per minute
...

Yup.

Good Morse ops can chat at speeds approaching those of voice ops
because
they use abbreviations and eliminate redundancies.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I'd say those figures are certainly pressing the envelope... either way,
you don't see 'em on the bands in those numbers... your 1-in-20 seems
more like a 1-in-a-hundred-or-better to me!

John

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
N2EY:

I am afraid that task of inducting enough women is beyond me--no one
has
ever succeeded...

The fact that something is beyond *you* doesn't mean it's beyond
others.

Just what percentage of amateurs are women? Do you even know?

I know it's at least 5% of US hams. Probably more like 8%. Which is
many
times the 1-2% you cited.

I bet you damn well know they are rarer then space aliens
sightings!!!

Not where I live. Not on the air, either - if you check out modes
other
than voice.

Right here in rrap, we have Kim, W5TIT, and Dee, N8UZE.

W3RV mentioned W3CUL, Mae, perhaps *the* premier amateur radio traffic
handler of her time. I did not know her, but I did know Lou, W3WRE,
quite well in the 1970s. She had been a commercial operator as well as
amateur, knew both the landline and radio codes, and was a topnotch
operator who had many nonradio interests. The fact that she was a half
century my elder did not prevent us from becoming friends. I learned
a heck of lot from Lou, not all of it radio, either.

I've also had the pleasure of working the youngest person ever to
earn the Amateur Extra license. She got that license at age 8, while
in the third grade, a few years ago. Good CW operator - she's a
regular
in the contests, and turns in very respectable scores.



wrote in message
ups.com...
John Smith wrote:
... all the women I have ever tried to interest in radio...
all have
declined doing anything towards getting a license...
once they even see
a key and a code practice oscillator they look at me as
if I am crazy
and ask, "You are kidding, right?"

With all due respect, perhaps your skill at getting them
interested needs some improvement....

Given your attitude towards Morse Code, you'd be as
effective as the chairman of the National Beef Council
trying to get people to be vegetarians..

Then they grab their net-to-phone and/or keyboard and being
chatting
with canadians, so americans, mexicans, asians, aussies, brits,
etc...

Which takes no radio and no license. So it's not about Morse Code,
but about different interests.

... and at this point it is hard for me to pose a logical
argument--

;-)

women are just smarter than men... you can't fool them...

Not about fooling, but about what people are interested in.

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
... the amateur tests are a trivial problem to men with real
educations...

What about women with real educations?

Would you consider someone with a BSEE from the University of
Pennsylvania and an MSEE from Drexel University to have
"a real education"?

... the cw part

Is an amateur test. And is a trivial problem to people with
real educations..

makes as much sense as learning to play a "jew's
harp"--a lot of sense if you wish to, none if you don't...

Then why require someone with no interest in VHF-UHF to learn
those techniques in order to operate on HF? Why require
knowedge of FSK, PSK and other data modes to operate voice?
Why require knowledge of transistors and ICs to operate
vacuum-tube equipment?

IOW, why require anyone to learn anything about a subject they
are not interested in, just to get a license to do the things
they *are* interested in?

--

Perhaps what bothers some people the most about the code test
is that it isn't something most people already know. And it
isn't something that can be learned by reading a book, watching
a video, etc. It's a skill, not "book learning".

In learning the code, a Ph.D in EE has to start at the same
place
as a grade-schooler. And the grade schooler may learn faster and
do better! Perhaps it is this characteristic of the test - its
ability to act as a Great Equalizer - that causes some to resent
it so much.

--

Warmest regards,
John

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
It was never about anyone stopping you from sending cw was
it...

A few anticode folks have stated they want Morse Code *use*
by
hams
to
end, not just the test. They are a small minority, but they
do
exist.

It is about stopping you from forcing others to learn cw
when
they
would
never use it...

Who is "forced" to learn Morse Code?

It's a requirement if someone wants an FCC-issued amateur
license
with
HF privileges, that's all.

Always when one is being forced to do something they do not
wish
to,
they should question everything in sight... just as you
began
when
you
thought someone was going to force you to quit...

The argument you present boils down to this: If someone
doesn't
want
to
use Morse Code in ham radio, they shouldn't be required to
learn
it
just
to pass a test (even a simple, basic test) to get a ham radio
license.
Those who choose to use it can learn it on their own.

Is that about right?

The problem is that the same argument can be made against
almost
everything
in the written tests. For example, if someone doesn't intend
to
use
certain
bands, why are they forced to learn the band edges of every
band
their
license allows? If someone doesn't intend to use more than a
few
watts
of
transmitted power, why must they learn all that RF exposure
stuff?
Indeed,
if someone doesn't intend to homebrew, why are they *forced*
to
learn
all
that theory stuff?

Sure, the written tests look easy to someone with a
background
in
radio,
electronics, computers or other related fields. But to
someone
from
an
unrelated field, they're not easy.

Suppose you met a retired gentleman who had been a radioman
in
the
military 50+ years ago. He'd always wanted to be a ham but
never
had
the time or resources. Now he finds that ham radio still
exists,
and
he wants in.

The gent can still do code well, and remembers the basics of
theory
as it was 50+ years ago. He gets an HF receiver and listens
to
the
lovely Morse Code signals on the low ends of the HF bands.

But in order to join the folks on 7010 or 3520, he needs an
Extra.
And the written test is full of stuff he's never seen before,
and
that he will never use.

Why must he learn all that stuff he will never use just to
pass
the
tests?

Sure, the stuff is easy for *you*, but not for *him*.

... let's at least keep my comment about the drums
straight...

Let's see...

Warmest regards,
John

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
... that almost makes me miss the ancient drums my
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-etc.
ancestors
used
to
use to communicate with in the primordial jungles... I
wonder
if
we
could bring those back to?

Invalid analogy.

Drums for communication aren't in wide use.

Morse Code for communication is in wide use in ham radio.
Doesn't
need to be brought back because it's right here.

... perhaps require the new licensees to beat out a
fancy
tempo
on
one
of those turkeys before we gave 'em a license!
evil-grin

Warmest regards,
John


Perhaps, John


But consider that some of us can send and receive cw
faster
than
most
folks can type.

Yup.

I know you may be good at "cut and paste", but that
doesn't
necessarily cut
it LOL.

Sure, voice appears faster, but when you get names and
addresses
that
are
hard to pronounce ....

Bingo.

For any message that needs to be written down, the speed
limitation
is
usually the writing speed of the receiving op. The fact that
someone
can theoretically talks 150 wpm doesn't mean anything if the
person
on the receiving end can only write legibly at 15 wpm.

Text modes are great if you have the hardware for them and if
you
are in a situation where you can look at a screen to read
them.

Not saying that CW is the best, but some folks better come
up
with
something
superior to AM and FM. There are a number of modes, but
most
folks
want to
"talk". That won't cut it for 85 watt moonbounce on 24
GHz.




73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
ps - when I talk send and receive cw faster than some
folks
type,
I'm
not
talking a nice, leisurely chat at 30 or 35 words per
minute
...

Yup.

Good Morse ops can chat at speeds approaching those of voice
ops
because
they use abbreviations and eliminate redundancies.

73 de Jim, N2EY

John Smith wrote:
I'd say those figures are certainly pressing the envelope... either way,
you don't see 'em on the bands in those numbers... your 1-in-20 seems
more like a 1-in-a-hundred-or-better to me!

"Seems like" is not knowledge of the facts and you obviously don't know
the difference. Which is a well-known trait amongst mindless trolls.

John

Kelly:

Ahhh, that explains it, being the "women magnet" you are, they are all
busy chatting in secret to you--and that is why I never catch
them--well, except for a few of the aussie girls...

John

wrote in message
oups.com...

John Smith wrote:
I'd say those figures are certainly pressing the envelope... either
way,
you don't see 'em on the bands in those numbers... your 1-in-20
seems
more like a 1-in-a-hundred-or-better to me!

"Seems like" is not knowledge of the facts and you obviously don't
know
the difference. Which is a well-known trait amongst mindless trolls.

John