Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "John Smith" wrote in message ... N2EY: I am afraid that task of inducting enough women is beyond me--no one has ever succeeded... Just what percentage of amateurs are women? Do you even know? I bet you damn well know they are rarer then space aliens sightings!!! ROFLOL!!! John I'd bet the Young Ladies Radio League could come up with a pretty good estimate. Also the Buckeye Bells may be able to do the same. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE 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 |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dee:
Well, you have me there, those TEN girls may be of that mind! ROFLOL... John "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... N2EY: I am afraid that task of inducting enough women is beyond me--no one has ever succeeded... Just what percentage of amateurs are women? Do you even know? I bet you damn well know they are rarer then space aliens sightings!!! ROFLOL!!! John I'd bet the Young Ladies Radio League could come up with a pretty good estimate. Also the Buckeye Bells may be able to do the same. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE 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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Utillity freq List; | Shortwave | |||
Navy launches second Kerry medal probe | Shortwave | |||
U.S. Navy IG Says Kerry's Medals Proper | Shortwave | |||
Navy Radiomen | General | |||
Base Closures | Shortwave |