| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: What you folks are describing is just a form of RTTY using Morse Code as the encoding method, rather than ASCII or Baudot or some other scheme. indeed we are Glad you agree Of course it can be done, and has been done. Why it would be done is another issue. It is certainly not a "better way". that does depend on the goal, and the operator. True enough. Personaly I find the idea of the manual morse and compter morse interacting the only redeeming virtue of the mode (please I know you disagree but go along for a minute) It's just *one* good thing about Morse Code (the ease and flexibility of human-machine interface. There are many more good things (redeeming virtues?) of Morse Code. IYO not in mine it is a fact manual morse is quite useless to me and others That someone could use the simple assembly of the QRP rig to reach out to a station like mine reading fby machine and sending it back the same way. One more tool in the toolbox. and yet you opose allowing me in the playing feild at all My station is at least one if not several such tool but you don't wish to allow it without ahvng that ONE tool It is one the few occasion I can realy see much use in the mode during an emergency gives the user the low signal abilities of RTTY or PSK 31 but allowing the station in the affected area to despense with a PC If the operators know Morse Code, there's no reason for a PC at either station. agreed but so what this doesn't justify keeping me from being there and using my sation to help the pcles staion Thus it is 'better" in some ways, indeed I am a much better operator of computer morse than manual and it would make my staion a bteer station by your standards (more modes more abilities) In that regard, it is "better". But it is not universally "better", just as an automobile is not universally "better" than a bicycle. I have never said it was it is your side that varies from stating or impling that Manaul is always better which just isn't so so where your beef? The idea that machine operation is somehow universally better. and my beef is your insitance that manual morse is always better it is not your cup of tea sure fine Consider a bicycle. If another wheel is added, the rider doesn't need to worry about falling over, so the skill required to ride it is greatly reduced. Add a small gasoline engine and a suitable transmission, and pedaling becomes much easier. A simple cover will protect the rider from rain and other inclement weather. Eventually you wind up with a small, three-wheeled automobile that could win the Tour de France. Except it's not a bicycle anymore, and its rider isn't a cyclist by any stretch of the imagination. Or consider the piano. Pianos and similar keyboard instruments have been around for hundreds of years. It takes considerable skill and practice to play them, and reading sheet music is a skill of its own. With modern computers and software, however, one can simply have a machine that scans in the sheet music and turns it into a "performance" - without all those lessons, practice, etc. break all depends on what you want, to listen or to play Point is, there's a big difference. which by analogy is up to me. Id rather listen than play that tune and what about Manual Morse justifies making ME play that tune? |
an old friend wrote: wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: What you folks are describing is just a form of RTTY using Morse Code as the encoding method, rather than ASCII or Baudot or some other scheme. indeed we are Glad you agree Of course it can be done, and has been done. Why it would be done is another issue. It is certainly not a "better way". that does depend on the goal, and the operator. True enough. Personaly I find the idea of the manual morse and compter morse interacting the only redeeming virtue of the mode (please I know you disagree but go along for a minute) It's just *one* good thing about Morse Code (the ease and flexibility of human-machine interface. There are many more good things (redeeming virtues?) of Morse Code. IYO Not just my opinion. The good things about Morse Code are an objective fact. Of course that doesn't mean Morse Code *must* be tested, any more than the good things about, say, a standard phonetic alphabet means it must be tested. not in mine it is a fact manual morse is quite useless to me and others If you have a mcahine that can interface with someone using manual Morse Code, whom you otherwise could not contact at all, how can that manula Morse Code be useless to you? That someone could use the simple assembly of the QRP rig to reach out to a station like mine reading fby machine and sending it back the same way. One more tool in the toolbox. and yet you opose allowing me in the playing feild at all That's simply not true! All anyone has to do to get the license is to pass the required tests. VEs are empowered to use all sorts of accomodations in the tests (both written and Morse Code) if needed. In fact, a Morse Code *sending* test can be substituted. My station is at least one if not several such tool but you don't wish to allow it without ahvng that ONE tool I have no idea what you are trying to say. It is one the few occasion I can realy see much use in the mode during an emergency gives the user the low signal abilities of RTTY or PSK 31 but allowing the station in the affected area to despense with a PC If the operators know Morse Code, there's no reason for a PC at either station. agreed but so what A tool that is with someone always is the most useful. this doesn't justify keeping me from being there and using my sation to help the pcles staion No one is saying you cannot use a PC for Morse Code. Thus it is 'better" in some ways, indeed I am a much better operator of computer morse than manual and it would make my staion a bteer station by your standards (more modes more abilities) In that regard, it is "better". But it is not universally "better", just as an automobile is not universally "better" than a bicycle. I have never said it was it is your side that varies from stating or impling that Manaul is always better which just isn't so Where have *I* ever said Morse Code is always better? so where your beef? The idea that machine operation is somehow universally better. and my beef is your insitance that manual morse is always better *Where* have *I* said that? it is not your cup of tea sure fine Consider a bicycle. If another wheel is added, the rider doesn't need to worry about falling over, so the skill required to ride it is greatly reduced. Add a small gasoline engine and a suitable transmission, and pedaling becomes much easier. A simple cover will protect the rider from rain and other inclement weather. Eventually you wind up with a small, three-wheeled automobile that could win the Tour de France. Except it's not a bicycle anymore, and its rider isn't a cyclist by any stretch of the imagination. Or consider the piano. Pianos and similar keyboard instruments have been around for hundreds of years. It takes considerable skill and practice to play them, and reading sheet music is a skill of its own. With modern computers and software, however, one can simply have a machine that scans in the sheet music and turns it into a "performance" - without all those lessons, practice, etc. break all depends on what you want, to listen or to play Point is, there's a big difference. which by analogy is up to me. Id rather listen than play that tune and what about Manual Morse justifies making ME play that tune? The same things about all the other things hams are required to learn. -- Suppose you were given the following test: You're sitting at a table with pencil and paper, and your choice of speaker or headphones. Through the headphones you hear a series of words spoken slowly and clearly, spaced so there is one word every 2 seconds or so. All you have to do is write down the first letter of each word. The test always uses a standard phonetic alphabet, too. So if you heard: "Sierra....Tango.....Alpha.....Romeo.....Tango.... .....Whiskey.....India.....Tango.....Hotel" you would write down "START WITH..." etc. The test goes on for 5 minutes, but all you need is one minute correct to pass the test. Could you pass such a test? Is there anyone who can converse in English, and who is literate in that language, who could not pass such a test? All the Morse Code test does is to replace the words with specific sounds. Instead of "Sierra", for example, you would hear three short beeps. What is so impossible about that? I could see that if someone had an auditory or cognition problem, they might have trouble with both tests. But it seems incredible that people who would have no trouble with the first claim the second to be impossible, or even very difficult, for them. Of course for some folks, "can't" actually means "won't" or "don't want to". |
From: John Smith on Aug 4, 2:20 pm
N2EY: My gawd man, must you apply antique analogies to everything which is attempting to break archaic methods to attempt to obfuscate anything you don't like and/or agree with? John, he MUST. It's an obsessive compulsion. :-) That's Jimmie for sure, the Nun of the Above. Predictable. Technology has passed you by man, the reins have passed, what you are holding in your hands are the ashes of yesteryear... don't embarrass yourself and others about you... speak on things you understand, or not at all... Oh, oh, Jimmie will now remark on his TWO degrees in EE and his years-as-a-ham (like he spent 8 hours a day, 7 days a week in pounding his brass on the ham bands). :-) The Order of Luddism is upon Jimmie and EVERYTHING must be done manually in communications! Just like in the 20s and 30s during the pioneering days of radio. Jimmie bravely carries his cross for them (provided Kellie doesn't shoot the bear). He segues to music (morse is "music" to his ears...and years). He probably hasn't heard a good musician at work on a synthesizer keyboard producing the enjoyable sound of an entire band...in any style of music you like. Down here there's dozens and dozens of them...busy working. You say that RTTY is "dead" but it hasn't "died" yet since it carries on with the TORs (Teleprinter Over Radio) such as AMTOR. The FCC, nor any of its three predecessors, NEVER had a manual teleprinter test for radio amateur license applicants. They've "always" had one for manual telegraphy. That's the REAL subject of WT Docket 05-235. Just leave Jimmie alone with his abacus/soroban and he can do all his Eigenvalues by hand plus a table of elliptic integrals. Very basic calculator. However, beyond the four functions it gets cranky...forget simple square-roots, for example. A Taylor Series for a correct Sine or Cosine is going to take a lonnnnng while to finish on his buttons-on-wires soroban/abacus. :-) insert small bg tape of "she ain't got no yo-yo" song... sin cos |
Dee:
Some would argue Latin is not dead, churches and doctors still use it... It is dead, both cw and morse, some may live to see the proof, some may not have long enough. This is the digital age. Here in this newsgroup you can find many who try to form religious doctrine over out dated specs, faqs and past limitations of the net. This type of behavior is seen in many groups of individuals, the "control freaks" are here on the web too. There is a real cult which has formed around CW, they have their church, high priests, hierarchy and devoted following, you might refer to them as "CW Groupies" if CW was the name of a rock band. The data transmission protocols which could be used on amateur radio as we speak here are mind numbing. However, phone and cw do server hobby uses here. But, data transmission of binaries, graphics, movies, etc. are not suited to either. Two bursts of encrypted/compressed packets happening a a blink of an eye can fill your screen with enough text to keep you reading for two minutes. Or, an IM protocol could be employed in "text chat" with one freq serving as a party line and only grabbing packets they are interested in... possibilities are endless... No, no one would pause at a simple cw reader, you would allow two machines to chat together, no human needs to tap a key, it is far below what the human mind was meant to do, it is akin to pounding on a skin covered drum, however, if MadMax ever happens, I will grant you it may have a use, "God" forbid that ever occurs... but then, if it does, there will be tons of CB radios out there which will be pressed into use... they will be able to be found in almost any diesel truck on the highway, and base stations in the smallest of towns, alternators removed from cars and driven by small gas engines off lawn mowers, etc. I don't think there is going to be that many hams with a key in their hand saving the human race... and you will not likely know the heroes until the event happens... the greatest plans of mice and men...and all that... But, hey, the dreams of men are what keeps them going, and there is always only a problem when they attempt to force their dreams on others--especially when the dreams become decades old... become brittle and turn to dust in the face of harsh reality... John John On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:47:53 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Len: It is not even close... The end of all that design in computer hardware and software, when efficient and up-to-date, would be impossible for a human operator to send let alone receive without hardware and software... RTTY is as dead as CW... John On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 10:22:01 -0700, an old friend wrote: Every mode has its advantages and disadvantages. Neither RTTY nor CW is dead. One just has more choices than in the past. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee:
.... in the above "cw and morse" should be "cw and rtty" ... Mainly I am explaining for the brain dead males here, they seem to go into utter states of confusion if words are not spelled exactly correct, or typo are encountered... Just between you and me, I know the women seldom suffer such devastating limitations and disabilities... John On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:58:23 -0700, John Smith wrote: Dee: Some would argue Latin is not dead, churches and doctors still use it... It is dead, both cw and morse, some may live to see the proof, some may not have long enough. This is the digital age. Here in this newsgroup you can find many who try to form religious doctrine over out dated specs, faqs and past limitations of the net. This type of behavior is seen in many groups of individuals, the "control freaks" are here on the web too. There is a real cult which has formed around CW, they have their church, high priests, hierarchy and devoted following, you might refer to them as "CW Groupies" if CW was the name of a rock band. The data transmission protocols which could be used on amateur radio as we speak here are mind numbing. However, phone and cw do server hobby uses here. But, data transmission of binaries, graphics, movies, etc. are not suited to either. Two bursts of encrypted/compressed packets happening a a blink of an eye can fill your screen with enough text to keep you reading for two minutes. Or, an IM protocol could be employed in "text chat" with one freq serving as a party line and only grabbing packets they are interested in... possibilities are endless... No, no one would pause at a simple cw reader, you would allow two machines to chat together, no human needs to tap a key, it is far below what the human mind was meant to do, it is akin to pounding on a skin covered drum, however, if MadMax ever happens, I will grant you it may have a use, "God" forbid that ever occurs... but then, if it does, there will be tons of CB radios out there which will be pressed into use... they will be able to be found in almost any diesel truck on the highway, and base stations in the smallest of towns, alternators removed from cars and driven by small gas engines off lawn mowers, etc. I don't think there is going to be that many hams with a key in their hand saving the human race... and you will not likely know the heroes until the event happens... the greatest plans of mice and men...and all that... But, hey, the dreams of men are what keeps them going, and there is always only a problem when they attempt to force their dreams on others--especially when the dreams become decades old... become brittle and turn to dust in the face of harsh reality... John John On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:47:53 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Len: It is not even close... The end of all that design in computer hardware and software, when efficient and up-to-date, would be impossible for a human operator to send let alone receive without hardware and software... RTTY is as dead as CW... John On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 10:22:01 -0700, an old friend wrote: Every mode has its advantages and disadvantages. Neither RTTY nor CW is dead. One just has more choices than in the past. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: What you folks are describing is just a form of RTTY using Morse Code as the encoding method, rather than ASCII or Baudot or some other scheme. indeed we are Glad you agree Of course it can be done, and has been done. Why it would be done is another issue. It is certainly not a "better way". that does depend on the goal, and the operator. True enough. Personaly I find the idea of the manual morse and compter morse interacting the only redeeming virtue of the mode (please I know you disagree but go along for a minute) It's just *one* good thing about Morse Code (the ease and flexibility of human-machine interface. There are many more good things (redeeming virtues?) of Morse Code. IYO Not just my opinion. The good things about Morse Code are an objective fact. Of course that doesn't mean Morse Code *must* be tested, any more than the good things about, say, a standard phonetic alphabet means it must be tested. not in mine it is a fact manual morse is quite useless to me and others If you have a mcahine that can interface with someone using manual Morse Code, whom you otherwise could not contact at all, how can that manula Morse Code be useless to you? because it is useless to me, simple fact, and i will never know wether it is usefull to any other particular person, unless they tell me and I believe them That someone could use the simple assembly of the QRP rig to reach out to a station like mine reading fby machine and sending it back the same way. One more tool in the toolbox. and yet you opose allowing me in the playing feild at all That's simply not true! All anyone has to do to get the license is to pass the required tests. and you spport the Morse code test and therefore you opose me on the field at all VEs are empowered to use all sorts of accomodations in the tests (both written and Morse Code) if needed. In fact, a Morse Code *sending* test can be substituted. which doesn't meet the ADA standards of accomodation at all, since that law allows me anything that will in fact work, my choice would be a code reader based my expeences in the past that is about all that would do it However that aside you insist I develope some varraint of a skill that I can't use. My station is at least one if not several such tool but you don't wish to allow it without ahvng that ONE tool I have no idea what you are trying to say. becuase you think Morse code is just a trival bit of work to learn, and for some it is and lacking that skill you would choose to sideline my station which is able right now to work HF (I have up a G5RV conected to my ft 847 satelite rig which is also HF cappable It is one the few occasion I can realy see much use in the mode during an emergency gives the user the low signal abilities of RTTY or PSK 31 but allowing the station in the affected area to despense with a PC If the operators know Morse Code, there's no reason for a PC at either station. agreed but so what A tool that is with someone always is the most useful. The above noted for later reference as "A" but only if it is ever with that person. even if through some accomdated test I passed it I would not have a tool to use this doesn't justify keeping me from being there and using my sation to help the pcles staion No one is saying you cannot use a PC for Morse Code. but you are supporting not allowing me access to specturm Thus it is 'better" in some ways, indeed I am a much better operator of computer morse than manual and it would make my staion a bteer station by your standards (more modes more abilities) In that regard, it is "better". But it is not universally "better", just as an automobile is not universally "better" than a bicycle. I have never said it was it is your side that varies from stating or impling that Manaul is always better which just isn't so Where have *I* ever said Morse Code is always better? in the post I am replying to you make a statement to that effect it survies above as noted as "A" so where your beef? The idea that machine operation is somehow universally better. and my beef is your insitance that manual morse is always better *Where* have *I* said that? at A it is not your cup of tea sure fine Consider a bicycle. If another wheel is added, the rider doesn't need to worry about falling over, so the skill required to ride it is greatly reduced. Add a small gasoline engine and a suitable transmission, and pedaling becomes much easier. A simple cover will protect the rider from rain and other inclement weather. Eventually you wind up with a small, three-wheeled automobile that could win the Tour de France. Except it's not a bicycle anymore, and its rider isn't a cyclist by any stretch of the imagination. Or consider the piano. Pianos and similar keyboard instruments have been around for hundreds of years. It takes considerable skill and practice to play them, and reading sheet music is a skill of its own. With modern computers and software, however, one can simply have a machine that scans in the sheet music and turns it into a "performance" - without all those lessons, practice, etc. break all depends on what you want, to listen or to play Point is, there's a big difference. which by analogy is up to me. Id rather listen than play that tune and what about Manual Morse justifies making ME play that tune? The same things about all the other things hams are required to learn. no becuase I blow everything On AM or on SSB or FM and still get a license Code testing is deferent nothing else in Ham radio has that status so your staement is simply not true -- Suppose you were given the following test: You're sitting at a table with pencil and paper, and your choice of speaker or headphones. Through the headphones you hear a series of words spoken slowly and clearly, spaced so there is one word every 2 seconds or so. All you have to do is write down the first letter of each word. The test always uses a standard phonetic alphabet, too. So if you heard: "Sierra....Tango.....Alpha.....Romeo.....Tango.... .....Whiskey.....India.....Tango.....Hotel" you would write down "START WITH..." etc. The test goes on for 5 minutes, but all you need is one minute correct to pass the test. Could you pass such a test? Is there anyone who can converse in English, and who is literate in that language, who could not pass such a test? I might well not be able to, that is the meaning of Dyslexiod Aphasia, I would hear the S in might write Y it all but certain I would suffer from one of these occurances if a minute was 27 letters, any time I am changing media there is high chance for making such errors, there is a decent chance if I am just coping writen text, indeed to take your test seeing the writen word one at a time and trying to copy them first leters I can make such errors I fequenly do in the newsgroup find myself unable to copy corectly a word on the screen Does not mean I can't read text and understand it and tell you about later All the Morse Code test does is to replace the words with specific sounds. Instead of "Sierra", for example, you would hear three short beeps. What is so impossible about that? get it though your head, I have failed exactly that test a number of times Jim I could see that if someone had an auditory or cognition problem, they might have trouble with both tests. But it seems incredible that people who would have no trouble with the first claim the second to be impossible, or even very difficult, for them. In My case it is a set of learning disablities, varies people have varies abilities when you add morseyou have tranlating . to "e" which might make it to the page as "y" when you sart with letters .- which I think is "a" I may hear -. think "a" (becuase dyslexics reverse stuff) and might not get even that "a" to the paper right I do better with keyboards where I am tring to learn not the . is "e" but is the trhid finger of left hand up one key (the touch tpye position of "e" of course) Of course for some folks, "can't" actually means "won't" or "don't want to". |
AOF:
Look, they pose the most excellent argument, to their own argument, if you look closely... First, they say there that CW is a useful current protocol, and that it is useful, then they say people are going to flock to use it and keep CW alive no matter what... Then, they turn around and argue to keep the test, why? Because deep inside their brain, at the center where the denial does not exist, they realize without forcing people to learn morse, not many will (darn few in my best estimate.) Isn't it quite obvious? They fool themselves (else they are liars), but if they fool you, think how others will judge the weight of your intellect... It is all pretty clear, think about it... John On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 20:01:33 -0700, an old friend wrote: wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: What you folks are describing is just a form of RTTY using Morse Code as the encoding method, rather than ASCII or Baudot or some other scheme. indeed we are Glad you agree Of course it can be done, and has been done. Why it would be done is another issue. It is certainly not a "better way". that does depend on the goal, and the operator. True enough. Personaly I find the idea of the manual morse and compter morse interacting the only redeeming virtue of the mode (please I know you disagree but go along for a minute) It's just *one* good thing about Morse Code (the ease and flexibility of human-machine interface. There are many more good things (redeeming virtues?) of Morse Code. IYO Not just my opinion. The good things about Morse Code are an objective fact. Of course that doesn't mean Morse Code *must* be tested, any more than the good things about, say, a standard phonetic alphabet means it must be tested. not in mine it is a fact manual morse is quite useless to me and others If you have a mcahine that can interface with someone using manual Morse Code, whom you otherwise could not contact at all, how can that manula Morse Code be useless to you? because it is useless to me, simple fact, and i will never know wether it is usefull to any other particular person, unless they tell me and I believe them That someone could use the simple assembly of the QRP rig to reach out to a station like mine reading fby machine and sending it back the same way. One more tool in the toolbox. and yet you opose allowing me in the playing feild at all That's simply not true! All anyone has to do to get the license is to pass the required tests. and you spport the Morse code test and therefore you opose me on the field at all VEs are empowered to use all sorts of accomodations in the tests (both written and Morse Code) if needed. In fact, a Morse Code *sending* test can be substituted. which doesn't meet the ADA standards of accomodation at all, since that law allows me anything that will in fact work, my choice would be a code reader based my expeences in the past that is about all that would do it However that aside you insist I develope some varraint of a skill that I can't use. My station is at least one if not several such tool but you don't wish to allow it without ahvng that ONE tool I have no idea what you are trying to say. becuase you think Morse code is just a trival bit of work to learn, and for some it is and lacking that skill you would choose to sideline my station which is able right now to work HF (I have up a G5RV conected to my ft 847 satelite rig which is also HF cappable It is one the few occasion I can realy see much use in the mode during an emergency gives the user the low signal abilities of RTTY or PSK 31 but allowing the station in the affected area to despense with a PC If the operators know Morse Code, there's no reason for a PC at either station. agreed but so what A tool that is with someone always is the most useful. The above noted for later reference as "A" but only if it is ever with that person. even if through some accomdated test I passed it I would not have a tool to use this doesn't justify keeping me from being there and using my sation to help the pcles staion No one is saying you cannot use a PC for Morse Code. but you are supporting not allowing me access to specturm Thus it is 'better" in some ways, indeed I am a much better operator of computer morse than manual and it would make my staion a bteer station by your standards (more modes more abilities) In that regard, it is "better". But it is not universally "better", just as an automobile is not universally "better" than a bicycle. I have never said it was it is your side that varies from stating or impling that Manaul is always better which just isn't so Where have *I* ever said Morse Code is always better? in the post I am replying to you make a statement to that effect it survies above as noted as "A" so where your beef? The idea that machine operation is somehow universally better. and my beef is your insitance that manual morse is always better *Where* have *I* said that? at A it is not your cup of tea sure fine Consider a bicycle. If another wheel is added, the rider doesn't need to worry about falling over, so the skill required to ride it is greatly reduced. Add a small gasoline engine and a suitable transmission, and pedaling becomes much easier. A simple cover will protect the rider from rain and other inclement weather. Eventually you wind up with a small, three-wheeled automobile that could win the Tour de France. Except it's not a bicycle anymore, and its rider isn't a cyclist by any stretch of the imagination. Or consider the piano. Pianos and similar keyboard instruments have been around for hundreds of years. It takes considerable skill and practice to play them, and reading sheet music is a skill of its own. With modern computers and software, however, one can simply have a machine that scans in the sheet music and turns it into a "performance" - without all those lessons, practice, etc. break all depends on what you want, to listen or to play Point is, there's a big difference. which by analogy is up to me. Id rather listen than play that tune and what about Manual Morse justifies making ME play that tune? The same things about all the other things hams are required to learn. no becuase I blow everything On AM or on SSB or FM and still get a license Code testing is deferent nothing else in Ham radio has that status so your staement is simply not true -- Suppose you were given the following test: You're sitting at a table with pencil and paper, and your choice of speaker or headphones. Through the headphones you hear a series of words spoken slowly and clearly, spaced so there is one word every 2 seconds or so. All you have to do is write down the first letter of each word. The test always uses a standard phonetic alphabet, too. So if you heard: "Sierra....Tango.....Alpha.....Romeo.....Tango.... .....Whiskey.....India.....Tango.....Hotel" you would write down "START WITH..." etc. The test goes on for 5 minutes, but all you need is one minute correct to pass the test. Could you pass such a test? Is there anyone who can converse in English, and who is literate in that language, who could not pass such a test? I might well not be able to, that is the meaning of Dyslexiod Aphasia, I would hear the S in might write Y it all but certain I would suffer from one of these occurances if a minute was 27 letters, any time I am changing media there is high chance for making such errors, there is a decent chance if I am just coping writen text, indeed to take your test seeing the writen word one at a time and trying to copy them first leters I can make such errors I fequenly do in the newsgroup find myself unable to copy corectly a word on the screen Does not mean I can't read text and understand it and tell you about later All the Morse Code test does is to replace the words with specific sounds. Instead of "Sierra", for example, you would hear three short beeps. What is so impossible about that? get it though your head, I have failed exactly that test a number of times Jim I could see that if someone had an auditory or cognition problem, they might have trouble with both tests. But it seems incredible that people who would have no trouble with the first claim the second to be impossible, or even very difficult, for them. In My case it is a set of learning disablities, varies people have varies abilities when you add morseyou have tranlating . to "e" which might make it to the page as "y" when you sart with letters .- which I think is "a" I may hear -. think "a" (becuase dyslexics reverse stuff) and might not get even that "a" to the paper right I do better with keyboards where I am tring to learn not the . is "e" but is the trhid finger of left hand up one key (the touch tpye position of "e" of course) Of course for some folks, "can't" actually means "won't" or "don't want to". |
an old friend wrote:
wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: What you folks are describing is just a form of RTTY using Morse Code as the encoding method, rather than ASCII or Baudot or some other scheme. indeed we are Glad you agree Of course it can be done, and has been done. Why it would be done is another issue. It is certainly not a "better way". that does depend on the goal, and the operator. True enough. Personaly I find the idea of the manual morse and compter morse interacting the only redeeming virtue of the mode (please I know you disagree but go along for a minute) It's just *one* good thing about Morse Code (the ease and flexibility of human-machine interface. There are many more good things (redeeming virtues?) of Morse Code. IYO Not just my opinion. The good things about Morse Code are an objective fact. Of course that doesn't mean Morse Code *must* be tested, any more than the good things about, say, a standard phonetic alphabet means it must be tested. not in mine it is a fact manual morse is quite useless to me and others If you have a mcahine that can interface with someone using manual Morse Code, whom you otherwise could not contact at all, how can that manula Morse Code be useless to you? because it is useless to me, simple fact, That's been proved to be untrue. If manual Morse by another operator makes it possible for you to work that operator with an automated system, that makes the mode useful to you. Doesn't mean it must be tested. and i will never know wether it is usefull to any other particular person, unless they tell me and I believe them It's pretty clear you won't believe them. That someone could use the simple assembly of the QRP rig to reach out to a station like mine reading fby machine and sending it back the same way. One more tool in the toolbox. and yet you opose allowing me in the playing feild at all That's simply not true! All anyone has to do to get the license is to pass the required tests. and you spport the Morse code test and therefore you opose me on the field at all Not you personally. I also support written tests. There are folks I know who have repeatedly flunked the written tests - something about "math trouble" - "never been good with numbers and rote memorization" Why should they have to learn all that stuff? VEs are empowered to use all sorts of accomodations in the tests (both written and Morse Code) if needed. In fact, a Morse Code *sending* test can be substituted. which doesn't meet the ADA standards of accomodation at all, since that law allows me anything that will in fact work, my choice would be a code reader ADA is about rights. A ham radio license is a privilege. Have you ever asked the VEs for any accomodations? based my expeences in the past that is about all that would do it However that aside you insist I develope some varraint of a skill that I can't use. Can't or won't? My station is at least one if not several such tool but you don't wish to allow it without ahvng that ONE tool I have no idea what you are trying to say. becuase you think Morse code is just a trival bit of work to learn, and for some it is For some the written tests are trivial, for others they are not. Shall they be eliminated because some people can't seem to pass them? and lacking that skill you would choose to sideline my station which is able right now to work HF (I have up a G5RV conected to my ft 847 satelite rig which is also HF cappable If someone buys a rig and sets up an antenna, does that give them the right to demand a license? It is one the few occasion I can realy see much use in the mode during an emergency gives the user the low signal abilities of RTTY or PSK 31 but allowing the station in the affected area to despense with a PC If the operators know Morse Code, there's no reason for a PC at either station. agreed but so what A tool that is with someone always is the most useful. The above noted for later reference as "A" but only if it is ever with that person. even if through some accomdated test I passed it I would not have a tool to use So? Doesn't change the fact that a tool that is with someone always is the most useful. this doesn't justify keeping me from being there and using my sation to help the pcles staion No one is saying you cannot use a PC for Morse Code. but you are supporting not allowing me access to specturm I am supporting Morse Code testing. Also written testing. It's not about you personally. Thus it is 'better" in some ways, indeed I am a much better operator of computer morse than manual and it would make my staion a bteer station by your standards (more modes more abilities) In that regard, it is "better". But it is not universally "better", just as an automobile is not universally "better" than a bicycle. I have never said it was it is your side that varies from stating or impling that Manaul is always better which just isn't so Where have *I* ever said Morse Code is always better? in the post I am replying to you make a statement to that effect it survies above as noted as "A" "A tool that is with someone always is the most useful."? Has nothing to do with what you are saying. so where your beef? The idea that machine operation is somehow universally better. and my beef is your insitance that manual morse is always better *Where* have *I* said that? at A "A tool that is with someone always is the most useful." Doesn't fit. it is not your cup of tea sure fine Consider a bicycle. If another wheel is added, the rider doesn't need to worry about falling over, so the skill required to ride it is greatly reduced. Add a small gasoline engine and a suitable transmission, and pedaling becomes much easier. A simple cover will protect the rider from rain and other inclement weather. Eventually you wind up with a small, three-wheeled automobile that could win the Tour de France. Except it's not a bicycle anymore, and its rider isn't a cyclist by any stretch of the imagination. Or consider the piano. Pianos and similar keyboard instruments have been around for hundreds of years. It takes considerable skill and practice to play them, and reading sheet music is a skill of its own. With modern computers and software, however, one can simply have a machine that scans in the sheet music and turns it into a "performance" - without all those lessons, practice, etc. break all depends on what you want, to listen or to play Point is, there's a big difference. which by analogy is up to me. Id rather listen than play that tune and what about Manual Morse justifies making ME play that tune? The same things about all the other things hams are required to learn. no becuase I blow everything On AM or on SSB or FM and still get a license Maybe not. Nobody knows exactly which questions are on the written test. Code testing is deferent nothing else in Ham radio has that status so your staement is simply not true The point is that you still have to learn stuff you'll probably never use just to pass the written test. -- Suppose you were given the following test: You're sitting at a table with pencil and paper, and your choice of speaker or headphones. Through the headphones you hear a series of words spoken slowly and clearly, spaced so there is one word every 2 seconds or so. All you have to do is write down the first letter of each word. The test always uses a standard phonetic alphabet, too. So if you heard: "Sierra....Tango.....Alpha.....Romeo.....Tango.... .....Whiskey.....India.....Tango.....Hotel" you would write down "START WITH..." etc. The test goes on for 5 minutes, but all you need is one minute correct to pass the test. Could you pass such a test? Is there anyone who can converse in English, and who is literate in that language, who could not pass such a test? I might well not be able to, that is the meaning of Dyslexiod Aphasia, I would hear the S in might write Y it all but certain I would suffer from one of these occurances if a minute was 27 letters, any time I am changing media there is high chance for making such errors, there is a decent chance if I am just coping writen text, indeed to take your test seeing the writen word one at a time and trying to copy them first leters I can make such errors I fequenly do in the newsgroup find myself unable to copy corectly a word on the screen We see that all the time here. Does not mean I can't read text and understand it and tell you about later Often what you write here is very unclear or even incomprehensible. All the Morse Code test does is to replace the words with specific sounds. Instead of "Sierra", for example, you would hear three short beeps. What is so impossible about that? get it though your head, I have failed exactly that test a number of times Jim Which one - the verbal one? I could see that if someone had an auditory or cognition problem, they might have trouble with both tests. But it seems incredible that people who would have no trouble with the first claim the second to be impossible, or even very difficult, for them. In My Why did you capitalize "My"? case it is a set of learning disablities, varies people have varies abilities when you add morseyou have tranlating . to "e" which might make it to the page as "y" when you sart with letters .- which I think is "a" I may hear -. think "a" (becuase dyslexics reverse stuff) and might not get even that "a" to the paper right I do better with keyboards where I am tring to learn not the . is "e" but is the trhid finger of left hand up one key (the touch tpye position of "e" of course) Would you accept the same argument about the written tests? Some people just can't seem to pass those. Of course for some folks, "can't" actually means "won't" or "don't want to". |
an old friend wrote: I might well not be able to, that is the meaning of Dyslexiod Aphasia, I would hear the S in might write Y it all but certain I would suffer from one of these occurances if a minute was 27 letters, any time I am changing media there is high chance for making such errors, there is a decent chance if I am just coping writen text, indeed to take your test seeing the writen word one at a time and trying to copy them first leters I can make such errors I fequenly do in the newsgroup find myself unable to copy corectly a word on the screen One last comment. Back in 1990, FCC created medical waivers at the behest of a now-dead King wanting a favor from then-president Bush. FCC waived the 13 and 20 wpm Morse Code tests if the applicant could show a doctor's letter. Canada has recently made the Morse Code test part of the overall scoring rather than a stand alone test. More than 5 years ago, I proposed here a "Chinese menu" form of license testing that would allow much greater flexibility in testing. But the near-unanimous reply from NCTAs has always been that the Morse Code test must be completely eliminated - no compromises, no more waivers, no score-blending, etc. In fact, some NCTAs and their organizations, like NCVEC and NCI, went a step further and pushed for lower *written* test standards such as free license upgrades and a "Communicator" license. What's next? |
wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: cut and you spport the Morse code test and therefore you opose me on the field at all Not you personally. yes you mean me personaly in supporting the current system and its predeceasor you personaly oppose me and anyone like me your statement "Nothing personal" is dishonest I also support written tests. There are folks I know who have repeatedly flunked the written tests - something about "math trouble" - "never been good with numbers and rote memorization" and I oppose there being real math on the test since it isn't needed in this day and age the only realy rote memorizetion pretains to the rules and the rules are of ocourse to some arbitaru Why should they have to learn all that stuff? and much of it, they should not have too at least with it they some choice I have elsewhere outlined my thoughts VEs are empowered to use all sorts of accomodations in the tests (both written and Morse Code) if needed. In fact, a Morse Code *sending* test can be substituted. which doesn't meet the ADA standards of accomodation at all, since that law allows me anything that will in fact work, my choice would be a code reader ADA is about rights. A ham radio license is a privilege. Bull**** what do you know of the ADA? ADA says In part and oversimplfies of course I have the RIGHT that any barrair in my way (wether oof a RIGHT or aPrevldege I can earn) be justified. It is a prevledge to have a drivers license, therefore anything in the way of applaicnt must be justified, a blind man can't drive, therefore ADA doesn't help, someone with NO morse Skill can still operate a radio, therefore he has the right that any barrar be truely needed Have you ever asked the VEs for any accomodations? can't you read. I have taken and FAILED test sent A LETTER at a time I have done so on number of occasions based my expeences in the past that is about all that would do it However that aside you insist I develope some varraint of a skill that I can't use. Can't or won't? can't proven many times My station is at least one if not several such tool but you don't wish to allow it without ahvng that ONE tool I have no idea what you are trying to say. becuase you think Morse code is just a trival bit of work to learn, and for some it is For some the written tests are trivial, for others they are not. Shall they be eliminated because some people can't seem to pass them? you just are not reading or thinking Jim and lacking that skill you would choose to sideline my station which is able right now to work HF (I have up a G5RV conected to my ft 847 satelite rig which is also HF cappable If someone buys a rig and sets up an antenna, does that give them the right to demand a license? no and your question is nonsense, and insulting anyone has the RIGHT that any barrair in their way be fair after all I can even operate with Morse code which the purpose of the test I can't pass It is one the few occasion I can realy see much use in the mode during an emergency gives the user the low signal abilities of RTTY or PSK 31 but allowing the station in the affected area to despense with a PC If the operators know Morse Code, there's no reason for a PC at either station. agreed but so what A tool that is with someone always is the most useful. The above noted for later reference as "A" but only if it is ever with that person. even if through some accomdated test I passed it I would not have a tool to use So? Doesn't change the fact that a tool that is with someone always is the most useful. and you miss the point this doesn't justify keeping me from being there and using my sation to help the pcles staion No one is saying you cannot use a PC for Morse Code. but you are supporting not allowing me access to specturm I am supporting Morse Code testing. Also written testing. It's not about you personally. you are lying your statement is dishonest Thus it is 'better" in some ways, indeed I am a much better operator of computer morse than manual and it would make my staion a bteer station by your standards (more modes more abilities) In that regard, it is "better". But it is not universally "better", just as an automobile is not universally "better" than a bicycle. I have never said it was it is your side that varies from stating or impling that Manaul is always better which just isn't so Where have *I* ever said Morse Code is always better? in the post I am replying to you make a statement to that effect it survies above as noted as "A" "A tool that is with someone always is the most useful."? Has nothing to do with what you are saying. so where your beef? The idea that machine operation is somehow universally better. and my beef is your insitance that manual morse is always better *Where* have *I* said that? at A "A tool that is with someone always is the most useful." Doesn't fit. it is not your cup of tea sure fine Consider a bicycle. If another wheel is added, the rider doesn't need to worry about falling over, so the skill required to ride it is greatly reduced. Add a small gasoline engine and a suitable transmission, and pedaling becomes much easier. A simple cover will protect the rider from rain and other inclement weather. Eventually you wind up with a small, three-wheeled automobile that could win the Tour de France. Except it's not a bicycle anymore, and its rider isn't a cyclist by any stretch of the imagination. Or consider the piano. Pianos and similar keyboard instruments have been around for hundreds of years. It takes considerable skill and practice to play them, and reading sheet music is a skill of its own. With modern computers and software, however, one can simply have a machine that scans in the sheet music and turns it into a "performance" - without all those lessons, practice, etc. break all depends on what you want, to listen or to play Point is, there's a big difference. which by analogy is up to me. Id rather listen than play that tune and what about Manual Morse justifies making ME play that tune? The same things about all the other things hams are required to learn. no becuase I blow everything On AM or on SSB or FM and still get a license Maybe not. Nobody knows exactly which questions are on the written test. so what you take it again and get another set of questions, no rule say you have to pass on the first try never said anyone was entitled to a sure thing, just a fair shot Code testing is deferent nothing else in Ham radio has that status so your staement is simply not true The point is that you still have to learn stuff you'll probably never use just to pass the written test. and I unlike you oppose testing that type -- Suppose you were given the following test: You're sitting at a table with pencil and paper, and your choice of speaker or headphones. Through the headphones you hear a series of words spoken slowly and clearly, spaced so there is one word every 2 seconds or so. All you have to do is write down the first letter of each word. The test always uses a standard phonetic alphabet, too. So if you heard: "Sierra....Tango.....Alpha.....Romeo.....Tango.... .....Whiskey.....India.....Tango.....Hotel" you would write down "START WITH..." etc. The test goes on for 5 minutes, but all you need is one minute correct to pass the test. Could you pass such a test? Is there anyone who can converse in English, and who is literate in that language, who could not pass such a test? I might well not be able to, that is the meaning of Dyslexiod Aphasia, I would hear the S in might write Y it all but certain I would suffer from one of these occurances if a minute was 27 letters, any time I am changing media there is high chance for making such errors, there is a decent chance if I am just coping writen text, indeed to take your test seeing the writen word one at a time and trying to copy them first leters I can make such errors I fequenly do in the newsgroup find myself unable to copy corectly a word on the screen We see that all the time here. indeed you do Does not mean I can't read text and understand it and tell you about later Often what you write here is very unclear or even incomprehensible. now you are being insulting it is uncalled for All the Morse Code test does is to replace the words with specific sounds. Instead of "Sierra", for example, you would hear three short beeps. What is so impossible about that? get it though your head, I have failed exactly that test a number of times Jim Which one - the verbal one? the morse test nad for that matter if I am copiing enough letters the verbal (wether in the span of any given minute I realy don't know) I could see that if someone had an auditory or cognition problem, they might have trouble with both tests. But it seems incredible that people who would have no trouble with the first claim the second to be impossible, or even very difficult, for them. In My Why did you capitalize "My"? I don't know I just did now if you'd like to at least pretend you were discusing this issue rather than brating me about it, drop it case it is a set of learning disablities, varies people have varies abilities when you add morseyou have tranlating . to "e" which might make it to the page as "y" when you sart with letters .- which I think is "a" I may hear -. think "a" (becuase dyslexics reverse stuff) and might not get even that "a" to the paper right I do better with keyboards where I am tring to learn not the . is "e" but is the trhid finger of left hand up one key (the touch tpye position of "e" of course) Would you accept the same argument about the written tests? Some people just can't seem to pass those. no becuase it isn't true of anyone that can operate the radio afterward, you find me a REAL person that can't pass the test in some form, as I undersatnd they be read and ansered aloud I look at it and reconsider the key word of course is "seem" as I sate else (another thread I believe I would change the writtens quite a bit, Idealy I suppose I should be pushing for it NOW along with code, but being human I fight first what can be fought and affects most Of course for some folks, "can't" actually means "won't" or "don't want to". |
|
"John Smith" wrote in message ... AOF: Look, they pose the most excellent argument, to their own argument, if you look closely... First, they say there that CW is a useful current protocol, and that it is useful, then they say people are going to flock to use it and keep CW alive no matter what... I've seen no one say that people will "flock to use it". However there is reason to think that enough people will choose to use it to keep this as an active mode. Then, they turn around and argue to keep the test, why? Because deep inside their brain, at the center where the denial does not exist, they realize without forcing people to learn morse, not many will (darn few in my best estimate.) I'd expect avid QRP enthusiasts and contesters to have quite a bit of interest. However, I agree that "Joe Average" may not pursue it unfortunately if not required to learn a very minimal, basic level of performance. Due to all the activities of those trying to eliminate the test, he may falsely believe it to be beyond his abilities. We may end up with only the very elite operators, i.e. those who learn easily and progress to lightning speeds. The casual ragchewer (i.e. the person who operates at around 13wpm or so) may find slim pickings. Isn't it quite obvious? They fool themselves (else they are liars), but if they fool you, think how others will judge the weight of your intellect... It is all pretty clear, think about it... John Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee:
"Joe BelowAverage", "Joe SixPack", his bother-in-law "Joe Geriatric", his cousins, "Joe CW-ReligiousFreak", "Joe Control-Freak", etc are already amateurs... in amongst them are a few, currently active and current hardware techs (but not many these days)... "Joe ComputerSavvy" will be working on other protocols for data xfer on HF... and running a computer wan on HF... probably actively petitioning for changes to allow such... And, of course, we all expect "Joe ChickenBander" to be there... as much a BS'er as any you can now find on 160-80-75-and-on-up... And, "Joe RepeaterUser" will probably continue to dwindle, repeaters pale the most when compared to the internet, their only possible use for local lan/wan... I am hoping all radio will go digital audio packet (for all phone)--one freq can be used for multiple QSOs' at a time, with no interfearence between, no ear will be of use anymore (packets are decoded and sent though the sound card), the computer becomes the "shack gear"... and hams are forced to update... some are already playing with this in the Ghz... John On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 18:38:48 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... AOF: Look, they pose the most excellent argument, to their own argument, if you look closely... First, they say there that CW is a useful current protocol, and that it is useful, then they say people are going to flock to use it and keep CW alive no matter what... I've seen no one say that people will "flock to use it". However there is reason to think that enough people will choose to use it to keep this as an active mode. Then, they turn around and argue to keep the test, why? Because deep inside their brain, at the center where the denial does not exist, they realize without forcing people to learn morse, not many will (darn few in my best estimate.) I'd expect avid QRP enthusiasts and contesters to have quite a bit of interest. However, I agree that "Joe Average" may not pursue it unfortunately if not required to learn a very minimal, basic level of performance. Due to all the activities of those trying to eliminate the test, he may falsely believe it to be beyond his abilities. We may end up with only the very elite operators, i.e. those who learn easily and progress to lightning speeds. The casual ragchewer (i.e. the person who operates at around 13wpm or so) may find slim pickings. Isn't it quite obvious? They fool themselves (else they are liars), but if they fool you, think how others will judge the weight of your intellect... It is all pretty clear, think about it... John Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"an old friend" wrote in
oups.com: wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: What you folks are describing is just a form of RTTY using Morse Code as the encoding method, rather than ASCII or Baudot or some other scheme. indeed we are Glad you agree Of course it can be done, and has been done. Why it would be done is another issue. It is certainly not a "better way". that does depend on the goal, and the operator. True enough. Personaly I find the idea of the manual morse and compter morse interacting the only redeeming virtue of the mode (please I know you disagree but go along for a minute) It's just *one* good thing about Morse Code (the ease and flexibility of human-machine interface. There are many more good things (redeeming virtues?) of Morse Code. IYO Not just my opinion. The good things about Morse Code are an objective fact. Of course that doesn't mean Morse Code *must* be tested, any more than the good things about, say, a standard phonetic alphabet means it must be tested. not in mine it is a fact manual morse is quite useless to me and others If you have a mcahine that can interface with someone using manual Morse Code, whom you otherwise could not contact at all, how can that manula Morse Code be useless to you? because it is useless to me, simple fact, and i will never know wether it is usefull to any other particular person, unless they tell me and I believe them That someone could use the simple assembly of the QRP rig to reach out to a station like mine reading fby machine and sending it back the same way. One more tool in the toolbox. and yet you opose allowing me in the playing feild at all That's simply not true! All anyone has to do to get the license is to pass the required tests. and you spport the Morse code test and therefore you opose me on the field at all VEs are empowered to use all sorts of accomodations in the tests (both written and Morse Code) if needed. In fact, a Morse Code *sending* test can be substituted. which doesn't meet the ADA standards of accomodation at all, since that law allows me anything that will in fact work, my choice would be a code reader based my expeences in the past that is about all that would do it However that aside you insist I develope some varraint of a skill that I can't use. My station is at least one if not several such tool but you don't wish to allow it without ahvng that ONE tool I have no idea what you are trying to say. becuase you think Morse code is just a trival bit of work to learn, and for some it is and lacking that skill you would choose to sideline my station which is able right now to work HF (I have up a G5RV conected to my ft 847 satelite rig which is also HF cappable It is one the few occasion I can realy see much use in the mode during an emergency gives the user the low signal abilities of RTTY or PSK 31 but allowing the station in the affected area to despense with a PC If the operators know Morse Code, there's no reason for a PC at either station. agreed but so what A tool that is with someone always is the most useful. The above noted for later reference as "A" but only if it is ever with that person. even if through some accomdated test I passed it I would not have a tool to use this doesn't justify keeping me from being there and using my sation to help the pcles staion No one is saying you cannot use a PC for Morse Code. but you are supporting not allowing me access to specturm Thus it is 'better" in some ways, indeed I am a much better operator of computer morse than manual and it would make my staion a bteer station by your standards (more modes more abilities) In that regard, it is "better". But it is not universally "better", just as an automobile is not universally "better" than a bicycle. I have never said it was it is your side that varies from stating or impling that Manaul is always better which just isn't so Where have *I* ever said Morse Code is always better? in the post I am replying to you make a statement to that effect it survies above as noted as "A" so where your beef? The idea that machine operation is somehow universally better. and my beef is your insitance that manual morse is always better *Where* have *I* said that? at A it is not your cup of tea sure fine Consider a bicycle. If another wheel is added, the rider doesn't need to worry about falling over, so the skill required to ride it is greatly reduced. Add a small gasoline engine and a suitable transmission, and pedaling becomes much easier. A simple cover will protect the rider from rain and other inclement weather. Eventually you wind up with a small, three-wheeled automobile that could win the Tour de France. Except it's not a bicycle anymore, and its rider isn't a cyclist by any stretch of the imagination. Or consider the piano. Pianos and similar keyboard instruments have been around for hundreds of years. It takes considerable skill and practice to play them, and reading sheet music is a skill of its own. With modern computers and software, however, one can simply have a machine that scans in the sheet music and turns it into a "performance" - without all those lessons, practice, etc. break all depends on what you want, to listen or to play Point is, there's a big difference. which by analogy is up to me. Id rather listen than play that tune and what about Manual Morse justifies making ME play that tune? The same things about all the other things hams are required to learn. no becuase I blow everything On AM or on SSB or FM and still get a license Code testing is deferent nothing else in Ham radio has that status so your staement is simply not true -- Suppose you were given the following test: You're sitting at a table with pencil and paper, and your choice of speaker or headphones. Through the headphones you hear a series of words spoken slowly and clearly, spaced so there is one word every 2 seconds or so. All you have to do is write down the first letter of each word. The test always uses a standard phonetic alphabet, too. So if you heard: "Sierra....Tango.....Alpha.....Romeo.....Tango.... .....Whiskey.....Indi a.....Tango.....Hotel" you would write down "START WITH..." etc. The test goes on for 5 minutes, but all you need is one minute correct to pass the test. Could you pass such a test? Is there anyone who can converse in English, and who is literate in that language, who could not pass such a test? I might well not be able to, that is the meaning of Dyslexiod Aphasia, I would hear the S in might write Y it all but certain I would suffer from one of these occurances if a minute was 27 letters, any time I am changing media there is high chance for making such errors, there is a decent chance if I am just coping writen text, indeed to take your test seeing the writen word one at a time and trying to copy them first leters I can make such errors I fequenly do in the newsgroup find myself unable to copy corectly a word on the screen Does not mean I can't read text and understand it and tell you about later All the Morse Code test does is to replace the words with specific sounds. Instead of "Sierra", for example, you would hear three short beeps. What is so impossible about that? get it though your head, I have failed exactly that test a number of times Jim I could see that if someone had an auditory or cognition problem, they might have trouble with both tests. But it seems incredible that people who would have no trouble with the first claim the second to be impossible, or even very difficult, for them. In My case it is a set of learning disablities, varies people have varies abilities when you add morseyou have tranlating . to "e" which might make it to the page as "y" when you sart with letters .- which I think is "a" I may hear -. think "a" (becuase dyslexics reverse stuff) and might not get even that "a" to the paper right I do better with keyboards where I am tring to learn not the . is "e" but is the trhid finger of left hand up one key (the touch tpye position of "e" of course) Of course for some folks, "can't" actually means "won't" or "don't want to". so to answer your title I doubt I could pass the test phoenetic test you describe, unless it was realy slow, and certainly not with any test anxeity I agree with you, but you won't get very far with Jim. I especially liked the bit about using a code reader as a handicap accomodation for the Morse test! I am a VE and never thought of that! Can you imagine if we had tried to get that past the ARRL VEC - they would have flipped for sure, but I think it may well meet the rules. It's all academic now, or will be soon. The NPRM abolishes the code test, and the R&O will do the same. The pro-code test side have lost the war. Roll on VC Day (Victory over the Code Day, LOL!). 73 de Alun, N3KIP (A 20wpm Extra who wasted years learning Morse code that I will probably never use) |
Alun L. Palmer wrote: "an old friend" wrote in oups.com: wrote: an old friend wrote: hack so to answer your title I doubt I could pass the test phoenetic test you describe, unless it was realy slow, and certainly not with any test anxeity break I agree with you, but you won't get very far with Jim. sadly I fear you are right, and Jim is the most reasonable of the devoted Procoders but the target (mine anyway YMMV) is more moderate lurker in the NG anyway no matter who one is addressing directly I do have some (dwidnling fast) hope that prehaps some of the procoders can be presauded to accept the new folks without basshing em over the head over how they are unworthy not having done.... I especially liked the bit about using a code reader as a handicap accomodation for the Morse test! I am a VE and never thought of that! Can you imagine if we had tried to get that past the ARRL VEC - they would have flipped for sure, but I think it may well meet the rules. I am certain as is a Lawyer I know, if I were not certain other means would prevail (even thought hey have taken longer than I thought) I would likely have tried the formal complaint under DoJ rules to find out It's all academic now, or will be soon. The NPRM abolishes the code test, and the R&O will do the same. The pro-code test side have lost the war. Roll on VC Day (Victory over the Code Day, LOL!). now or soon it is time to pick up the peices, 73 de Alun, N3KIP (A 20wpm Extra who wasted years learning Morse code that I will probably never use) |
Are you asking now? Yes, I'm asking (again). |
|
|
Quote:
David Breckman here. I registered on this site for one express purpose, which was to contact you about my father, Jack Breckman. This post of yours that mentions him by name (and in the most flattering of terms) came up as a hit in a Google search I was conducting about him earlier in the evening. Dad died in the summer of '73 when I was just seven years old, so I didn't know him particularly well, and the only memories I have of him now, nearly forty years on, are foggy at best. But in the last year or so (belatedly) I have been trying to talk or correspond with as many people as I can who may've known or had occasion to work with him -- people very much like yourself. By all accounts, Dad was a gentle and exceptionally gifted man, and a wonderful husband and father. But firsthand accounts are scarce, and I am naturally interested in learning more about him. So with your permission -- and at your convenience -- I would love to follow up with you on the subject of Jack Breckman. Would this be possible? You can reach me at my email: I would be grateful for ANYTHING you can tell me about him. Even vague, fleeting impressions would be helpful. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Yours (gratefully), David Breckman Sherman Oaks, CA |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:15 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com