"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

[snip]

Steve agreed with removing the Morse Code Exam. I guess that makes him
"progressive."

That's not what I said.

I said I am in favor of allowing some access to HF without the
Morse exam.

I also said I favor retaining the Morse exam for the Extra Class
license and for limiting access to those frequencies where Morse is
most used where the licensee has not demonstrated at least some
proficiency in Morse Code.


I would disagree with this approach. Here's why.

Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic
ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio. There
are two ways to get people to learn it. One, which is what we have now, is
to tie the most desired privilege (HF voice) to the subject that they least
desire to study. However there is a second way. Allow the novices and
techs CW privileges only on the General HF bands without any further
testing. They can have HF voice, digital, etc at any time they then pass
the whatever the test will be in the future for General. This gives them a
taste of HF. I would happily work them as slow as they want to go in order
to encourage the use of CW.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:

I would disagree with this approach. Here's why.

Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic
ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio.

Why is it that you only want volunteers to take up the burden of
learning morse code on "thier" free time and equip morse code radio
stations at their own expense?

Why wouldn't you want paid, professional radio operators and radio
users to know Morse Code? Especially paid emergency communicators and
emergency responders.

If the government needed or wanted morse code radio operators, they
should create a GS5-7-9-11 series and get them.

But the PCTA are more than willing to donate other people's free time
and money in order to provide the government with something it doesn't
want and doesn't want to pay for, just so you'll have someone to QSL
with on the low end of the bands.

Thanks a lot

From: on Fri 4 Nov 2005 17:16


Dee Flint wrote:

I would disagree with this approach. Here's why.

Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic
ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio.

Why is it that you only want volunteers to take up the burden of
learning morse code on "thier" free time and equip morse code radio
stations at their own expense?

...just because...

Why wouldn't you want paid, professional radio operators and radio
users to know Morse Code? Especially paid emergency communicators and
emergency responders.

If the government needed or wanted morse code radio operators, they
should create a GS5-7-9-11 series and get them.

Dee must imagine that ONLY hams are First Responders to
any emergency/crisis/disaster.

But the PCTA are more than willing to donate other people's free time
and money in order to provide the government with something it doesn't
want and doesn't want to pay for, just so you'll have someone to QSL
with on the low end of the bands.

PCTA think they are spay-shul (as the church lady said) and
NEED that code test to "prove" they are "better."

They are Mighty Macho Motivated Morsemen. Hear them roar...

wrote:
From: on Fri 4 Nov 2005 17:16


Dee Flint wrote:

I would disagree with this approach. Here's why.

Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic
ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio.

Why is it that you only want volunteers to take up the burden of
learning morse code on "thier" free time and equip morse code radio
stations at their own expense?

...just because...

There's got to be some deeper motive.

Why wouldn't you want paid, professional radio operators and radio
users to know Morse Code? Especially paid emergency communicators and
emergency responders.

If the government needed or wanted morse code radio operators, they
should create a GS5-7-9-11 series and get them.

Dee must imagine that ONLY hams are First Responders to
any emergency/crisis/disaster.

If so then Dee needs to back off and let first responders respond
first.

But the PCTA are more than willing to donate other people's free time
and money in order to provide the government with something it doesn't
want and doesn't want to pay for, just so you'll have someone to QSL
with on the low end of the bands.

PCTA think they are spay-shul (as the church lady said) and
NEED that code test to "prove" they are "better."

They are special. But when all become special, none are.

They are Mighty Macho Motivated Morsemen. Hear them roar...



They were born 100 years too late.

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
From: on Fri 4 Nov 2005 17:16


Dee Flint wrote:

I would disagree with this approach. Here's why.

Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic
ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio.

Why is it that you only want volunteers to take up the burden of
learning morse code on "thier" free time and equip morse code radio
stations at their own expense?

...just because...

There's got to be some deeper motive.


There is no deeper motive. Notice that Len Anderson has made no comment on
my approach to using CW when the license structure changes. He chooses to
comment on a section that is clearly identified as opinion. I'm entitled to
my opinion just like any one else.

Why wouldn't you want paid, professional radio operators and radio
users to know Morse Code? Especially paid emergency communicators and
emergency responders.

If the government needed or wanted morse code radio operators, they
should create a GS5-7-9-11 series and get them.

Dee must imagine that ONLY hams are First Responders to
any emergency/crisis/disaster.

If so then Dee needs to back off and let first responders respond
first.


Notice that Len Anderson injects something into my post that was not there,
was not implied, and has not been stated or implied in any of my posts. I
am firmly in favor of first reponders responding first and other groups
standing by until they are needed and then only going in if they are needed.
However as you can see, rather than addressing the concept that I was
discussing, Len Anderson has gone off on one of his tangents and trying to
distract people from my actual statements. This is why I killfiled him long
ago.

I see that you started the paragraph with "if so...." You are wise to doubt
his statements. Investigate for yourself.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 12:22:03 -0500, "Dee Flint"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...

wrote:
From: on Fri 4 Nov 2005 17:16


Dee Flint wrote:

I would disagree with this approach. Here's why.

Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic
ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio.

Why is it that you only want volunteers to take up the burden of
learning morse code on "thier" free time and equip morse code radio
stations at their own expense?

...just because...

There's got to be some deeper motive.


There is no deeper motive. Notice that Len Anderson has made no comment on
my approach to using CW when the license structure changes. He chooses to
comment on a section that is clearly identified as opinion. I'm entitled to
my opinion just like any one else.

as is he

Len anderson choose as is his right to comment on what he choose to
coment on

BTW it Brain Burke that suggests you have a deeper motive in calling
for Ham to spend their time on Morse Code not Len, you might try
getting your stributions correct

Why wouldn't you want paid, professional radio operators and radio
users to know Morse Code? Especially paid emergency communicators and
emergency responders.

If the government needed or wanted morse code radio operators, they
should create a GS5-7-9-11 series and get them.

Dee must imagine that ONLY hams are First Responders to
any emergency/crisis/disaster.

If so then Dee needs to back off and let first responders respond
first.


Notice that Len Anderson injects something into my post that was not there,
was not implied, and has not been stated or implied in any of my posts. I
am firmly in favor of first reponders responding first and other groups
standing by until they are needed and then only going in if they are needed.
However as you can see, rather than addressing the concept that I was
discussing, Len Anderson has gone off on one of his tangents and trying to
distract people from my actual statements. This is why I killfiled him long
ago.

gain you are mis atributing the coments

you keep it up and you will be flat out lying


I see that you started the paragraph with "if so...." You are wise to doubt
his statements. Investigate for yourself.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

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

wrote:
From: on Fri 4 Nov 2005 17:16


Dee Flint wrote:

I would disagree with this approach. Here's why.

Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic
ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio.

Why is it that you only want volunteers to take up the burden of
learning morse code on "thier" free time and equip morse code radio
stations at their own expense?

...just because...

There's got to be some deeper motive.

There is no deeper motive. Notice that Len Anderson has made no comment on
my approach to using CW when the license structure changes. He chooses to
comment on a section that is clearly identified as opinion. I'm entitled to
my opinion just like any one else.

And I am glad that you express your opinion. My only sadness is that
it is straight from the ARRL playbook.

Why wouldn't you want paid, professional radio operators and radio
users to know Morse Code? Especially paid emergency communicators and
emergency responders.

If the government needed or wanted morse code radio operators, they
should create a GS5-7-9-11 series and get them.

Dee must imagine that ONLY hams are First Responders to
any emergency/crisis/disaster.

If so then Dee needs to back off and let first responders respond
first.

Notice that Len Anderson injects something into my post that was not there,
was not implied, and has not been stated or implied in any of my posts.

Then you do demand that 911 operators and responders hold an FCC GROL
with Morse Code endorsements?

Or do you only demand it of amateur radio volunteers?

I
am firmly in favor of first reponders responding first and other groups
standing by until they are needed and then only going in if they are needed.
However as you can see, rather than addressing the concept that I was
discussing, Len Anderson has gone off on one of his tangents and trying to
distract people from my actual statements. This is why I killfiled him long
ago.

Ouch! You should have kill-filed me as well because I cannot
understand that you demand unpaid volunteers to be "more highly
qualified" than paid communicator/responders.

I see that you started the paragraph with "if so...." You are wise to doubt
his statements. Investigate for yourself.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I am merely wise in the ways of ARRL-speak and lies told by Tennessee
Nurse: Steven J Robeson, LPN.

From: on Sun, Nov 6 2005 8:46 am


wrote:
From: on Fri 4 Nov 2005 17:16
Dee Flint wrote:

I would disagree with this approach. Here's why.

Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic
ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio.

Why is it that you only want volunteers to take up the burden of
learning morse code on "thier" free time and equip morse code radio
stations at their own expense?

...just because...

There's got to be some deeper motive.

There is. They are "superior" to ordinary mortals through
morsemanship.


Why wouldn't you want paid, professional radio operators and radio
users to know Morse Code? Especially paid emergency communicators and
emergency responders.

If the government needed or wanted morse code radio operators, they
should create a GS5-7-9-11 series and get them.

Dee must imagine that ONLY hams are First Responders to
any emergency/crisis/disaster.

If so then Dee needs to back off and let first responders respond
first.

Dee is ANGRY that I challenged her on emergency comms via the
"First Responder" comment. [horrors...!]

Ya notice that *NO* PCTA has ever come back on that challenge
about the REAL emergency/crisis/disaster comms people and
what THEY choose? :-)


But the PCTA are more than willing to donate other people's free time
and money in order to provide the government with something it doesn't
want and doesn't want to pay for, just so you'll have someone to QSL
with on the low end of the bands.

PCTA think they are spay-shul (as the church lady said) and
NEED that code test to "prove" they are "better."

They are special. But when all become special, none are.

Logically true. :-)

RCA sub-division Commercial Aviation Electronics had a sales
phrase "Primus inter Pares" (First Among Equals) in '74. :-)

Weird sort of paradox in Latin, no less! RCA overgovernment
told them to stop its use after some months. Too many
potential customers knew Latin and remarked on it...without
buying enough equipment. :-)

Neat, almost self-defining paradox thing: First Among Equals!


They are Mighty Macho Motivated Morsemen. Hear them roar...



They were born 100 years too late.

Well, maybe 50 years. :-)

In 1935 code was king. 70 years later the throne is white
and located in the bathroom?

[watch this space for OUTRAGE by the PCTA...:-)]

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
. ..
(SNIP)
Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic
ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio.

That is only your opinion. At one time morse was truly one of the
basics of amateur radio but that is simply untrue (IMHO) today.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
. ..
(SNIP)
Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic
ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio.

That is only your opinion. At one time morse was truly one of the
basics of amateur radio but that is simply untrue (IMHO) today.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

I have no problem with that. In each case, we have both identified that as
being our personal opinions.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE