On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:17:08 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

The original claim wasn't that it makes him more proficient in
everything, just that it makes him a more proficient operator. Being
equal in everything else, but more proficient in code, makes one more
proficient.

Is logic a lost art?

I still hold to the belief, claim, whatever that knowing CW in itself,
does not make an operator more proficient in anything but CW.

Next you'll tell us that the sun rises in the East. Thank you,
Captain Obvious.

Knowledge of any single thing doesn't make an operator more proficient
in anything but that one thing. Should we have testing in TV
techniques, simply because it's a "modern communications mode"? How
about microwaves? Programming? Hey, there's one I'd go for. Let's
be "modern" and make sure that hams can program the computers they're
using for "communications".

I would even submit that some operators who only use CW are less proficient
operators than a modern ham who uses many more modes and methods,
including modern digital modes, to communicate. Follow the logic Al.
Someone who is versed in more facets of Amateur Radio than simply CW is
a more proficient operator.

Someone who is versed in more facets of amateur radio than simply
modern digital modes is also a more proficient operator. Can YOU set
up an internet audio stream without following a set of instructions?

Yes, I guess you are correct, logic is a lost art.

And you proved it again.

Wishing makes it so?

No, desire does.

A distinction without a difference.

Every amateur has their niche that they want to
pursue. Forcing a CW test on someone does not make them have a desire to
use it.

Neither does forcing them to take a test in "modern digital modes".

In fact, forcing someone to test on an archaic mode of
communication may in fact keep them away from the service and therefore
they will never develop an interest in learning and using modern
communication methods.

And forcing someone to test on a "modern digital mode" may in fact
keep them away from the service and therefore they will never develop
an interest in learning and using CW.

Al, you seem to have trouble reading. I never mentioned copying below
the noise level. What I said was CW cannot be copied if the human ear
cannot hear it.

And I said it can, so who has the problem?

I have copied PSK when the audio of the signal could not be copied by the human ear.

And I have copied CW when there wasn't enough signal for a computer to
copy PSK.

It's just that simple.

It sure is.

All the BS about CW being the only true weak signal mode is well just BS. There
are superior modes to CW and PSK is one of them.

No one said that CW is the only weak signal mode, but it can sometimes
be copied when it's weaker than any other mode can be copied. If the
noise frequency is higher than the bit frequency ... well, you know
weak signal analysis, right? Or you wouldn't be discussing it, would
you?

Oh, but CW takes MUCH less power for the same path than any digital
mode, and CW is the ONLY mode you can use when the only thing you have
is a source of RF.

Yup, if all you have is a source of RF and nothing else, I guess you are
screwed. But that is not reality.

Until you have a radio with a broken voice or data circuit and the
only thing standing between you and safety is your inability to
communicate because the radio's broken.

You would have a real problem if you
did not have a source of RF, gee Al, let's call it a transmitter and use
big people words. I wonder why NASA does not have CW capability on the
Shuttle and Space Station

Excuse me? They sure do.

Why have our armed forces stopped using it? What happens in war if
all they have is a transmitter? Get real.

You're comparing military intelligence to actual intelligence? They
die. Soldiers have been known to do that in combat. The prime
mission of the military in wartime is NOT saving the lives of
individual soldiers, it's winning wars at the COST of the lives of
individual soldiers. Why don't YOU "get real"?

Yup CW still lives and it will go on for quite awhile. Forcing people
to learn and use it is not the way to keep it going.

Neither is forcing them to learn electronics. Or the laws they're
going to have to know. Let's just post ham licenses in stores and
people can pick them up if they like. Just like they used to do with
CB licenses. Why keep anyone from having access to a public property?
Just let anyone buy a radio (no knowledge of how to even build a kit
should be required) and use it. Those of us who want to learn
something can petition for a new service that requires actual
knowledge of something.

Al Klein wrote:
On 9 Jul 2006 22:13:34 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Dee Flint wrote:
"J. D. B." wrote in message
...

While code is not the end-all and be-all, it still has its place in list of
communications methods.
which is an admision that it is not proper for it to be the be all and end
all of of testing for hf
It just that simple

Only if you failed Logic 101.
you are the one that failed the class

I did not

CW currently stands as more imprtant than the rest of HAMradio combined
for HF access

CW is not anyway near that valuble

therefore the current testing system is ilgoical

BTW to answer your red herring from another thread No one is proposing
adding a test on digital mode

"J. D. B." wrote in
:

No, please tell us how requiring code tests and more difficult technical
testing creates a "more proficient" ham?

When code testing was 13/20 WPM and the technical tests were much
harder, we still had all the idiots on the bands. Those idiots are not
more proficient. You are simply ignoring reality. Do you live in a cave
or something?


You must be one of them lazy hams.

J. D. B. wrote:
Al, my four year old makes more sense and can carry on a more
intelligent discussion that you. I am going to chat with him.
Fffffftttttt - you're outta here moron.

it is the same standard line they have been sold a mantra and have to
keep repating it without even knowing what they are saying any

but remember the english book of comon prayer back in the 8th century
"....protect us oh lord from the warth of the Morsemen"

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:33:21 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote:

Al, my four year old makes more sense and can carry on a more
intelligent discussion that you. I am going to chat with him.
Fffffftttttt - you're outta here moron.

I'm crushed. When you grow up maybe you'll understand adult level
English. Till then keep speaking 4-year-old English.

On 10 Jul 2006 08:22:41 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 9 Jul 2006 22:13:34 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

which is an admision that it is not proper for it to be the be all and end
all of of testing for hf
It just that simple

Only if you failed Logic 101.

you are the one that failed the class

I did not

CW currently stands as more imprtant than the rest of HAMradio combined
for HF access

If you fail the written exam you don't get the license.

CW is not anyway near that valuble

therefore the current testing system is ilgoical

"I can't pass the test" doesn't have anything to do with logic.

BTW to answer your red herring from another thread No one is proposing
adding a test on digital mode

Then dropping CW because it's old and no longer used is illogical. Not
that you're capable of figuring out why, but it is.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:37:53 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

"J. D. B." wrote in
:

No, please tell us how requiring code tests and more difficult technical
testing creates a "more proficient" ham?

When code testing was 13/20 WPM and the technical tests were much
harder, we still had all the idiots on the bands. Those idiots are not
more proficient. You are simply ignoring reality. Do you live in a cave
or something?

You must be one of them lazy hams.

He's right, though. Anyone who ever heard K2SUC out of Nutley, NJ,
would agree. The repeater wars of the 60s and 70s. The 146.715
repeater on Long Island in the early 70s.

We've had our share of pre-VEC idiots. But it was never as bad as
even some of the things you hear on 75 these days. I rarely plug a
mic in.

Al, I am speaking 4-year-old English to you so that you can maybe
comprehend the conversation. I would hate to go over your head and
totally lose you.

Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:33:21 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote:

Al, my four year old makes more sense and can carry on a more
intelligent discussion that you. I am going to chat with him.
Fffffftttttt - you're outta here moron.

I'm crushed. When you grow up maybe you'll understand adult level
English. Till then keep speaking 4-year-old English.