|
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
The hobby is almost dead anyway,nothing is going to save it. No one
cares about Ham radio.Most people under 30 have never heard of it and don't care. All they want is their cell phones, Ipods,etc. The FCC can't save it by changing anything. Povertyhill wrote: Gee do all hams in Colorado think like this or only ones in Denver? Get a life and play with your CW key with a buzzer! "Radio Buff" wrote in message nk.net... Dear sir: The FCC has been dumbing down ham radio for several years now. This has hurt the integrity of the service and is bad for America. They are planning to dumb it down again really soon now and their plan will make ham radio like CB and it will be bad for America. We already have one CB service, we don't need two. Please pressure the FCC to endorse the following items for the good of the service and County. God bless America. Signed (Your name & callsign) No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all elements required for their license class. The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%. Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra. Make the no-code license one year non-renewable. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
Merlin3rd wrote: The hobby is almost dead anyway,nothing is going to save it. No one cares about Ham radio.Most people under 30 have never heard of it and don't care. All they want is their cell phones, Ipods,etc. The FCC can't save it by changing anything. perhaps not but others think otherwise OTOH the "proposal" of mr Slow Code aka Hey Stupid would finsh finsh the ARS in 10 ten years |
get help
On 1 Jul 2006 21:04:41 -0700, an_old_friend wrote:
OTOH the "proposal" of mr Slow Code aka Hey Stupid would finsh finsh the ARS in 10 ten years get help |
get help
Lloyd wrote: On 1 Jul 2006 21:04:41 -0700, an_old_friend wrote: OTOH the "proposal" of mr Slow Code aka Hey Stupid would finsh finsh the ARS in 10 ten years get help for what teling the simple that "hey Stpids" plan would kill off the ARS in single renewal cylce? |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
"an_old_friend" wrote in
ups.com: Merlin3rd wrote: The hobby is almost dead anyway,nothing is going to save it. No one cares about Ham radio.Most people under 30 have never heard of it and don't care. All they want is their cell phones, Ipods,etc. The FCC can't save it by changing anything. perhaps not but others think otherwise OTOH the "proposal" of mr Slow Code aka Hey Stupid would finsh finsh the ARS in 10 ten years Just exactly what are you trying to babble out now? Having more qualified hams will kill the service? An amateur radio license isn't worth enough that you should have to work for it? License candidates are lazy and won't work to get a license? Please babble to us how requiring more proficient amateurs will kill ham radio. sc |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 19:00:12 GMT, Hey Stupid wrote:
Please babble to us how requiring more proficient amateurs will kill ham radio. Well ... It would probably reduce the total number of hams. But those who just want to buy a radio, plug it in and yell at people can still buy a CB set from RatShack. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC dothe right thing.
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? Please babble to us how requiring more proficient amateurs will kill ham radio. sc |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
J. D. B. wrote: 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? I think he does UBL cave with the quipement reachto various websites and NG to (like his mentor UBL) try and disupt the world that has left him behind Please babble to us how requiring more proficient amateurs will kill ham radio. sc |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 07:25:56 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote: 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? The claim was "more proficient", not "generally nicer and better able to get along with people". There will always be idiots in insert any field but a ham who can't copy code at 1 wpm isn't more proficient (or as proficient) at communicating under any and all conditions as one who can. Someone who can do something is, by definition, more proficient at doing it than someone who can't. Requiring code tests and real technical testing (the current tests are a joke) makes sure that most of the people who get licensed are more proficient at receiving code and with technical matters. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
Al Klein wrote: On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 07:25:56 -0400, "J. D. B." wrote: Requiring code tests and real technical testing (the current tests are a joke) makes sure that most of the people who get licensed are more proficient at receiving code and with technical matters. no it does not most of the people that get license tody never take a code test therfore they are not made more profeincent at Morse code even you "facts" are well... ****ed |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
On 9 Jul 2006 11:23:11 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote: Al Klein wrote: On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 07:25:56 -0400, "J. D. B." wrote: Requiring code tests and real technical testing (the current tests are a joke) makes sure that most of the people who get licensed are more proficient at receiving code and with technical matters. no it does not most of the people that get license tody never take a code test therfore they are not made more profeincent at Morse code even you "facts" are well... ****ed No, it's your ability to understand the difference between "are licensed" and "get licensed" that is. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
Al Klein wrote: On 9 Jul 2006 11:23:11 -0700, "an old friend" wrote: Al Klein wrote: On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 07:25:56 -0400, "J. D. B." wrote: Requiring code tests and real technical testing (the current tests are a joke) makes sure that most of the people who get licensed are more proficient at receiving code and with technical matters. no it does not most of the people that get license tody never take a code test therfore they are not made more profeincent at Morse code even you "facts" are well... ****ed No, it's your ability to understand the difference between "are licensed" and "get licensed" that is. all the tech got lisenced sir nor does passing the code even ensure that most people that pass it can operate it |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
J. D. B. wrote: Al, someone who passes a code test should be more proficient in code than someone who cannot pass the code test. That simply makes that person proficient in code, not necessarily a more proficient operator. should be? I beg you pardon well I know can't pass a code test and I can use Morse code did a few eme contacts using a spectrograph to make out the didt and dah and feedto an pc for translation I have done the same (with code reader as well) to see if I could do that made a sweep in a cw sweepstakes (with aid of another hams call) You may be able to use the code, but if you cannot use modern digital methods, use sat communication, able to handle emergency communication, able to set up digital networks and use them effectively, build modern solid-state equipment, etc., then you are not a more proficient amateur operator, you just are more proficient in code and that is not going to help us much in the 21st Century. As I said before, PSK31 can be copied when the human ear cannot even hear the signal, if you cannot hear code, you cannot copy it period. So code is no longer the be-all-end-all. Modern 21st communication methods have replaced it. If we are going to attract new people to the service, we need to get into the 21st Century and get the old farts away from the old code and tubes crap. Al Klein wrote: Someone who can do something is, by definition, more proficient at doing it than someone who can't. Requiring code tests and real technical testing (the current tests are a joke) makes sure that most of the people who get licensed are more proficient at receiving code and with technical matters. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
"J. D. B." wrote in message ... Al, someone who passes a code test should be more proficient in code than someone who cannot pass the code test. That simply makes that person proficient in code, not necessarily a more proficient operator. If they are proficient in code as well as other modes, then they are a more proficient operator. The more you can do, the more proficient you are. You may be able to use the code, but if you cannot use modern digital methods, use sat communication, able to handle emergency communication, able to set up digital networks and use them effectively, build modern solid-state equipment, etc., then you are not a more proficient amateur operator, you just are more proficient in code and that is not going to help us much in the 21st Century. Setting up digital networks may not be particularly practical in the early days right after a large scale disaster. Satellite passes are short and if you don't have internet access to look up pass times, you may be up the proverbial creek without the proverbial paddle if you rely too much on that form of communications. Even with the pass info, the passes are too short to be useful for handling very much emergency communication. As I said before, PSK31 can be copied when the human ear cannot even hear the signal, if you cannot hear code, you cannot copy it period. So code is no longer the be-all-end-all. Modern 21st communication methods have replaced it. Yes it is true that PSK31 can be copied when you cannot hear it. However, it is useless when there are ionospheric disturbances that cause phase shifts (solar flares with the attendent aurora come to mind). This happens on a fairly regular basis. In addition, although the signal you are putting out is low power, PSK31 has a fairly high power consumption requirement since a computer is essential in the system. If you have limited power resources, it may not be a wise choice. While code is not the end-all and be-all, it still has its place in list of communications methods. Let us go back to the auroral activity. The various digital modes fail first. Voice holds up a little bit longer getting distorted but sometimes still copyable. Code holds up a bit longer, being still copyable when voice becomes too distorted. Under auroral conditions, both voice and code fare better than digital. Every single method has a valid place in the list of communications methods. Every mode has its strong points and its weak points. In my opinion, hams should be able to use as many modes as possible and that includes code. The major drawback to code is that it requires people to develop a skill rather than being a matter of just slapping parts together. Heck, I don't any skill in soldering as I've soldered only about 4 items in my life but I built both myself and my OM PSK31 interfaces in about 1/2 hour each. They were two of those four items. If we are going to attract new people to the service, we need to get into the 21st Century and get the old farts away from the old code and tubes crap. I find that it is the "old farts" who are doing most of the exotic activities. When I work PSK31, I come across many seniors working this mode with the latest radios and computers. When I work VHF/UHF contests and look up the call signs afterwards, it is mostly the experience hams that I run across. You have let your disdain for the code blind you to its merits. As I stated above, EVERY mode has its strengths and weaknesses and its place in wireless communications. Dee, N8UZE |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC dothe right thing.
Dee, the issue is that many old hams know CW, but cannot operate most
new digital modes. But if I understand what you are saying, if a 20 WPM Extra Class ham only operates CW and maybe SSB is less proficient than a 5 WPM Technician that operates on 10 different digital modes. See the 10 modes is more than CW and SSB, that ham is more proficient. Then I guess I agree with you. Your comments on setting up networks, sat communication, and digital modes show that you have little knowledge on either. For instance, it depends on the sat orbit how long it is useful. If PSK cannot be used due to ionospheric disturbances, well then either can CW. Computers can be operated on battery or generator. You are going to need something to power the radio right? Does not take much more for a laptop and with digital modes, the power can be much less so there is more power for the laptop. Your comparison of voice, digital modes and CW shows you have little knowledge of what you are talking about. I have personally used digital modes when voice and CW were not able to be copied. Finally, I happen to like CW a lot. But I don't think it makes anyone a better operator for knowing it, you should not be tested on it anymore than any other mode. Yes, there are a lot of seniors using digital, but there are too many more hanging on to the old crap CW only and tubes. Dee Flint wrote: If they are proficient in code as well as other modes, then they are a more proficient operator. The more you can do, the more proficient you are. Setting up digital networks may not be particularly practical in the early days right after a large scale disaster. Satellite passes are short and if you don't have internet access to look up pass times, you may be up the proverbial creek without the proverbial paddle if you rely too much on that form of communications. Even with the pass info, the passes are too short to be useful for handling very much emergency communication. Yes it is true that PSK31 can be copied when you cannot hear it. However, it is useless when there are ionospheric disturbances that cause phase shifts (solar flares with the attendent aurora come to mind). This happens on a fairly regular basis. In addition, although the signal you are putting out is low power, PSK31 has a fairly high power consumption requirement since a computer is essential in the system. If you have limited power resources, it may not be a wise choice. While code is not the end-all and be-all, it still has its place in list of communications methods. Let us go back to the auroral activity. The various digital modes fail first. Voice holds up a little bit longer getting distorted but sometimes still copyable. Code holds up a bit longer, being still copyable when voice becomes too distorted. Under auroral conditions, both voice and code fare better than digital. Every single method has a valid place in the list of communications methods. Every mode has its strong points and its weak points. In my opinion, hams should be able to use as many modes as possible and that includes code. The major drawback to code is that it requires people to develop a skill rather than being a matter of just slapping parts together. Heck, I don't any skill in soldering as I've soldered only about 4 items in my life but I built both myself and my OM PSK31 interfaces in about 1/2 hour each. They were two of those four items. I find that it is the "old farts" who are doing most of the exotic activities. When I work PSK31, I come across many seniors working this mode with the latest radios and computers. When I work VHF/UHF contests and look up the call signs afterwards, it is mostly the experience hams that I run across. You have let your disdain for the code blind you to its merits. As I stated above, EVERY mode has its strengths and weaknesses and its place in wireless communications. Dee, N8UZE |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 19:15:34 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote: Al, someone who passes a code test should be more proficient in code than someone who cannot pass the code test. That simply makes that person proficient in code, not necessarily a more proficient operator. 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? You may be able to use the code, but if you cannot use modern digital methods, use sat communication, able to handle emergency communication, able to set up digital networks and use them effectively, build modern solid-state equipment, etc., then you are not a more proficient amateur operator, you just are more proficient in code and that is not going to help us much in the 21st Century. And, if there's effectively no testing, which is the current case, how do you propose that we get operators who CAN "use modern digital methods, use sat communication, able to handle emergency communication ....", etc? Wishing makes it so? As I said before, PSK31 can be copied when the human ear cannot even hear the signal, if you cannot hear code, you cannot copy it period. CW can be copied below the noise. Whether it can be copied as far below the noise as PSK31 can is a good question. With the amount of experience I have with both modes, I think I can safely say that CW can be copied further into the noise than PSK31 can. (You need SOME detectable original signal for PSK31 to work - after all, you have to be able to detect the phase shift. CW can be copied even if it's nothing more than modulated noise. And, if there are any old sounder operators left, even key clicks can be copied.) So code is no longer the be-all-end-all. Modern 21st communication methods have replaced it. It never was all there is, but let's see you use "modern 21st communication methods" in an emergency situation when all you have is a source of RF - nothing to modulate it with. Going to yell at the oscillator and hope it's microphonic enough to produce some NBFM? If we are going to attract new people to the service, we need to get into the 21st Century and get the old farts away from the old code and tubes crap. They said that in the 50s too - "we have modern communications like SSB - who needs CW?" ... yet CW still lives. I doubt it'll be a requirement in 100 years , but I also doubt that no one will be able to copy it. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 20:20:37 -0400, "Dee Flint"
wrote: While code is not the end-all and be-all, it still has its place in list of communications methods. Let us go back to the auroral activity. The various digital modes fail first. Voice holds up a little bit longer getting distorted but sometimes still copyable. Code holds up a bit longer, being still copyable when voice becomes too distorted. Under auroral conditions, both voice and code fare better than digital. Thanks for the memories. I enjoyed "the barrel" in the late '50s. No one who works voice on aurora will ever forget what it sounds like. Or forget working half-way across the country with 5 watts on 6 with a TV antenna. The major drawback to code is that it requires people to develop a skill rather than being a matter of just slapping parts together. The problem is that a lot of people think that all the "skill" operating takes is being able to turn the equipment on. Even using an appliance rig, it's easy to tell the appliance operators from those who have developed some skill. If we are going to attract new people to the service, we need to get into the 21st Century and get the old farts away from the old code and tubes crap. I find that it is the "old farts" who are doing most of the exotic activities. When I work PSK31, I come across many seniors working this mode with the latest radios and computers. I'll second that - from the old fart side. :) Al - W2PMX |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:46:16 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote: Dee, the issue is that many old hams know CW, but cannot operate most new digital modes. And many of us know CW, originated some digital modes (you think teen-agers invented everything?) and can certainly operate most, if not all, of them. We had working RTTY (that's digital) regenerating repeaters (thanks, Norm) before most current hams were even born. If PSK cannot be used due to ionospheric disturbances, well then either can CW. Not true - the human brain is a more efficient detector than a computer sound card in some cases. Computers can be operated on battery or generator. You are going to need something to power the radio right? Does not take much more for a laptop and with digital modes, the power can be much less so there is more power for the laptop. You can get a CW signal to anywhere in the world with a 9 volt battery for a few hours. You can't run a pocket PC on that kind of power. Your comparison of voice, digital modes and CW shows you have little knowledge of what you are talking about. I have personally used digital modes when voice and CW were not able to be copied. And I have personally used CW when digital modes weren't even detectable, let alone copyable. So have many people who have used CW for extremely low signal work. Try decoding a PSK signal that's been bounced off an aurora. (The phase is constantly rolling - there's nothing for the detector to detect.) Aurora CW sounds weird (okay, it makes "weird" boring), but it's easy to copy. Finally, I happen to like CW a lot. But I don't think it makes anyone a better operator for knowing it, you should not be tested on it anymore than any other mode. Okay - the same then. You're tested on your ability to understand English, and to read the written word - that covers voice and digital. Let's test for CW. Not "more", just "same". Yes, there are a lot of seniors using digital, but there are too many more hanging on to the old crap CW only and tubes. And too many youngsters who think that it it's old it's automatically crap. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC dothe right thing.
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. 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. Yes, I guess you are correct, logic is a lost art. You may be able to use the code, but if you cannot use modern digital methods, use sat communication, able to handle emergency communication, able to set up digital networks and use them effectively, build modern solid-state equipment, etc., then you are not a more proficient amateur operator, you just are more proficient in code and that is not going to help us much in the 21st Century. And, if there's effectively no testing, which is the current case, how do you propose that we get operators who CAN "use modern digital methods, use sat communication, able to handle emergency communication ...", etc? Wishing makes it so? No, desire does. 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. 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. As I said before, PSK31 can be copied when the human ear cannot even hear the signal, if you cannot hear code, you cannot copy it period. CW can be copied below the noise. Whether it can be copied as far below the noise as PSK31 can is a good question. With the amount of experience I have with both modes, I think I can safely say that CW can be copied further into the noise than PSK31 can. (You need SOME detectable original signal for PSK31 to work - after all, you have to be able to detect the phase shift. CW can be copied even if it's nothing more than modulated noise. And, if there are any old sounder operators left, even key clicks can be copied.) 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. I have copied PSK when the audio of the signal could not be copied by the human ear. It's just that simple. 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. So code is no longer the be-all-end-all. Modern 21st communication methods have replaced it. It never was all there is, but let's see you use "modern 21st communication methods" in an emergency situation when all you have is a source of RF - nothing to modulate it with. Going to yell at the oscillator and hope it's microphonic enough to produce some NBFM? Yup, if all you have is a source of RF and nothing else, I guess you are screwed. But that is not reality. 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 - you know, just in case. Why have our armed forces stopped using it? What happens in war if all they have is a transmitter? Get real. If we are going to attract new people to the service, we need to get into the 21st Century and get the old farts away from the old code and tubes crap. They said that in the 50s too - "we have modern communications like SSB - who needs CW?" ... yet CW still lives. I doubt it'll be a requirement in 100 years , but I also doubt that no one will be able to copy it. 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. It probably won't be a requirement in 5 to 10 years. I guess that is just evolution. Out with the old and in with the new. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
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 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. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
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. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
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 |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
"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. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
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" |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
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. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
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. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
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. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC dothe right thing.
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com