RadioBanter - If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?

Al Klein wrote:
On 23 Jul 2006 07:26:05 -0700, wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

By taking the test you're claiming that you understand the questions
and know the answers.

By releasing the Question Pools, the FCC is claiming that you must
memorize the answers.

Must? Where's the "must"? Or do you mean "If you aren't intelligent
enough, or motivated enough, to learn a little, the only way to get a
license is to memorize the answers."

No, not all all. It should be obvious that if you can make a
ridiculous statement such as the one you made above, I can make a
ridiculous statement also.

No one is claiming any such thing.

I guess you missed this part which is key to you're not understanding
that my statement was ridiculous.

By memorizing the answers you're not learning
enough to understand the questions.

But I wouldn't expect you to understand what "honesty" means.

Why not?

Because he's already admitted that he's dishonest.

When will you admit that you are dishonest?

how balanced is to to place CW over all over ham knowledge?

No one is, any more than by requiring people to know the law one is
putting the law "over all ham knowledge".

CW is pass/fail. To fail CW denies all HF privs (except for Alaska).

Theory is also pass/fail. To fail to get the required number of
correct answers denies all privs - HF, VHF, UHF ...

There is no pass/fail practical for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY, FAX,
Packet, PSK, etc, etc, etc.

How progressive is it?

How progressive is it to not require people to know ... oh, yeah,
that's progressive, since the new thing is to hand out licenses
because people have some kind of "right" to get on the air.

Then why is it with the prospect of losing the CW Exam, that you'se
guys want to "beef up" the written exams?

We don't.

That is not true.

We want to get back the level it used to be before it was
dumbed down to the point that you could almost pass it if you never
heard of the FCC, ham radio or electronics.

You're referring to the Conditional license, right?

Just by guessing at the
answers. It used to require that you draw (was it 3?) schematics.

You tell me? Was it 2 or was it 3? Is this your lucky day?

From scratch. Let's see how many people could do that today. A
Colpitts oscillator, a Hartley oscillator and some other circuit that
I've forgotten at the moment.

You should self-modify your license and cease amateur operation until
you remember.

The amateur is self-policing, and you no longer meet your own standard.

They're still as relevant today as they
were 50 years ago.

Other things are relevant today that weren't even known 50 years ago.

how loyal is it to denny the nation the benifits of allowing more
operators

What "benefits" does the country get from more people using radios who
don't know the first thing about them? (Whatever "denny" means.)

It's always been that way. You could even buy Heathkits already
assembled.

But you had to actually *know* a little theory to use one legally.

No you didn't.

Today all you need is the time to take the test and the money for the
test and the equipment. IOW, a CB "license" with a tiny bit of
annoyance up front. How does CB benefit the country?

Sounds like you need to look for a different hobby if you have such
disdain for your fellow amateurs. Best of Luck.

You don't acquire knowledge (which is what's needed) by playing with a
radio.

Then the military has wasted billions of dollars over the years
"training" radio operators.

I trained operators when I was in the military. We didn't do it by
giving recruits radios and telling them to go jam each other.

I used radios in the military. I never used a CW key in the military.
I never jammed another operator, although Brandywine asked me to reduce
power once.

how patriotic is it to keep a staion forom aquiing the skill to be
ready for service to conutry and community?

How does playing CB on the ham bands give one "the skill to be
ready for service to conutry and community"?

Who knows? That's not what Mark is talking about, is it?

That's exactly what he's talking about. Give someone a radio and a
"license" to use it and he'll "acquire the skill to be ready for
service to country and community". That's what Mark said, right up
above. How does one acquire skill by playing radio?

We self-train. It is a continuous process of improvements. You
mistakenly believe that at the conclusion of The Exam, the "operator"
is 100%.

Never was, Never will be, and neither were you weren't.

I'm beginning to think that you're from the school of "The Older I Get,
The Better I Was!"

Or any skill, other than
getting what you want? You don't acquire skill by doing something
that requires no skill.

So it really is all about CW. Why have a written Exam at all?

You don't acquire technical skill by doing something that doesn't
require technical skill. You don't acquire operating skill by doing
something that requires no operating skill. And you don't acquire
skill in CW by cursing into a mike.

Nor do you.

But that's what Mark and his ilk want - we'll have "skilled operators"
if we allow people to buy radios and put them on the air with no skill
or knowledge. By osmosis? Or by magic?

I've listened to emergency responders on a scanner before. They don't
use Morse Code, they don't use CW. They use FM/Voice. Somehow they
are effective at it, not having taken a Morse Code test. How can this
be?

Tell you what. The next time your YL dials 911 for you, she has to
communicate with the 911 Operator in Morse Code. She can just sound it
out with her mouth, no keyer, sounder, clacker or anything else
required.

When the Operator tells her to speak normally, your YL is allowed to
say once, and only once, using her normal voice, "Real communications
takes place with Morse Code" and then revert back to sounding out her
message with Morse Code dits and dahs.

Agreed?

On your block of granite, she will say, "Here Lays Al Klein, Who had no
use for Voice Modes. May He Rest In Peace"

And you, particularly, don't acquire
knowledge by demanding something for nothing.

The requirements for an amateur radio license have been all over the
map over the history of the service. The ORIGINAL amateur radio
license had no Morse Code Exam, even when Morse Code was the only means
of communicating.

So you'd get a license not knowing CW, build a radio (you couldn't buy
one then) and ... what? Sit and look at it. Some things are just too
obvious to need mentioning.

Please diagram that radio from "Scratch."

Get over it. Everyone else is moving on.

Evidently not, or I'd be the only one in the world advocating that a
test should actually test for something. There are actually millions
of us who don't think lack of instant gratification is the worst thing
in the world.

Dial 911 and tell the operator that you don't need instant
gratification, take your time.

What next? DXCC awards for those who *want* to work 100 countries?

You seem to be confused. DXCC is an award offered by the ARRL, not the
FCC. It has nothing to do with licensing.

You ask "What next?" How about a test for everyone else except you,
where you get to try to recall what was on your test, but can't.