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

Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:14:17 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

The fit get a ham license. All the rest get cell phones, CB, and shortwave
listening.

No, SC - in today's society we can't hurt people's feelings, so the
loud get anything they want.

Al, you're getting louder. SC has been loud for a long time.

If A Feeble Fiver Held A CW Key In Thier Hand, Would The Hand Rot Off?
 

(Brian P Burke, N0IMD) tied to unravel
anothers comments with the kinds of attacks he claims he doesn't
participate in::
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.

You mean you make OTHER than rediculous state,emts. Brain?

Like "unlicensed devices play a major role in emergency
comms"...?!?!

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.

And what part of most of your posts aren't, Brain?

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?

That's a question posed to you on more than one occassion.

Usually right after making some assinine claim about ARES,
emergency communicaitons, organizations you've not been a member of for
yeas, etc etc etc.
\
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.

There should be.

But that would require scrapping our present licensing system,
establishing a trustworthy netowrk of mentors and examiners, then
keeping it in place for at least one generation of hams so that it
becomes "the standard".

But since that won't ever happen, why worry?

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?

Nope.

Let's get it bck to the point where an Amateur Radio license
carried some respect with it. An Amateur license used to bring with it
enough respect that some communitiy colleges actually granted elective
credit for it. Saddleback Community College and Orange Coast Community
College's in Orange County, California, for example.

But that was yesterday, and yesterday's gone.

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?

Would it matter, Brain? Would YOU know if he was right or not?

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.

Lead the way.

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

Do you?

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.

Like how unlicensed devices play a major role in emergency comms?

Did you see the stories in the general media of how people were
calling for help on CB's and FRS radios without results?

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.

Sure you did.

At least I did. So did my best friend who got his Novice at
the same time I did. And so did the 4 guys and 2 gals in the preceeding
year.

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.

That's not what he said, Brain.

His "disdain" is for a licensing system that is ineffective.

QUOTE:

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?

UNQUOTE

There was not one word of "disdain" for "fellow amateurs" in
there, Brain.

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.

Ohhhh! Really? Did you hear Copenhagen 2100?

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%.

"Self-train", to be sure.

But where's the underlying education on the basics of radio theory
and operation?

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

Huh?

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

I'm beginning to see that Al Klein addressed his concerns and here
YOU are attaacking him rather than the worthiness of his comments.

Of course we ALL know that Brian P Burke, N0IMD, doesn't engaged in
such antics! He SAID so!

But there it is...right there!

QUOTE

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

UNQUOTE

Heaven forbid that a Feeble Fiver engages in the very same conduct
they disclaim they do!

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.

Yet another personal attack rather than addressing the worthiness
of the comment on it;s own merits again.

Just like you CLAIM that you don't, Brain...

So HOW do you account for this?

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?

Shift gears. Make reference to persons operating on other radio
services not regulated by Part 97.

Let's see if that orange tastes like an apple.

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.

And let's see if Brian P Burke can be any more assinine or
demeaning when such was not directed to him in the first place...

Just like Lennie...Why am I not surprised...?!?!?

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"

Third time's a charm for making that attack PERSONAL rather than
rationallly addressing why Morse Code testing is not appropriate for
AMATEUR RADIO...Not Public Service, Business, Common Carrier,
etc....AMATEUR RADIO...

By the way, Brain...

I see where Al addressed TECHNICAL skill...Not MANUAL skill...

Yet YOU are going on and on about using Morse Code when talking to
a 9-1-1 operator.

Why is that?

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."

Please lead the way. And Brain, not just a block diagram of the
receiver, T/R switch and transmitter, OK....Some REAL schematics of
real radio innards...

.....since YOU suggested it...

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.

How do you dial 911? My phone won't allow more than 1 digit at a
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.

So what?

Much of your foregoing comments were attacks on Al Klein, not the
merits of Al Klein's comments. Yet you didn't address his point except
to ty a rather lame redirect.

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.

Or how about a test that explains how unlicensed devices play a
major role in emergency comms? Or maybe explain how ARES operators
can't / won't respond to or sustain a response in a major disaster or
emergency?

You keep making assinine assertions and attacks all-the-while
insisting that you don't make assinine assertions and attacks,
Brain...Yet here was a prime example of you doing exactly that.

Steve, K4YZ

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

On 2 Aug 2006 20:05:21 -0700, wrote:

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

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.

There's no test at all, so those claiming that the reason they want a
test for CW dropped because it's not "modern" have no argument - they
want no test for FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is also pretty old hat),
packet, PSK, etc. They want no test at all, unless they can memorize
a few answers to "pass" it.

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.

Sure it is. "Beefing up" the written exam is a counter to "drop CW
because it's old fashioned". If you want modern you want the testing
to be turned from CW to modern modes. Those who want CW dropped just
want what they can't memorize dropped so they can get a ticket without
really being tested on anything. Actually knowing anything is so old
fashioned, isn't it?

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?

No, I'm not addressing *where* the test is held at all - I'm
addressing *whether* there's any real test, which there isn't, except
for CW right now. Spitting out something you memorized is only a test
of memory.

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?

I don't remember after almost 50 years - but I could still draw them
today, and it's not a test of remembering what's on the test, it's a
test of knowing what's in a radio.

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.

Why? Testing isn't about memory, it's about knowledge.

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

Sure I do. The test wasn't to remember what circuits to draw, it was
to draw them. And I can draw them any time.

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.

So let's have them on the test.

Oops, that's right - no more relevant testing, isn't that what people
are asking for? Just give me the answers so I can memorize them and
pick them out on the test.

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.

Yes, you did - you had to pass a test to show that you did. All you
have to do now is memorize a few answers.

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.

But you had to learn how to use the radios. Hams today don't - they
memorize a few answers, buy equipment and get on the air - with no
understanding of what they're doing, and no desire to learn.

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.

You may, but I can see from many of the comments that have been posted
here that a lot of people don't. They don't want to learn, they want
to get on the air. Period.

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

And you mistakenly believe that most hams today want to learn how to
operate properly. Listen to 75 some evenings.

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?

They were trained.

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."

Any time. Filter or phasing? BFO receive or quadrature detection?
I've designed them, built them and used them, and still could.

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.

Very bad example of an attempt at sarcasm and a misunderstanding of
"gratification".

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.

But an award for wanting has to do with "I want it so it's my right to
have it", which is what I'm talking about. No one has any "right" to
get on the air.

If A Feeble Fiver Held A CW Key In Thier Hand, Would The Hand Rot Off?
 

Al Klein wrote:
On 2 Aug 2006 20:05:21 -0700, wrote:

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

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.

There's no test at all, so those claiming that the reason they want a
test for CW dropped because it's not "modern" have no argument - they
want no test for FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is also pretty old hat),
packet, PSK, etc. They want no test at all, unless they can memorize
a few answers to "pass" it.

But that's just the "argument-du-jour", Al. As soon as formal
Morse Code testing is dropped, this will be the next attack. "I Don't
Intend To Use That Mode So Why Ask Me About It?"

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.

Sure it is. "Beefing up" the written exam is a counter to "drop CW
because it's old fashioned". If you want modern you want the testing
to be turned from CW to modern modes. Those who want CW dropped just
want what they can't memorize dropped so they can get a ticket without
really being tested on anything. Actually knowing anything is so old
fashioned, isn't it?

Boy, isn't THAT the truth.

A friend of my 14-year old was asking "Why go to school anymore?
If I need to find out about it, I'll just pull it up on the web..."

And if only she hadn't appeared so sincere when she said it...

I worry for the future.

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?

No, I'm not addressing *where* the test is held at all - I'm
addressing *whether* there's any real test, which there isn't, except
for CW right now. Spitting out something you memorized is only a test
of memory.

The aforementioned 14 year old daughter has been "studying" for
her tech ticket. She can pass the test on line now, but can't explain
to me what a dipole is.

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?

I don't remember after almost 50 years - but I could still draw them
today, and it's not a test of remembering what's on the test, it's a
test of knowing what's in a radio.

HEAR HEAR!

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.

Why? Testing isn't about memory, it's about knowledge.

Ahhhhhhh....Once upon a time that was true, Al!

This is 2006...Just sue for "freedom of inofrmation" and
"POOF!"...The test questions are now public domain!

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

Sure I do. The test wasn't to remember what circuits to draw, it was
to draw them. And I can draw them any time.

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.

So let's have them on the test.

Oops, that's right - no more relevant testing, isn't that what people
are asking for? Just give me the answers so I can memorize them and
pick them out on the test.

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.

Yes, you did - you had to pass a test to show that you did. All you
have to do now is memorize a few answers.

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.

But you had to learn how to use the radios. Hams today don't - they
memorize a few answers, buy equipment and get on the air - with no
understanding of what they're doing, and no desire to learn.

I don't think I'd say "no deisre to learn", Al. Just no desire to
learn HOW it works...Not HOW to work 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.

You may, but I can see from many of the comments that have been posted
here that a lot of people don't. They don't want to learn, they want
to get on the air. Period.

Brian didn't either.

He professes "emergency comms" experience but clearly doesn't
understand emergency communications or the Amateur Radio programs that
support them.

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

And you mistakenly believe that most hams today want to learn how to
operate properly. Listen to 75 some evenings.

Again, I'd disagree that some of the shennanigans on 75 represents
an overall view of Amateur skill with radios, Al.

Afterall it was a lot of those same folks on 75 and 40 meter phone
nets that were the folks that were recently recognized on the floor of
Congress recently.

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?

They were trained.

Some were.

Here ins SE Tennessee we have some really sloppy, uneducated EMS
folks when it comes to radios. Trying to educate them on how to use it
PROPERLY, what it can and can't do is problematic at times. They see
some of these EMS radios with a telephone-style handset on it and think
"telephone".

Improper radiotelephone technique has resulted in patients getting
the wrong orders at times or the wrong hospitals being notified of
impending trauma patients inbound, only for a third, unsuspecting
facility to suddenly have a 10-33 Ambulance pull up at the back door.

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."

Any time. Filter or phasing? BFO receive or quadrature detection?
I've designed them, built them and used them, and still could.

Oooops!

Dive for cover, Brain. You played chicken with the wrong dude!

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.

Very bad example of an attempt at sarcasm and a misunderstanding of
"gratification".

Welcome to N0IMD's world, Al.

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.

But an award for wanting has to do with "I want it so it's my right to
have it", which is what I'm talking about. No one has any "right" to
get on the air.

Well done. Bravo.

73

Steve, K4YZ

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
 

Al Klein wrote:
Testing isn't about memory, it's about knowledge.

Then why isn't knowledge of Morse code and the CW mode
sufficient? Why must someone be forced to memorize
the individual characters?
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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

Cecil Moore wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Testing isn't about memory, it's about knowledge.

Then why isn't knowledge of Morse code and the CW mode
sufficient? Why must someone be forced to memorize
the individual characters?

Probably, Cecil, since it would then make it difficult to pass the
test.

"I"

There. You just got ONE "character" of several
electronics-related formulas.

Now do something with it without knowing the rest of the
"characters" that go with it.

73

Steve, K4YZ

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
 

K4YZ wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Then why isn't knowledge of Morse code and the CW mode
sufficient? Why must someone be forced to memorize
the individual characters?

Probably, Cecil, since it would then make it difficult to pass the
test.

You missed the point. The Morse code skill exam requires
memorizing the characters. Memorizing is being condemned
as an evil act. Since memorizing is evil, the Morse code
skill exam should be the first thing to be eliminated.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. ..
K4YZ wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Then why isn't knowledge of Morse code and the CW mode
sufficient? Why must someone be forced to memorize
the individual characters?

Probably, Cecil, since it would then make it difficult to pass the
test.

You missed the point. The Morse code skill exam requires
memorizing the characters. Memorizing is being condemned
as an evil act. Since memorizing is evil, the Morse code
skill exam should be the first thing to be eliminated.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

In some cases, it "could" be said that hairs are being split. To have
"knowledge" of the code - could mean basically - you know it exists and why
it is used. To "know" the Morse Code, usually refers to KNOWING the
characters sufficiently to use them at whatever speed it is you can. On the
other hand, someone who isn't involved could say - that a Ham operator is
"knowledgable" in the code. Heck, to someone not IN Ham radio - they could
easily assume a NO CODE tech - KNOWS code.

Memory plays a big part be it with learning CODE OR Electronics formulas.
MEMORY plays a huge part in "remembering" how to solder correctly and so on.
You have to MEMORIZE these things just like code characters - to be
proficient. Just like MEMORIZING traffic signs and so on - to get your
license to drive.
I think there is too big a deal being made here.

It comes down to - if you want to do ANYTHING - be it do morse code, drive,
parachuting, whatever - you have to MEMORIZE SOMETHING - to make it happen.

Lou/ka3flu

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

"clfe" wrote in message
...

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. ..
K4YZ wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Then why isn't knowledge of Morse code and the CW mode
sufficient? Why must someone be forced to memorize
the individual characters?

Probably, Cecil, since it would then make it difficult to pass the
test.

You missed the point. The Morse code skill exam requires
memorizing the characters. Memorizing is being condemned
as an evil act. Since memorizing is evil, the Morse code
skill exam should be the first thing to be eliminated.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

In some cases, it "could" be said that hairs are being split. To have
"knowledge" of the code - could mean basically - you know it exists and
why it is used. To "know" the Morse Code, usually refers to KNOWING the
characters sufficiently to use them at whatever speed it is you can. On
the other hand, someone who isn't involved could say - that a Ham operator
is "knowledgable" in the code. Heck, to someone not IN Ham radio - they
could easily assume a NO CODE tech - KNOWS code.

Just to clarify my point - many "assume" a Ham Operator - regardless the
license - KNOWS code. So, if a "No Code" tech simply says "I"M A HAM
OPERATOR" to someone not knowing the license class structure, the
"assumption is made. AND unless that NC tech clarifies it, the unsuspecting
person will go on in ignorance "assuming" ALL hams "know" code. Morse Code
(per my recollection) has always been and most likely - even if only in
history books - always will be known and associated with HAM RADIO.

lou

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
 

clfe wrote:
It comes down to - if you want to do ANYTHING - be it do morse code, drive,
parachuting, whatever - you have to MEMORIZE SOMETHING - to make it happen.

My point exactly! I'm not the one saying that memorizing
is evil.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp