K4YZ wrote:
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
just reposted for yur edifaction

On 2006-08-03, Cecil Moore wrote:

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.

Are you trying to confuse the issue by using logic?
The (no)morse issue is nothing other than a purely emotional thing.

FWIW - I took the test, I passed it (barely), I used it twice. AlMost all
of my contacts are either 20m psk31 or 6m ssb.

--
Alex/AB2RC

The term "lid" may have originated from newbie Morse operators
laying a lid on top of the relay receiver to make it easier to
distinguish the dots from the dashes.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

My mother told me stories of learning morse code this way when she worked
for the railroad. She then taught me morse code this way. For twenty yeasrs
after that I always wanted to be a ham and finally got m ylicense at about
age 35. I was fairly active for about 8 years and pretty much lost interest
when my daughter was born. In the last couple of years I have been
sporatially interested again but their alaways seems to be little projects
and interest that pull me away from it.

When I first went to work at tmy present job almost every tech that worked
there was a ham. Just about all of them retired within a few years and nnd
only a couple are still active on the ham bands. They pretty much all say
that they just dont have time for it anymore. This is where ham radio is
going, It is losing out to living.

I havent gotten totally out of it yet and am occasionally involed. Usually
working on an antenna project thinking I will become active again. I have
been asked to assist some girl scouts in getting badges but I am having a
lot of trouble finding scouts that are interested although the requirements
are very minimal

"Jimmie D" wrote in
:


The term "lid" may have originated from newbie Morse operators
laying a lid on top of the relay receiver to make it easier to
distinguish the dots from the dashes.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

My mother told me stories of learning morse code this way when she
worked for the railroad. She then taught me morse code this way. For
twenty yeasrs after that I always wanted to be a ham and finally got m
ylicense at about age 35. I was fairly active for about 8 years and
pretty much lost interest when my daughter was born. In the last couple
of years I have been sporatially interested again but their alaways
seems to be little projects and interest that pull me away from it.

When I first went to work at tmy present job almost every tech that
worked there was a ham. Just about all of them retired within a few
years and nnd only a couple are still active on the ham bands. They
pretty much all say that they just dont have time for it anymore. This
is where ham radio is going, It is losing out to living.

I havent gotten totally out of it yet and am occasionally involed.
Usually working on an antenna project thinking I will become active
again. I have been asked to assist some girl scouts in getting badges
but I am having a lot of trouble finding scouts that are interested
although the requirements are very minimal



Yes. That's understandable. Hams these days don't want to act like hams,
they like to be appliance operators. So kids don't see that CW is
important and fun. All they see is hams gabbing on a microphone like any
CB'er can do.

SC

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:35:11 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

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.

No, you're the one misrepresenting "memorizing answers, as opposed to
memorization per se, is wrong" means "memorizing is evil".

Al Klein wrote:
No, you're the one misrepresenting "memorizing answers, as opposed to
memorization per se, is wrong" means "memorizing is evil".

How the heck can someone know that the ohm is the unit
of resistance without memorizing it? How can you possibly
develop Ohm's family name from first principles? I
memorized the ARRL License Manual in the early 1950's
in order to obtain my first two amateur radio licenses.
Memorizing license manuals is absolutely nothing new.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
t...
Al Klein wrote:
No, you're the one misrepresenting "memorizing answers, as opposed to
memorization per se, is wrong" means "memorizing is evil".

How the heck can someone know that the ohm is the unit
of resistance without memorizing it? How can you possibly
develop Ohm's family name from first principles? I
memorized the ARRL License Manual in the early 1950's
in order to obtain my first two amateur radio licenses.
Memorizing license manuals is absolutely nothing new.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

I "may" be going out on a limb here but I THINK I may have figured out what
Al Klein is speaking of - possibly misrepresenting his line of thinking in
the scope of things - thus causing the confusion.

I THINK his idea of memorization or what he is referring to is as such -
lets say you have someone who wants to pass their ham exam. They buy a
manual and instead of reading the damned thing to LEARN the ins and outs of
ham radio, applicable theory, rules, regulations and so on - they simply try
to memorize each answer which is shown as the right answer - merely by A, B,
C or D. Some clown I knew, tried this - he didn't take into account that the
tests were not always in that order - when it came to the answers.

Am I correct Mr. Klein?

lou/ka3flu

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 12:49:46 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
No, you're the one misrepresenting "memorizing answers, as opposed to
memorization per se, is wrong" means "memorizing is evil".

How the heck can someone know that the ohm is the unit
of resistance without memorizing it?

That's exactly what I mean. You're misrepresenting "memorizing that
the answer to the question about the resistor with the orange band is
10,000 ohms" is the same as "memorizing the color code".

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 08:58:19 -0400, "clfe"
wrote:

I THINK his idea of memorization or what he is referring to is as such -
lets say you have someone who wants to pass their ham exam. They buy a
manual and instead of reading the damned thing to LEARN the ins and outs of
ham radio, applicable theory, rules, regulations and so on - they simply try
to memorize each answer which is shown as the right answer - merely by A, B,
C or D. Some clown I knew, tried this - he didn't take into account that the
tests were not always in that order - when it came to the answers.

Am I correct Mr. Klein?

To paraphrase Maxwell Smart, you're thiiiiis close. Substitute "the
correct answer to each question" for "A, B ..." and you've got it.
Some things have to be memorized - you can't, as Cecil tells us,
derive laws from first principles - but there's a difference between
"the answer to the question about the oscillator is the .001ufd
capacitor" and learning the basics of a Twin-T circuit.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:26:51 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Since memorizing is evil, the Morse code
skill exam should be the first thing to be eliminated.
--

------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------

Second thing. English has to go first.

Bill, W6WRT