Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

"etagg" wrote in
:

Get a life......


Get a real license.

Sc

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

funkbastler wrote in
:

On 8 Sep 2006 19:28:20 -0700, "Douche Bag"
wrote:

The hobby is dead because of all these old ham geriatrics stuck on
code. No one in the real world gives a **** about code.
Slow Code wrote:
I could support that.

SC

Code is dead - along with anything else that requires skill, practice,
or a little bit of effort.

The folks who want to do away with code should at least learn it and
try it - they might find it to be (gasp) enjoyable. Personally, I could
support doing away with no-code licensing altogether. I realize it
won't happen, but I gotta think that if I managed to learn Morse code,
then so can "they". The only thing no-code licensing accomplished in
this neck of the woods was to move the CB mentality from 11 to 2 meters.


There is no arguing that. KB9RQZ is living proof.

SC

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Only if the buggy whip conveys useful information to the "horseless carrage"
as it did in the case of the horse.

As CW still conveys information as it did in the beginnings of radio the
anology does not hold water...

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
om...
funkbastler wrote:
... I gotta think that if I managed to learn Morse code, then so
can "they".

I'm sure that drivers licenses applicants can
learn to use buggy whips on their horseless
carriages, but should they be required to?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Fred Hambrecht wrote:
Only if the buggy whip conveys useful information to the "horseless carrage"
as it did in the case of the horse.

We could probably modify vehicles to respond to
lashes from a buggy whip and eliminate the
accelerator.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 21:12:44 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:

funkbastler wrote:
... I gotta think that if I managed to learn Morse code, then so
can "they".

I'm sure that drivers licenses applicants can
learn to use buggy whips on their horseless
carriages, but should they be required to?

No, but it darned sure wouldn't hurt to make sure they could drive
something with a standard transmission. Never know when the ol'
grind-o-crunch automatic is gonna give out and ya has to use
something more reliable.

--
-fb-

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 22:19:21 GMT, Slow Code wrote:



There is no arguing that. KB9RQZ is living proof.


Well, I don't know KB9RQZ - but I'll say thay he's entitled to have
and express his opinions, same as you and I, whether you or I agree
with him or not.

Y'all try to stay away from the ad hominem stuff now - it never convinces
anybody of anything. Just ****es 'em off.

--
-fb-

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

In article ,
says...
On 8 Sep 2006 19:28:20 -0700, "Douche Bag"
wrote:

The hobby is dead because of all these old ham geriatrics stuck on
code. No one in the real world gives a **** about code.
Slow Code wrote:
I could support that.

SC

Code is dead - along with anything else that requires skill, practice, or
a little bit of effort.

The folks who want to do away with code should at least learn it and
try it - they might find it to be (gasp) enjoyable. Personally, I could
support doing away with no-code licensing altogether. I realize it won't
happen, but I gotta think that if I managed to learn Morse code, then so
can "they". The only thing no-code licensing accomplished in this neck of
the woods was to move the CB mentality from 11 to 2 meters.



I took the code test (novice 5WPM) back in 73 in high school, and had
the totally worthless (to me) Novice ticket for 2 years or whatever it
was. I spent a lot of time practicing CW, back then and also about 10
years ago, and can't seem to get past 7-8WPM, so I gave up on it, the
sound of it annoys me anyway. It wasn't worth the stress it caused me to
work HF. of course, since I DID pass the 5WPM test, I can be a general
now. But, the interest has passed. I have a 2M mobile and an HT, but if
I buy an HF rig, it's going to be to listen, but not to other hams,
that's as boring as it gets. If I want to hear about hip replacements,
and stuff like that, I can visit the folks at the assisted living place
my mom's in.

I don't care about HF anymore, the code requirement outlasted my
interest in HF. I wanted to be on HF from the time I was a little kid to
about age 40 or so. No longer. I have my other hobbies now, guns, PCs,
home theater, and dogs. Not much time or budget left for ham radio.

Just because you and I were forced to learn it does it mean a new ham
should. It's an obsolete mode in most respects, handy in a certain type
of emergency, but of little other use, except communicating with other
people using it. Nobody's stopping them. Nobody should have to learn it
either.

But it's funny, the people I hear, both on HF and 2M and 440 causing all
the real problems are people who didn't get a no code license,
supposedly don't have a "CB mentality", yet do many of the things you
can hear on 11 meters all the time, keying up on top of other hams,
harassing hams, ignoring calls, etc, based on their call sign timeframe
(Thinking if the ham was ticketed after xx-xx-1990 or whatever, they are
a "hamster", etc). Seems like the code makes you this way, or maybe
getting old does.

I would gladly take the "CB mentality" over the stuff the so-called
"good hams" pull.

BDK

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

funkbastler wrote:
No, but it darned sure wouldn't hurt to make sure they could drive
something with a standard transmission.

Would you have 1000 people learn to drive a standard
transmission even though only one person out of those
1000 people benefits from it? The cost/benefit ratio
is extremely high.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:47:59 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:

funkbastler wrote:
No, but it darned sure wouldn't hurt to make sure they could drive
something with a standard transmission.

Would you have 1000 people learn to drive a standard
transmission even though only one person out of those
1000 people benefits from it? The cost/benefit ratio
is extremely high.

(I'll go ya one better - make EVERYBODY drive a standard - or a Harley -
and save some oil. Outlaw automatics!)

Ok then - same goes for satellite communications, fast/slow scan
television, packet, EME, and so on. Lots of applicants will never
use those modes, but the questions are on the test, so you
better learn the material.

K2FRD (I think) proposed what I thought was the best solution to
the Morse code issue - keep it as part of the test, but don't
keep it as a show-stopper. I think it would be fair, at least for
the higher grade licenses, to throw it in there with all the other
modes you may never use.... have it on the test, let the applicant
earn some points from it if they can, but don't send 'em home
disappointed if they don't.

--
-fb-

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. net...
funkbastler wrote:
No, but it darned sure wouldn't hurt to make sure they could drive
something with a standard transmission.

Would you have 1000 people learn to drive a standard
transmission even though only one person out of those
1000 people benefits from it? The cost/benefit ratio
is extremely high.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Someone skilled in driving a vehicle with a manual transmission and actually
using it can reap a number of performance benefits. These include improved
gas mileage, better passing performance, better performance in hilly
terrain, etc. If people were required to learn how to drive vehicles with
manual transmissions, more of them might actually choose to drive such
vehicles.

Dee, N8UZE