|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
From: Jimmie D on Tues, Oct 17 2006 7:46 pm
wrote in message From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote: no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so stpupid The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW requirement. The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976, 30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago). The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago. "Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM for all such tests happened only 6 years ago. The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just 3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K per year ever since] I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above. When I ask technical people about why they haven't acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement as a response. Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio- electronics for over a half century, I DO know some "technical people." :-) Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio as a communications medium. The technology of early radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed. On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it possible to communicate. Morse code was then already mature and a new branch of communications was open to use by downsized landline telegraphers. They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the face of modern telecommunications. PART of that IS true. NOT all of it. What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy. Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes. Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional" radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70 years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND they are pros in front of their ham rigs. But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz. That can be a very different RF environment, much much different than the technology available in the 20s and 30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple technological environment. Let's face it.. the romance is gone. Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes, it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago. The solid-state era came into being about 45 years ago and has revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that). Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the analog VFO, GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver, GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, GONE is the not- knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable item that can be found by a computer program). Except for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE for nearly everything but high-power transmitters. The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of 1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing, advancing, the state of the art never static. For the stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their youth, "CW." But, they want to make sure They get the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR level...the code test MUST stay..."because." There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the cellular telephones. There are millions of VHF and UHF transceivers in the USA, working daily for public safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as well as private airplanes. There are tens of thousands of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being everyone from government agencies to private boat owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Where is the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes. But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there. This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't be legislated into remaining static. The rules and regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW. Total agreement here, our obligation of service to to earn our privlegdes doesnt end with what we have done but with what we have done lately. Sorry, but I see absolutely NO "obligation to perform some service [to the nation or community]." That is one of the myths promulgated by the ARRL and its followers. The word "service" used by the FCC all throughout Title 47 C.F.R., all Parts, is a regulatory term referring to a type and kind of radio activity being regulated. [see Citizens Band Radio SERVICE or Radio Control Radio SERVICE as two examples in Part 95] Also, as Cecil Moore mentioned, the government is doing its citizens a service, NOT the other way around. If an individual WANTS to VOLUNTARILY perform some service, then excellent. There is NO "obligation" to do so unless there is some law requiring it. Personally, I think all citizens of the USA should do at least one term of Jury Service. In California there is a state law that eligible citizens shall serve, for a time and times as stated by law. [I've done five terms of Jury Service here] Anyone who WANTS to voluntarily sit in on a court is allowed to (with some special conditions not permitting certain trials). Those spectators are NOT obligated to do so. USA amateur radio service is a VOLUNTARY activity. It is an avocation, not an occupation. In other words it is a HOBBY. It's a fine hobby, tens of thousands of citizens engaged in it. But, it is still a HOBBY. It is NOT "essential" for the good of the nation. It is high time that everyone quit dreaming about imaginary glory of "serving the community" through amateur radio...time to look at what it IS in the real world. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
Not dropped here.
Even 9 year olds can learn the code. Barry OGrady wrote: Not since it was dropped completly 3 years ago. Barry ===== Home page http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
"Mark in the Dark" wrote in
: On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:58:09 -0400, Dave wrote: Not dropped here. Even 9 year olds can learn the code. some can maening it is worhtless and unneeded for the rest Eliminating CW will let in more people like 'Mark in the Dark'. That won't be good for the rest of us if we enjoy having good intelligent QSO's. SC |
Is the no code license letting really stupid people in to ham radio?
wrote in :
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:58:09 -0400, Dave wrote: Not dropped here. Even 9 year olds can learn the code. some can maening it is worhtless and unneeded for the rest Barry OGrady wrote: Not since it was dropped completly 3 years ago. Barry ===== Home page http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ It let Mark in the Dark in. SC |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
Slow Code wrote:
It didnt keep you out |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:28:34 -0400, Dave spake
thusly: wrote: On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:58:09 -0400, Dave wrote: Not dropped here. Even 9 year olds can learn the code. some can maening it is worhtless and unneeded for the rest Barry OGrady wrote: Not since it was dropped completly 3 years ago. "Worthless and Unneeded"? That was NOT the question!! Learn to answer the question! READ THE SUBJECT LINE. No one asked whether it is useful, it absolutely is, the question is: is it "keeping good people out of ham radio?" NOPE!!! Sorry, but I can say for an absolute fact that your 're wrong. It had kept me out of ham radio and I know exactly what kind of person that I am. And before the obligatory "lazy" word is trotted out, I have to work for the pay cheque that buys the radio, pays the rent for the building that the radio is in and pays for the tower that is in the back yard. I have to work extra to pay MORE for a place where I am allowed a tower, as opposed to less expensive digs. Honestly, I can't believe how some pro-coders look down on no-coders with such contempt. I was once a member of a "live steam" model railroad club. These were larger model steam trains that ran with real steam instead of electric power. They could be run with either propane or coal, depending on the individual. The guys who built their locomotives from scratch NEVER looked down on the guys who bought theirs from a classified ad. The guys burning coal did NOT call the propane guys "lazy". We all enjoyed a fine hobby and club meetings were always good fun and most informative. It was great for a mechanic, like myself, to rub shoulders with experienced retired machinists who built these locomotives. At one of our "open houses", which were located outdoors at the club track, my daughter took her first steps. Isn't ham radio supposed to be like that? Is there no camaraderie? |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
"Opus-" wrote in message ... [snip] Sorry, but I can say for an absolute fact that your 're wrong. It had kept me out of ham radio and I know exactly what kind of person that I am. And before the obligatory "lazy" word is trotted out, I have to work for the pay cheque that buys the radio, pays the rent for the building that the radio is in and pays for the tower that is in the back yard. I have to work extra to pay MORE for a place where I am allowed a tower, as opposed to less expensive digs. Honestly, I can't believe how some pro-coders look down on no-coders with such contempt. I was once a member of a "live steam" model railroad club. These were larger model steam trains that ran with real steam instead of electric power. They could be run with either propane or coal, depending on the individual. The guys who built their locomotives from scratch NEVER looked down on the guys who bought theirs from a classified ad. The guys burning coal did NOT call the propane guys "lazy". We all enjoyed a fine hobby and club meetings were always good fun and most informative. It was great for a mechanic, like myself, to rub shoulders with experienced retired machinists who built these locomotives. At one of our "open houses", which were located outdoors at the club track, my daughter took her first steps. Isn't ham radio supposed to be like that? Is there no camaraderie? Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to help each other. The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or understanding of the requirements. In addition, most of us have experienced people who said they could not learn code but upon questioning find that they did not use a good training method and did not train correctly. Yet when they decided they were tired of waiting did learn it and got their upgrade. Then finding out how useful it was in ham pursuits were glad that they had done it. So far of each of the reasons that people put forth as to why they can't learn it have been disproven by the example of other people with the same problem having gone ahead and done it. The 5wpm level is obtainable although some of the problem do make faster speeds a problem (constant tinnitus may be a severe problem at 20 wpm for example). My ex-OM had 70% hearing loss in both ears and severe tinnitus. He passed the 5wpm. I know people with dyslexia who have passed. The blind have passed. Even the deaf have passed using flashing lights or vibrating pads. Do you have competitions in your model railroading activity? If you enter that competition, you all have to follow the published rules with no exceptions. If it is a competition for the "homebrewers", then those who don't do so can enjoy viewing them but they cannot enter into the competition. Dee, N8UZE |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
Dee Flint wrote:
The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or understanding of the requirements. Speaking as a ham licensed for 50+ years, I would say a lot of the divisiveness stems from coded hams trying to substitute Morse code skill for technical knowledge and intelligence. Ham#1: "I've got a PhD in RF Engineering." Ham#2: "Who cares, I flunked out of high school but I can do 40 wpm at Morse code. So there!" Eliminate the code requirement and triple the difficulty of the technical exams. Problem solved. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message t... Dee Flint wrote: The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or understanding of the requirements. Speaking as a ham licensed for 50+ years, I would say a lot of the divisiveness stems from coded hams trying to substitute Morse code skill for technical knowledge and intelligence. Ham#1: "I've got a PhD in RF Engineering." Ham#2: "Who cares, I flunked out of high school but I can do 40 wpm at Morse code. So there!" Eliminate the code requirement and triple the difficulty of the technical exams. Problem solved. Nope, won't solve the problem. The solution is to accept people as true hams that passed the exams existing at the time they were licensed. PERIOD!! Dee, N8UZE |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
What lie??
No-coders are missing a major portion of the HR experience. That is NOT a lie! It is a fact. Example: you can call yourself a marine two days after enlistment. But, you become a Marine after completion of basic training! The commitment to success through a period of trial and learning makes the Marine not the uniform. No-coders have enlisted in the hobby. But, ... wrote: On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:47:14 -0400, "Dee Flint" wrote: "Opus-" wrote in message . .. [snip] Sorry, but I can say for an absolute fact that your 're wrong. It had kept me out of ham radio and I know exactly what kind of person that I am. And before the obligatory "lazy" word is trotted out, I have to work for the pay cheque that buys the radio, pays the rent for the building that the radio is in and pays for the tower that is in the back yard. I have to work extra to pay MORE for a place where I am allowed a tower, as opposed to less expensive digs. Honestly, I can't believe how some pro-coders look down on no-coders with such contempt. I was once a member of a "live steam" model railroad club. These were larger model steam trains that ran with real steam instead of electric power. They could be run with either propane or coal, depending on the individual. The guys who built their locomotives from scratch NEVER looked down on the guys who bought theirs from a classified ad. The guys burning coal did NOT call the propane guys "lazy". We all enjoyed a fine hobby and club meetings were always good fun and most informative. It was great for a mechanic, like myself, to rub shoulders with experienced retired machinists who built these locomotives. At one of our "open houses", which were located outdoors at the club track, my daughter took her first steps. Isn't ham radio supposed to be like that? Is there no camaraderie? Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to help each other. The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or understanding of the requirements. back to lying about the motives and knowledge of the NoCoders again DEE http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Dave wrote: What lie?? No-coders are missing a major portion of the HR experience. That is NOT a lie! It is a fact. have you done EME or FS-ATV? or used ham radio ofor RC or enaged in metor scater contacts OTOH you are lying all Nocode test persons don't use code is imlied by your statement. Indeed I one of the stauchest nocoders have explored it. I am missing nothing it is like the compliants I heard in my youth about membrane keyboards it was said that you can't toauch type with em, well that only apllies if you can touch type in the first place |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
"an_old_friend" wrote in message ups.com... Dave wrote: What lie?? No-coders are missing a major portion of the HR experience. That is NOT a lie! It is a fact. have you done EME or FS-ATV? or used ham radio ofor RC or enaged in metor scater contacts OTOH you are lying all Nocode test persons don't use code is imlied by your statement. Indeed I one of the stauchest nocoders have explored it. I am missing nothing it is like the compliants I heard in my youth about membrane keyboards it was said that you can't toauch type with em, well that only apllies if you can touch type in the first place .... Hey, Lone Ranger. I'm up on 20 meters right now. Care to join me? Oh, wait. You can't. You're too busy making "scater" contacts. I guess you really do talk scat. Ho hum. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
an_old_friend wrote:
Dave wrote: What lie?? No-coders are missing a major portion of the HR experience. That is NOT a lie! It is a fact. have you done EME or FS-ATV? or used ham radio ofor RC or enaged in metor scater contacts OTOH you are lying all Nocode test persons don't use code is imlied by your statement. Indeed I one of the stauchest nocoders have explored it. I am missing nothing it is like the compliants I heard in my youth about membrane keyboards it was said that you can't toauch type with em, well that only apllies if you can touch type in the first place I have not experienced EME or FS-ATV or a great many other areas of amateur radio but I have done CW. I don't do it anymore but I have experienced it. CW is the one mode that can get through under almost any condition. You can (I can't anyway) copy CW in the middle of a thunder storm, using the Aurora as a reflector, using meteor ionization trails as a reflector or just direct point to point contact to accomplish this. Try that with FM, AM, SSB voice or digital. The problem with this and similar threads is a number of individuals do not feel that they need to learn CW because they don't intend to use it. A person of "Quality" may never need the proper etiquette to greet the Queen but you had better know how to be considered as such a person. Dave N. WD9BDZ |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:23:50 -0400, Dave spake
thusly: What lie?? It's not a lie that code has kept good people out of ham radio. No-coders are missing a major portion of the HR experience. That is NOT a lie! It is a fact. It's too easy to find hams that know code, used code and hated it. Example: you can call yourself a marine two days after enlistment. But, you become a Marine after completion of basic training! The commitment to success through a period of trial and learning makes the Marine not the uniform. Poor analogy. The Marines NEED harsh training to be able to do their difficult jobs properly as lives and the nation depend on them. The training is not a test of commitment, it is a harsh reality. Ham radio is just a hobby. No-coders have enlisted in the hobby. But, ... Did you not read my last post? It's right below. The guys who built their own locomotives did NOT go up to the guys who bought theirs and say "You are not a real model steam train operator!!!" It's just a hobby. wrote: On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:47:14 -0400, "Dee Flint" wrote: "Opus-" wrote in message ... [snip] Sorry, but I can say for an absolute fact that your 're wrong. It had kept me out of ham radio and I know exactly what kind of person that I am. And before the obligatory "lazy" word is trotted out, I have to work for the pay cheque that buys the radio, pays the rent for the building that the radio is in and pays for the tower that is in the back yard. I have to work extra to pay MORE for a place where I am allowed a tower, as opposed to less expensive digs. Honestly, I can't believe how some pro-coders look down on no-coders with such contempt. I was once a member of a "live steam" model railroad club. These were larger model steam trains that ran with real steam instead of electric power. They could be run with either propane or coal, depending on the individual. The guys who built their locomotives from scratch NEVER looked down on the guys who bought theirs from a classified ad. The guys burning coal did NOT call the propane guys "lazy". We all enjoyed a fine hobby and club meetings were always good fun and most informative. It was great for a mechanic, like myself, to rub shoulders with experienced retired machinists who built these locomotives. At one of our "open houses", which were located outdoors at the club track, my daughter took her first steps. Isn't ham radio supposed to be like that? Is there no camaraderie? Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to help each other. The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or understanding of the requirements. back to lying about the motives and knowledge of the NoCoders again DEE http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ |
Lloyd Davies NOVFP brags about being a bootlegger no code on 20 meters
Lloyd Davies NOVFP posing as"Not Lloyd" anon@anon wrote in message ... Hey, Lone Ranger. I'm up on 20 meters right now. Care to join me? Oh, wait. You can't. You can't either, legally, lardass lloyd-tard. http://i14.tinypic.com/2iqgw3p.jpg |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 10:54:45 -0400, "Dee Flint"
spake thusly: "Cecil Moore" wrote in message et... Dee Flint wrote: The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or understanding of the requirements. Speaking as a ham licensed for 50+ years, I would say a lot of the divisiveness stems from coded hams trying to substitute Morse code skill for technical knowledge and intelligence. Ham#1: "I've got a PhD in RF Engineering." Ham#2: "Who cares, I flunked out of high school but I can do 40 wpm at Morse code. So there!" Eliminate the code requirement and triple the difficulty of the technical exams. Problem solved. Nope, won't solve the problem. The solution is to accept people as true hams that passed the exams existing at the time they were licensed. PERIOD!! The solution is to accept the people who are licensed, regardless of weather or not you agree with the test method. My dad got his drivers license back in 1943 with NO test at all! They just asked him "Are you blind?" He said "No" and the response was "That will be $1 please". I got my license in 1978 and I had to take driver training and pass 2 tests. According to some of the pro-code logic here, I should walk up to him and tell him that he is not a real driver and that I am better at driving than him. That would go over like a lead balloon. |
Mark Morgan is a retard
wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 17:30:27 -0400, "Lloyd Davies Slappa" wrote: and remains one no matter whose id is being stolen http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ Get back to being led around by Lloyd Davies, you clueless retard. You have to be the easiest play on the net. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:47:14 -0400, "Dee Flint"
spake thusly: "Opus-" wrote in message .. . [snip] Sorry, but I can say for an absolute fact that your 're wrong. It had kept me out of ham radio and I know exactly what kind of person that I am. And before the obligatory "lazy" word is trotted out, I have to work for the pay cheque that buys the radio, pays the rent for the building that the radio is in and pays for the tower that is in the back yard. I have to work extra to pay MORE for a place where I am allowed a tower, as opposed to less expensive digs. Honestly, I can't believe how some pro-coders look down on no-coders with such contempt. I was once a member of a "live steam" model railroad club. These were larger model steam trains that ran with real steam instead of electric power. They could be run with either propane or coal, depending on the individual. The guys who built their locomotives from scratch NEVER looked down on the guys who bought theirs from a classified ad. The guys burning coal did NOT call the propane guys "lazy". We all enjoyed a fine hobby and club meetings were always good fun and most informative. It was great for a mechanic, like myself, to rub shoulders with experienced retired machinists who built these locomotives. At one of our "open houses", which were located outdoors at the club track, my daughter took her first steps. Isn't ham radio supposed to be like that? Is there no camaraderie? Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to help each other. The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or understanding of the requirements. In addition, most of us have experienced people who said they could not learn code but upon questioning find that they did not use a good training method and did not train correctly. Yet when they decided they were tired of waiting did learn it and got their upgrade. Then finding out how useful it was in ham pursuits were glad that they had done it. That does NOT justify the snot-nosed attitude. So far of each of the reasons that people put forth as to why they can't learn it have been disproven by the example of other people with the same problem having gone ahead and done it. The 5wpm level is obtainable although some of the problem do make faster speeds a problem (constant tinnitus may be a severe problem at 20 wpm for example). My ex-OM had 70% hearing loss in both ears and severe tinnitus. He passed the 5wpm. I know people with dyslexia who have passed. The blind have passed. Even the deaf have passed using flashing lights or vibrating pads. Bravo for them. But that does not explain why some pro-coders are such snot-rags. Do you have competitions in your model railroading activity? If you enter that competition, you all have to follow the published rules with no exceptions. If it is a competition for the "homebrewers", then those who don't do so can enjoy viewing them but they cannot enter into the competition. No competitions, just a bunch of guys who like live steam model trains. The club did not exist for that. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:39:24 GMT, Opus- spake thusly:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 10:54:45 -0400, "Dee Flint" spake thusly: "Cecil Moore" wrote in message . net... Dee Flint wrote: The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or understanding of the requirements. Speaking as a ham licensed for 50+ years, I would say a lot of the divisiveness stems from coded hams trying to substitute Morse code skill for technical knowledge and intelligence. Ham#1: "I've got a PhD in RF Engineering." Ham#2: "Who cares, I flunked out of high school but I can do 40 wpm at Morse code. So there!" Eliminate the code requirement and triple the difficulty of the technical exams. Problem solved. Nope, won't solve the problem. The solution is to accept people as true hams that passed the exams existing at the time they were licensed. PERIOD!! The solution is to accept the people who are licensed, regardless of weather or not you agree with the test method. My dad got his drivers license back in 1943 with NO test at all! They just asked him "Are you blind?" He said "No" and the response was "That will be $1 please". I got my license in 1978 and I had to take driver training and pass 2 tests. According to some of the pro-code logic here, I should walk up to him and tell him that he is not a real driver and that I am better at driving than him. That would go over like a lead balloon. I forgot to mention that my dad has had a perfect driving record, not one ticket in 63 years. [yes, I did ask him] As for me, I have been known to fracture a traffic law or two. I ended up paying a hefty price for that but my record is clean now. So, you see, lack of testing did not make my dad a bad driver while training and testing did not make me a good driver [at least not back in my teen years]. But then, I am a mechanic and I can rebuild a transmission in my back yard and you're not a real driver if you can't. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
Opus- wrote:
... that does not explain why some pro-coders are such snot-rags. It is usually because they don't have a clue technically and base their entire level of self esteem on skill in an obsolete mode. Kicking out all the people with an IQ of less than 110 out of amateur radio would probably solve the whole problem. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Opus- wrote in
: On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:23:50 -0400, Dave spake thusly: What lie?? It's not a lie that code has kept good people out of ham radio. Whaaaaaaaaa! SC |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
"Slow Code" wrote in message hlink.net... Opus- wrote in : On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:23:50 -0400, Dave spake thusly: What lie?? It's not a lie that code has kept good people out of ham radio. Whaaaaaaaaa! SC It is obvious that it hasn't kept unpleasant people out of Amateur Radio.. Harold KD5SAK |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
"Opus-" wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 10:54:45 -0400, "Dee Flint" spake thusly: "Cecil Moore" wrote in message . net... Dee Flint wrote: The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or understanding of the requirements. Speaking as a ham licensed for 50+ years, I would say a lot of the divisiveness stems from coded hams trying to substitute Morse code skill for technical knowledge and intelligence. Ham#1: "I've got a PhD in RF Engineering." Ham#2: "Who cares, I flunked out of high school but I can do 40 wpm at Morse code. So there!" Eliminate the code requirement and triple the difficulty of the technical exams. Problem solved. Nope, won't solve the problem. The solution is to accept people as true hams that passed the exams existing at the time they were licensed. PERIOD!! The solution is to accept the people who are licensed, regardless of weather or not you agree with the test method. Which is exactly what I said. My dad got his drivers license back in 1943 with NO test at all! They just asked him "Are you blind?" He said "No" and the response was "That will be $1 please". I got my license in 1978 and I had to take driver training and pass 2 tests. According to some of the pro-code logic here, I should walk up to him and tell him that he is not a real driver and that I am better at driving than him. That would go over like a lead balloon. Not according to my logic. He met the requirements of the time and you have met the requirements of yours. Dee |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
"Opus-" wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:47:14 -0400, "Dee Flint" spake thusly: "Opus-" wrote in message . .. [snip] Sorry, but I can say for an absolute fact that your 're wrong. It had kept me out of ham radio and I know exactly what kind of person that I am. And before the obligatory "lazy" word is trotted out, I have to work for the pay cheque that buys the radio, pays the rent for the building that the radio is in and pays for the tower that is in the back yard. I have to work extra to pay MORE for a place where I am allowed a tower, as opposed to less expensive digs. Honestly, I can't believe how some pro-coders look down on no-coders with such contempt. I was once a member of a "live steam" model railroad club. These were larger model steam trains that ran with real steam instead of electric power. They could be run with either propane or coal, depending on the individual. The guys who built their locomotives from scratch NEVER looked down on the guys who bought theirs from a classified ad. The guys burning coal did NOT call the propane guys "lazy". We all enjoyed a fine hobby and club meetings were always good fun and most informative. It was great for a mechanic, like myself, to rub shoulders with experienced retired machinists who built these locomotives. At one of our "open houses", which were located outdoors at the club track, my daughter took her first steps. Isn't ham radio supposed to be like that? Is there no camaraderie? Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to help each other. The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or understanding of the requirements. In addition, most of us have experienced people who said they could not learn code but upon questioning find that they did not use a good training method and did not train correctly. Yet when they decided they were tired of waiting did learn it and got their upgrade. Then finding out how useful it was in ham pursuits were glad that they had done it. That does NOT justify the snot-nosed attitude. No it doesn't but there are a lot of "better than thou" types in all areas of human endeavor. Ignore them or you'll drive yourself nuts. So far of each of the reasons that people put forth as to why they can't learn it have been disproven by the example of other people with the same problem having gone ahead and done it. The 5wpm level is obtainable although some of the problem do make faster speeds a problem (constant tinnitus may be a severe problem at 20 wpm for example). My ex-OM had 70% hearing loss in both ears and severe tinnitus. He passed the 5wpm. I know people with dyslexia who have passed. The blind have passed. Even the deaf have passed using flashing lights or vibrating pads. Bravo for them. But that does not explain why some pro-coders are such snot-rags. As I said, human nature has a lot of negative aspects no matter what the activity. All one can do is ignore it and do their personal best. Do you have competitions in your model railroading activity? If you enter that competition, you all have to follow the published rules with no exceptions. If it is a competition for the "homebrewers", then those who don't do so can enjoy viewing them but they cannot enter into the competition. No competitions, just a bunch of guys who like live steam model trains. The club did not exist for that. Still my point is that when there are rules, one is obliged to follow them whether they like them or not. Dee, N8UZE |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Opus- wrote: ... that does not explain why some pro-coders are such snot-rags. It is usually because they don't have a clue technically and base their entire level of self esteem on skill in an obsolete mode. Kicking out all the people with an IQ of less than 110 out of amateur radio would probably solve the whole problem. Not hardly. A couple of the most obnoxious people I know rate as geniuses on IQ tests. Brain power and social graces are independent attributes. Dee, N8UZE |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am
"Opus-" wrote in message [snip] Sorry, but I can say for an absolute fact that your 're wrong. It had kept me out of ham radio and I know exactly what kind of person that I am. And before the obligatory "lazy" word is trotted out, I have to work for the pay cheque that buys the radio, pays the rent for the building that the radio is in and pays for the tower that is in the back yard. I have to work extra to pay MORE for a place where I am allowed a tower, as opposed to less expensive digs. Honestly, I can't believe how some pro-coders look down on no-coders with such contempt. I was once a member of a "live steam" model railroad club. These were larger model steam trains that ran with real steam instead of electric power. They could be run with either propane or coal, depending on the individual. The guys who built their locomotives from scratch NEVER looked down on the guys who bought theirs from a classified ad. The guys burning coal did NOT call the propane guys "lazy". We all enjoyed a fine hobby and club meetings were always good fun and most informative. It was great for a mechanic, like myself, to rub shoulders with experienced retired machinists who built these locomotives. At one of our "open houses", which were located outdoors at the club track, my daughter took her first steps. Isn't ham radio supposed to be like that? Is there no camaraderie? Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to help each other. Then why don't they? The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or understanding of the requirements. Nonsense. Pro-coders do NOT have some "lock" on What The Requirements Should Be. They never did, despite all the pro-code propaganda drilled into your respective psyches. It should be quite obvious that every other radio service has either given up on using morse code for communications or never considered it in the first place. Manual radio- telegraphy has only a slight advantage in communications with other amateurs using radiotelegraphy who do not speak English. Note: Nowhere in the "requirements" (Title 47 C.F.R. Part 97 for US radio amateurs) is it mandatory for US amateurs to communicate with foreigners. NB: Non-English speakers using International Morse Code are, essentially, required to learn parts of English to understand the English alphabet (difficult if their native language is syllabic or has a different alphabet). The ITU-R "requirements" (Radio Regulations) no longer "require" administrations to test ALL their amateurs for any license having below-30-MHz privileges. The major (in population) nation administrations have dropped their morse code testing or substitute other tests in lieu of morse code. Since some of those nations do not have English as a primary language, those will have some future difficulty using that (supposed "universal language" of morse code) for communications with USA radio amateurs. In addition, most of us have experienced people who said they could not learn code but upon questioning find that they did not use a good training method and did not train correctly. More overtly biased opinion...written AS IF morse code were an "absolute requirement" when it is merely an old regulatory hanger-on in USA amateur federal rules. The REGULATION (not "the requirement") for US radio amateurs is simply a man-made regulation which can be un-man-made. It is not some God-given commandment of radio. Indeed, all other US radio services operating below 30 MHz do NOT use morse code radiotelegraphy. Why should radio amateurs be held elevated to some special significance? Except for the older military-trained radiotelegraphers in US amateur radio, all the tales told (by so-called successful pro-coders) have them doing basic learning then trying out on the amateur radio bands for greater skill in radiotelegraphy. The basic fallacy of pro-coder thinking is that "all" have some innate ability to learn morse code. That has been disproven as far back as World War II when the US military began screening new recruits for the aptitude to learn morse code. That fallacy has been disproven by countless other tales of individuals who tried the so-called "good training methods" and tried to "train correctly" (even under strict supervision). Yet when they decided they were tired of waiting did learn it and got their upgrade. The "upgrade requirements" were lobbied for to emphasize morse code radiotelegraphy skill. That is history. It would have been difficult to overcome the lobbying of the ARRL towards such "upgrades through morsemanship." Yet there has been efforts by concerned radio amateurs (who have been tested to the maximum telegraphic radtes) to eliminate the morse code test entire. That is not some strict USA effort since the ITU did change international amateur Radio Regulations in 2003...under pressure from the IARU. Your sentence is written with an obvious pro-coder bias. Then finding out how useful it was in ham pursuits were glad that they had done it. Another fallacy and another pro-coder bias statement. It is obvious that many, many US radio amateurs were NOT favorites of morse radiotelegraphy and never used it after they received their first license. So far of each of the reasons that people put forth as to why they can't learn it have been disproven by the example of other people with the same problem having gone ahead and done it. Yet another fallacy and a repetition of the earlier fallacy that all US human beings are somehow able to learn morse code...provided they have some (mysterious) "attitude" adjustment in favor of radiotelegraphy as an "absolute" requirement in radio? The 5wpm level is obtainable although some of the problem do make faster speeds a problem (constant tinnitus may be a severe problem at 20 wpm for example). Then they should use "flashing lights or vibrating pads." The reduction to 5 WPM equivalent word rate was an attempt of the FCC to satisfy both the pro-morse-code-test citizens and the (ever-growing) NO-code-test advocates. It satisfied neither. My ex-OM had 70% hearing loss in both ears and severe tinnitus. He passed the 5wpm. It would seem that one of you (perhaps both) at lost the ability to understand the "I do" at your marriage ceremony? Did your "EX" pass using flashing lights or vibrating pads? I know people with dyslexia who have passed. I knew people with terminal cancer who "passed." [just not the code test] I "know people" ranging from PhD aerospace gurus to never- make-star-quality bimbo actresses and thousands of shades of personal abilities in between. I know few dyslexics. The blind have passed. I am acquainted with several blind people through the Braille Institute. None of them had any desire to learn morse code. They were thankful enough to be able to get around by themselves and be reasonably productive in life. Even the deaf have passed using flashing lights or vibrating pads. In the year that Ham Radio magazine sold out to CQ, I interviewed 11 licensed radio amateurs preparing an article for that magazine. ALL of them passed their code tests for amateur radio licenses when they could still hear. None of them "passed using flashing lights or vibrating pads." All were male. One was a practicing dentist. Do you have competitions in your model railroading activity? If you enter that competition, you all have to follow the published rules with no exceptions. Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R. does NOT manadate that US radio amateurs engage in "competition" radio activity. Federal law (Communications Act of 1934 plus the Tele- communications Act of 1996) requires ALL US radio amateurs to follow its regulations. That is NO contest nor a "competition" activity. It is merely the LAW. As with all US federal agencies, the FCC does accept citizen commentary to them regarding radio regulations. The FCC responds to Petitions submitted by US citizens in regards to those radio regulations. [however, not with blinding speeds of decision in regards to amateur radio] Nowhere does the FCC discriminate between those are already licensed in amateur radio versus those not licensed. FCC does not treat the group of already- licensed as some kind of fraternal order of the already- licensed to be listened to over and above all other interested citizens. The morse code test (for under-30-MHz operating privileges) affects the non-licensed US citizens. It does NOT affect those already legally licensed as radio amateurs...except in the limited conditions of certain already-licensed Technician classes. That code test does NOT legally affect ANY other already-licensed US radio amateur. If they say it does then they have some emotional disturbance (not a legal problem nor a regulatory problem). I know a few model railroaders. As far as I know none are into "competitions" concerning their hobby. They do it for the fun of model railroading. As a hobby, not as a substitute for life...nor advancing the state of the art in rail transport. I know many more model builders and model aircraft flyers. [I have been both] The Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) is a membership organization (about a quarter million members in the USA) with a large rule set to follow in flying model aircraft. That rule set is for both competition flying and for safety; there is special liability insurance for members of the AMA in regards to that flying activity. There is no absolute requirement to be an AMA member to enjoy model airplane flying nor is there some federal test one must take to be one. It is a hobby...yet the AMA has successfully petitioned for and gotten many radio channels expressly for model remote control. No code test nor license was required. You may read about it in Part 95, Title 47 C.F.R. under Radio Control Radio Service. "Park flyers" are free to fly models, even to radio-control them, all without being licensed by the FCC or as a member of the Academy of Model Aeronautics. Add to that the R-C cars and boats. There is a very large model hobby industry existing in the USA to provide for such hobbyists. From the size of that industry the number of modelers would easily equal the number of USA radio amateurs...if not exceeding it. Your comments in regards to "competitiveness" do not apply to US citizens seeking to change existing radio regulations in the USA, any radio service. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
|
I didn't even have to look to see who posted.
I saw it was 246 lines and I knew LenAnderson was expelling gas again. SC |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message . .. wrote: From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to help each other. Then why don't they? Because a lot of pro-coders would rather belittle no-coders than help them? More likely a knee jerk reaction to the very few but very vocal ones who try to come in and act like they know all there is to know about radio when the "ink isn't even dry on their license". It's unfortunate that the experienced hams don't have the discipline to withstand this nonsense without such knee-jerk reactions. When a new licensee (the level of license is irrelevant) tells me that you can't work DX without an amplifier, I just tell him about the countries I worked with my 100 watt radio and relatively low mount G5RV. But some hams turn bitter instead when a newbie insists that he is right and they are wrong. Dee, N8UZE |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Chris wrote: On 25 Oct 2006 17:41:08 -0700, an_old_friend wrote: wrote: forger That's "froger". F-R-O-G-E-R!!! GOT IT??????? no the word is forger that you can't even spell as well as I can |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
AYE and amen.
Dave wrote: Opus- wrote: SNIPPED I'm not, nor will I ever. If code means associating with bigots like you, then I want no part of it. Much rather talk to civilized people. Then we will gladly acknowledge that you desire to leave this NG. We don't need the profanity, the attitude and the whimpering. All in favor, say AYE! ... |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Don't you have some offs to ****?
On 25 Oct 2006 21:07:56 -0700, "vetefistest" spake thusly: AYE and amen. Dave wrote: Opus- wrote: SNIPPED I'm not, nor will I ever. If code means associating with bigots like you, then I want no part of it. Much rather talk to civilized people. Then we will gladly acknowledge that you desire to leave this NG. We don't need the profanity, the attitude and the whimpering. All in favor, say AYE! ... |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
From: "Dee Flint" on Wed, Oct 25 2006 8:25pm
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message wrote: From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to help each other. Then why don't they? Because a lot of pro-coders would rather belittle no-coders than help them? More likely a knee jerk reaction to the very few but very vocal ones who try to come in and act like they know all there is to know about radio when the "ink isn't even dry on their license". Dee, the "ink on my license" has been "dry" for 50 years. The mimeograph "ink" on my Army assignment has been "dry" for 53 years. The "ink" on my first aerospace hiring has also been "dry" for 50 years. In a half century of being radio-active, I've continually been learning, working, experimenting, trying, doing. I DO know a fair amount of things about radio and electronics but there is always something new coming up all the time. OH! You mean AMATEUR RADIO "license?" Of course. Amateur radio is so very DIFFERENT than all other kinds of radio... Riiiight...those coming into ham radio from any other kind of radio service(s) are "newbies" and "ignorant"...? Heil thinks so. Do you think so? It's unfortunate that the experienced hams don't have the discipline to withstand this nonsense without such knee-jerk reactions. Nice "knees" you have, Dee... :-) When a new licensee (the level of license is irrelevant) tells me that you can't work DX without an amplifier, I just tell him about the countries I worked with my 100 watt radio and relatively low mount G5RV. Gosh, I "worked countries" with nothing less than 1 KW output on HF and a delta-match dipole. Short-range, about 300 miles. Of course, for 24/7 ops on HF crossing the Pacific there was 40 KW PEP into a rhombic... :-) But some hams turn bitter instead when a newbie insists that he is right and they are wrong. Sugar. Try some sweetener... |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
Not Lloyd wrote:
When a new licensee (the level of license is irrelevant) tells me that you can't work DX without an amplifier, I just tell him about the countries I worked with my 100 watt radio and relatively low mount G5RV. Uhhhhh Dee, your 100 watt radio has an amplifier in it as do all modern transceivers. I have, in the past, worked DX using just an oscillator but I personally don't know of anyone who doesn't use an amplifier nowadays. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:15 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com