Jeff Renkin wrote in message
Don't change the subject, the point here is that you are not given code privileges
with an HF license as is PROVEN by the fact that a tech class ham can also use code
legally on VHF. Therefore, your statement is false.

Yea, right, it's false. Treaty included VHF and above. Right. You do
need to get a grip. MK

I can see why you may have a problem with CW, I too would abhor another
language that required me to spell...

"CW" wrote in message
news:Tjijb.777617$YN5.761156@sccrnsc01...
Code will be eeiminated. Garanteed. Deal with it.

We had to learn morse code to advance in Boy Scouts. I remember thinking we
were all pretty sharp signalling each other with flashlights at campouts.
Then, our scoutmaster (who was a HAM) let us hear some of the code on his
rig. Those guys were FAST.

-- Stinger

"Mark Keith" wrote in message
om...
Jeff Renkin wrote in message
...
Actually the lowering of the speed has NOTHING to do with it. If
you ARE going to
learn the code, it makes more sense to learn it at the fastest speed
right away. If
you learn it at 5 wpm, it makes it much harder later to go faster
with it.

Nope, it doesn't.

Do a search on Farnsworth Method.

Why would I need to do that. A friend of mine actually knew and talked
to the guy when he was alive. I don't need to search anything. What
makes you think that your comments about learning CW hold any weight
with me, if you can barely make out an SOS? Get a grip...I'm probably
in the upper 90-95% bracket as far as CW users. I think I have a
fairly good grip on the best methods of learning and using code. The
farnsworth method is bad news to anyone that plans to actually use the
code on the air. It promotes poor timing. MK

Code will be eliminated. All the arguments in the world will not change
that. Get over it.

"

Jeff Renkin wrote in message ...
It doesn't really bother me. The only bummer part is there will be
fewer and fewer CW ops in the next years.

Not once the code requirement is dropped. You will see the opposite, MORE CW
will be on the bands.

Right...When they started novices on 10m fone, the use of code on the
other HF novice bands dropped 50% overnight. When they started the no
code tech, the use dropped even farther. Like I said the other day,
whatever it is that you are using, send me some. I want to become
delusional and bark at the moon also. MK

"Jeff Renkin" wrote in message
...

Try to send an email with handwriting on a piece of paper. Perhaps you
should post to these groups with handwriting too.


Try to send a court summons and a multitude of other legal documents via
email. Both methods of communication have their place.

Wow, what bull**** talk. It is the people who find code so easy to
learn
that have the problems with the theory and technical stuff, so they can't
design
or invent anything. And so many of the engineers that do design the
technology we use, are not allowed to operate hobby ham radios on certain
frequencies because they don't know morse code. Human society is a
joke.


Your denial of the fact that advances in radio digital technology was due to
code users is silly. It's a documented fact.

Complex infrastructures should always be backed up by
simple basic methods.

Yes, but talking into a microphone is the most simple basic method we have
in
radio, using complex codes is what no one needs to know.

For the last time......

The military, police, fire, paramedics, etc. all do NOT learn or use morse
code.

It has no use, even for back up or emergencies, or they would be using it.

The military does continue to use it under some conditions.

The police, fire, paramedics are operating local communications only so
their requirements are quite different. VHF frequencies are more than
sufficient for their needs.

Your arguments simply demonstrate your lack of knowledge about operating on
the HF frequencies.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I never said all I wish to communicate is a mere 20 or 30 miles.... you did.


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

Well if all you are concerned about is communicating a mere 20 or 30 miles
and only care about US, that is your prerogative but even in the mainland
of
the US, it is possible for a hurricane or earthquake to knock everything
out
in larger areas than that.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
Ryan wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
What are you going to use when HF propagation
is too weak to support voice???

1. Change frequency. (snip)

If HF isn't supporting voice propagation, to what
frequency would you suggest changing? (snip)

(snip) But if propagation is poor, voice may not be
intelligible yet CW will often come through quite
clearly under those conditions.


Nonsense, Dee. I've never, ever, saw HF messed up enough not to support
voice on at least some frequency. Regardless, if HF was truly somehow messed
up that badly (enough not to support voice on any frequency), CW probably
wouldn't get through either (CW doesn't get through that much better).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Mark Keith" wrote:
Jeff Renkin wrote:

The International Maritime Organization (snip)

FOR COMMERCIAL VESSELS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So that answer would be, the Global Maritime
Distress and Safety System.

Right...A guy on a 20 ft sailboat is going to buy a
system that costs more than his boat...Good
grief....Get a grip. (snip)


Inexpensive Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB) units,
Inmarsat, and other relatively low cost emergency related systems are
available for recreational boaters. EPIRB's can be found in boating catalogs
selling marine electronics and information about Inmarsat can be found on
the web (and at many retail locations). SSB marine radio equipment has a
typical range of several hundred miles. Boaters with VHF can also seek
assistance from nearby marine vessels, including Coast Guard, Navy,
commercial, and private, vessels. The Coast Guard recommends a combination
of these for those heading far off shore (VHF, SSB, and EPIRB, for example).
CW is not recommended for emergency use today.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight,
While I agree with your assertion regarding "some frequency" will
certainly be available for HF voice communications. As a long time CW
operator I must respectfully question your statement that "(CW doesn't get
through that much better)." as I can think of literally thousands of times
when the band in question was to 'weak' for SSB, but good ole faithful CW
was clicking away on the band. Just some food for thought.
73,
Gary WY9Q

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
Ryan wrote:
What are you going to use when HF propagation
is too weak to support voice???

1. Change frequency. (snip)

If HF isn't supporting voice propagation, to what
frequency would you suggest changing? (snip)

(snip) But if propagation is poor, voice may not be
intelligible yet CW will often come through quite
clearly under those conditions.


Nonsense, Dee. I've never, ever, saw HF messed up enough not to support
voice on at least some frequency. Regardless, if HF was truly somehow
messed
up that badly (enough not to support voice on any frequency), CW probably
wouldn't get through either (CW doesn't get through that much better).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/