"beerbarrel" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, dxAce
wrote:



Joel Rubin wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:33:36 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-05-143A1.doc

John

Code ability should be one alternative among other technical tests. It
seems very odd to freeze a technical test in a museum of bygone
technology.

If one cannot learn at least a minimal 5 WPM code then they have
absolutely no
business obtaining an amateur license.

dxAce
Michigan
USA



Agreed!

Wazziss??? I'm in full agreement with Tracy and Steve on something.. *looks
around for the four horsemen of the apocolypse*

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"beerbarrel" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, dxAce
wrote:



Joel Rubin wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:33:36 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-05-143A1.doc

John

Code ability should be one alternative among other technical tests.
It
seems very odd to freeze a technical test in a museum of bygone
technology.

If one cannot learn at least a minimal 5 WPM code then they have
absolutely no
business obtaining an amateur license.

dxAce
Michigan
USA



Agreed!

Wazziss??? I'm in full agreement with Tracy and Steve on something..
*looks
around for the four horsemen of the apocolypse*

It would be more of an incentive for me to get my ticket if I could use HF.
I have ZERO interest in CW. Maybe open a little HF for techs?

"MnMikew" wrote:


"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"beerbarrel" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, dxAce
wrote:



Joel Rubin wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:33:36 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-05-143A1.doc

John

Code ability should be one alternative among other technical tests.
It
seems very odd to freeze a technical test in a museum of bygone
technology.

If one cannot learn at least a minimal 5 WPM code then they have
absolutely no
business obtaining an amateur license.

dxAce
Michigan
USA



Agreed!

Wazziss??? I'm in full agreement with Tracy and Steve on something..
*looks
around for the four horsemen of the apocolypse*

It would be more of an incentive for me to get my ticket if I could use HF.
I have ZERO interest in CW. Maybe open a little HF for techs?

Many of us had ZERO interest in CW. And it wasn't easy for us either.
Learn just enough to pass and never use it again.
There should be no free lunch.

wrote in message
...
"MnMikew" wrote:


"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"beerbarrel" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, dxAce
wrote:



Joel Rubin wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:33:36 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:


http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-05-143A1.doc

John

Code ability should be one alternative among other technical
tests.
It
seems very odd to freeze a technical test in a museum of bygone
technology.

If one cannot learn at least a minimal 5 WPM code then they have
absolutely no
business obtaining an amateur license.

dxAce
Michigan
USA



Agreed!

Wazziss??? I'm in full agreement with Tracy and Steve on something..
*looks
around for the four horsemen of the apocolypse*

It would be more of an incentive for me to get my ticket if I could use
HF.
I have ZERO interest in CW. Maybe open a little HF for techs?

Many of us had ZERO interest in CW. And it wasn't easy for us either.
Learn just enough to pass and never use it again.
There should be no free lunch.

Yes, perhaps. But the CW requirement probably keeps a lot of people out of
ham radio.

MnMikew wrote:

wrote in message
...
"MnMikew" wrote:


"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"beerbarrel" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, dxAce
wrote:



Joel Rubin wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:33:36 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:


http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-05-143A1.doc

John

Code ability should be one alternative among other technical
tests.
It
seems very odd to freeze a technical test in a museum of bygone
technology.

If one cannot learn at least a minimal 5 WPM code then they have
absolutely no
business obtaining an amateur license.

dxAce
Michigan
USA



Agreed!

Wazziss??? I'm in full agreement with Tracy and Steve on something..
*looks
around for the four horsemen of the apocolypse*

It would be more of an incentive for me to get my ticket if I could use
HF.
I have ZERO interest in CW. Maybe open a little HF for techs?

Many of us had ZERO interest in CW. And it wasn't easy for us either.
Learn just enough to pass and never use it again.
There should be no free lunch.

Yes, perhaps. But the CW requirement probably keeps a lot of people out of
ham radio.

The written test probably does as well. Should that also be dropped.

If one can't learn even a minimum 5 WPM then they have no business in amateur
radio. 5 WPM is incredibly easy, heck, even the 'tards should be able to master
that.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

dxAce wrote:

If one can't learn even a minimum 5 WPM then they have no business in amateur
radio.

Could you please explain why you say that.

To state the obvious, CW is just one of *many* modes available to hams;
moon bounce, meteor scatter, lots of digital modes (PSK, MFSK, RTTY,
Hellschrieber and probably a few I missed), slow scan TV, fast scan TV,
APRS and on and on.

CW-just another mode. Why test for it and not test for, say, moon
bounce? You probably missed it, but a while ago the FCC said CW was
required in the old days when CW was primarily used for marine
safety-they didn't want hams to be transmitting over distress calls.
That was it. Period. As you are well aware, CW for maritime applications
is virtually dead.

Before you think I am a whining, sniveling "no coder", I am a 20 wpm
Extra who operates 20% digi modes and 80% CW, fairly comfortable at
25-30 wpm.

And puh-leze, don't even think about trotting out the old saw that "I
had to learn the code so the new guys should too". That's akin to saying
everyone should hand crank the engine on their car rather than using
those new fangled $#@*^! electric starters.

73,
Carter K8VT

If I can one finger hunt and peck (I do have to look up and down at my
cute little hand held Philips Magnavox webtv wireless keyboard and up at
my RCA 26 inch tv screen so I don't make too many typos) then I should
be able to learn CW.UP the FCC!!! Sideways!!!
cuhulin

"dxAce" wrote in message
...



The written test probably does as well. Should that also be dropped.

If one can't learn even a minimum 5 WPM then they have no business in
amateur
radio. 5 WPM is incredibly easy, heck, even the 'tards should be able to
master
that.

I think 20 WPM is easy. Maybe 20 should be required?

DeWayne


dxAce
Michigan
USA

MnMikew:

Interesting theory. We could propose a test to see if what you say is
true.

Say, require a person to do 5 WPM before they can use usenet, IRC or
IM clients? ROFLOL!

Perhaps we would find it is actually a "good thing." Next we could
require a person be able to rollerskate 5 miles over rough pavement
before we allow them a drivers license? I mean, what if traffic is
too heavy or their car breaks down--it will be useful! grin

John

"MnMikew" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
"MnMikew" wrote:


"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"beerbarrel" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, dxAce

wrote:



Joel Rubin wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:33:36 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:


http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-05-143A1.doc

John

Code ability should be one alternative among other
technical
tests.
It
seems very odd to freeze a technical test in a museum of
bygone
technology.

If one cannot learn at least a minimal 5 WPM code then they
have
absolutely no
business obtaining an amateur license.

dxAce
Michigan
USA



Agreed!

Wazziss??? I'm in full agreement with Tracy and Steve on
something..
*looks
around for the four horsemen of the apocolypse*

It would be more of an incentive for me to get my ticket if I
could use
HF.
I have ZERO interest in CW. Maybe open a little HF for techs?

Many of us had ZERO interest in CW. And it wasn't easy for us
either.
Learn just enough to pass and never use it again.
There should be no free lunch.

Yes, perhaps. But the CW requirement probably keeps a lot of people
out of
ham radio.

John Smith wrote:
MnMikew:

Interesting theory. We could propose a test to see if what you say is
true.

Say, require a person to do 5 WPM before they can use usenet, IRC or
IM clients? ROFLOL!

Perhaps we would find it is actually a "good thing." Next we could
require a person be able to rollerskate 5 miles over rough pavement
before we allow them a drivers license? I mean, what if traffic is
too heavy or their car breaks down--it will be useful! grin

John

Yes, or require that prospective drivers be proficient in the use of a
buggy whip in addition to passing a written and practical driving test.