"John S." wrote:

-=jd=- wrote:
On Sat 23 Jul 2005 05:10:16p, "John S." wrote in message
ps.com:



D Peter Maus wrote:

{snippage}
You may also be unaware that many V/UHF repeaters also identify by
Morse Code, so while it's not exactly a requirement that an operator
know the code, even non Code required licensees will find that knowing
the code actually facilitates their operations. Especially under unusual
propagation conditions, as we're experiencing now in Northern Illinois,
where VHF signals are skipping in from greater distances than local
repeaters' operating areas would normally fall. In which case, the Morse
identifier permits an operator to know if he's actually hearing the
correct repeater, or if he's actually hearing a repeater skipping in on
anomalous propragation.

Well actually the very long post did make that point. And I'm sure
that being able to decode the designator would be useful. I hope that
is not the sole reason the ARRL has remaining to justify the code test
however.


So what. There are some police comm systems that still send a morse
identifier. I suppose it is entertaining and marginally useful to be
able to decode the id's by oneself, but that's about all.

{snippage}

From my own related personal experience, that automated morse identifier
satisfies the FCC requirement for periodic identification. It's cheap and
reliable and the dispatchers don't have to keep track of ID'ing. Other than
that, I doubt more than 1 out of 200,000 potential listeners would have the
slightest clue what the Beep-Beeps were.

But on the thread topic, I don't have a problem with the morse requirement
to get a certain class of license. As long as I'm not asked to do anything
unreasonable, I don't see any problem. It's not like they are requiring
folks to stand on one hand and juggle two kittens in the other hand while
they take the test...

I have an idea. Instead of just requiring morse code lets modernize
the test and make it truly relevant. Lets give prospective hams a menu
of tests to pick one from: Morse code; Kitten juggling; Controlling a
horse and carriage with a buggywhip; Riding a 5 foot wave on a
longboard; Completing the 5 borough bike ride in NYC. Any one would be
as helpful in identifying prospective hams.

It's always hilarious to see just how ridiculous the no-coders can get. The above
paragraph is a prime example.

Once again, if one can't learn at least 5 WPM then they are either incredibly
lazy, incredibly stupid, or a combination of the two. In which case they have no
business what so ever on ANY of the ham bands.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm