"MnMikew" wrote in
:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

"No one has ever said that using CW is a total time requirement. It's just
like any number of other questions that have been on the test either now
or in the past. It's just a 'question' on the test. Just pass the test and
if you desire you need never use CW again. But, you can always renew your
license."




So why not replace the worthless code questions with more pertinent
questions?



Worthless ???? Only in your estimation. It's really a matter of comittment
after all. Want to be a ham radio operator ?? Take the test or sit on the
side lines whining about a simple morse code requirement and wait until it
gets removed. If nothing else, code requirements require effort on the
part of the applicant and for the moment if you want to get on HF, it is
required. It makes those who have gone before appreciate being a ham since
they earned it and were interested enough to buckle down and learn morse
and a smattering of electronics.

Should it be removed as a requirement? Possibly, but if so it should be
replaced with much stiffer technical examinations, including an above
average user levl computer component, than what currently exsists. The
notion that a ham radio license should be a minimum effort passport to
many Mhz of HF radio spectrum is utter nonsense. Wether or not CW is a
"useful" mode of communication is another debate entirely. However by
comitting to learning the morse code, and getting up to 10wpm minimum
requirement, I became a ham at age 13 (that was minimum age back then).
That ham license was a passport to a universe of excting possibilites that
have lasted a lifetime. Perhaps the policy should be changed so that you
could make a choice between a morse code exam or the code free more
technical exam. Either way it should take a commitment on the part of than
applicant that is more than just a desire for instant gratifcation.

If you want a no comittment radio service to be a member of that
already exsists. In fact these days you don't even have to have a license
for it, just buy a radio and start right being a "radio operator". With
the propagation cycle about to go up, 27Mhz should soon be
experiencing a huge upswing in talking skip.



--
Panzer

"Panzer240" wrote in message
...
"MnMikew" wrote in
:

Should it be removed as a requirement? Possibly, but if so it should be
replaced with much stiffer technical examinations, including an above
average user levl computer component, than what currently exsists.

This has come up frequently in conversations I've had with long-time hams.
While I don't disagree with you in principle, there is no way the FCC is
going to toughen up the exams. They've been lessening the entrance and
upgrade requirements for years. I doubt the ARRL would support any tougher
test structure, as that would be detrimental to the numbers of newbies
coming into the hobby... to which many long-timers say good, because we
should value quality above quantity-- such would result in fewer, but more
knowledgable hams.

I have mixed feelings about his, however... perhaps too few people using our
allotted spectrum might give the FCC greater cause to take away what we've
got due to relative lack of use?

Jackie

Buzzygirl wrote:
"Panzer240" wrote...
Should it be removed as a requirement? Possibly, but if so it should be
replaced with much stiffer technical examinations, including an above
average user levl computer component, than what currently exsists.

This has come up frequently in conversations I've had with long-time hams.
While I don't disagree with you in principle, there is no way the FCC is
going to toughen up the exams.

The promise made when the original no-code proposal was new was that there
would be a MUCH more difficult technical exam. When they actually pushed
no-code through, they added five measly questions from the same lame
question pool already used for Technician licenses.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

Everytime we are typing on a computer keyboard we are typing code,1's
and 0's.Learn the ABC's,,, learn the Dit's and Dah's.
cuhulin

clifto wrote:
cut
The promise made when the original no-code proposal was new was that there
would be a MUCH more difficult technical exam. When they actually pushed
no-code through, they added five measly questions from the same lame
question pool already used for Technician licenses.

who made this promise?

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

an old friend wrote:
clifto wrote:
cut
The promise made when the original no-code proposal was new was that there
would be a MUCH more difficult technical exam. When they actually pushed
no-code through, they added five measly questions from the same lame
question pool already used for Technician licenses.

who made this promise?

I got it indirectly, so I don't know. But I got it from people I trusted, and
still trust.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

clifto wrote:
an old friend wrote:
clifto wrote:
cut
The promise made when the original no-code proposal was new was that there
would be a MUCH more difficult technical exam. When they actually pushed
no-code through, they added five measly questions from the same lame
question pool already used for Technician licenses.

who made this promise?

I got it indirectly, so I don't know. But I got it from people I trusted, and
still trust.

prehaps your trust is misplaced

the only body with the POWER to make that promise and keep was the FCC,
today the NEVEC could make it but then only the FCC, and I have found
no evidence they ever made any such promise

I have Heard the ARRL said something like this may have been said by
the ARRL but they lack the power to make such a pledge

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

"clifto" wrote in message
...
an old friend wrote:
clifto wrote:
cut
The promise made when the original no-code proposal was new was that
there
would be a MUCH more difficult technical exam. When they actually
pushed
no-code through, they added five measly questions from the same lame
question pool already used for Technician licenses.

who made this promise?

I got it indirectly, so I don't know. But I got it from people I trusted,
and
still trust.
Ohoh. I better take the test soon so a "tard" like me can pass it. :-)

MnMikew wrote:
"clifto" wrote in message
...
an old friend wrote:
clifto wrote:
cut
The promise made when the original no-code proposal was new was that
there
would be a MUCH more difficult technical exam. When they actually
pushed
no-code through, they added five measly questions from the same lame
question pool already used for Technician licenses.

who made this promise?

I got it indirectly, so I don't know. But I got it from people I trusted,
and
still trust.
Ohoh. I better take the test soon so a "tard" like me can pass it. :-)
well given the control of the pool by the NEVEC's QPC i see no reason
to sorry

my advice stand to anyone geting the tech license now take a shot at
code for the generl but don't sweat it it willgo away soon