jakdedert wrote:

IMHO, requiring a code test is like requiring someone to know how to
reupholster their car in order to get a drivers license. It's unlikely that
they will ever use the knowledge.

OTOH, I've seen a number of very simplistic technical questions posted
lately in this and in other forums, by 'hams' who should know better....

jak



I think it would be more like knowing how to change a tire to get a
drivers license!

"Sarco" wrote in message
You hit it right on the head...."I personally think CW is an amazing
mode." However, many do not think it is "amazing". Just because they
disagree with you on this, does not mean they are "lazy".
The function of antenna's and building home brew antennas is also in the
written test. Let's make people writing the test be able to show the
instructor how to build every possible antenna ever designed. They may
be trapped behind a wall somewhere, and need to construct a J-Pole on
the spot!....good God....come out of the dark ages. If people want to
actually WORK CW, then they should be tested on it.

I say lazy because that's what 90% of the people I know who haven't learned
the code are. period.
Me: When you gonna get upgraded?
Them: Oh, when I get the time to learn the code I guess.
Me: Well it's really not that hard, you can do it in a couple weeks with
just 15-20 min a day.
Them: Yeah, I know, just haven't got around on to it, sure would be nice get
get on HF tho........

whoever wrote:
jakdedert wrote:

IMHO, requiring a code test is like requiring someone to know how to
reupholster their car in order to get a drivers license. It's
unlikely that they will ever use the knowledge.

OTOH, I've seen a number of very simplistic technical questions posted
lately in this and in other forums, by 'hams' who should know
better....

jak



I think it would be more like knowing how to change a tire to get a
drivers license!

NIMO...in an emergency, one might actually 'have' to change a tire. They'll
never HAVE to reupholster the seats. They might 'want' to, and learn how,
but I can't imagine it ever being required.

If one just learns enough code to pass the test, it's doubtful they'll
remember enough to communicate a year later...even in an emergency.

jak

Jim - NN7K wrote:
jakdedert wrote:

IMHO, requiring a code test is like requiring someone to know how to
reupholster their car in order to get a drivers license. It's
unlikely that they will ever use the knowledge.

OTOH, I've seen a number of very simplistic technical questions
posted lately in this and in other forums, by 'hams' who should know
better....

jak

Corse just how many repair their own radios - let alone design them-
Like requireing a person to Build a PORSCH from scratch, when he only
wants to avoid pedestrians, and other traffic! Lets get rid of ALL
testing materials, and abolish the FCC -- then ANYONE can transmit
ANYWHERE, from DC to LIGHT! No callsign required, nor power limits!
Free speech at last ! Makes as much sense! Jim NN7K

The kinds of questions to which I'm referring, are things like; how to hook
up a power supply, and whether a roof-mounted antenna should be grounded
(that was the question...not whether the MAST should be grounded)...things
that are covered in detail in the ARRL publications...and that are at least
'covered' in the license-study materials.

Of course, those 'hams' may in fact be unlicensed CB'ers or whatever...but
in any case I think a more solid grounding in the electronic aspects of
operation and installation are more important than learning how to
communicate with dits and dahs.

jak

Well, just how DIFFICULT is it to plug in a radio to the CIGARETTE
LIGHTER hole (unless you smoke)?, or stick a mag mount on a steel roof ?
Lets let the whole thing go the CB route-- and be done with it (but
then, some folks will want to eliminate that fun, whih "SERVICES" that
pay their own way thru licensing fees ! As a TECHNICAL pool, admit it:
Amateur radio is now little more than a higher power CITIZENS /FREE
bander group, and is ripe for abolishment to the garbage can of history,
next to the buggy whips! Jim NN7K

jakdedert wrote:



The kinds of questions to which I'm referring, are things like; how to hook
up a power supply, and whether a roof-mounted antenna should be grounded
(that was the question...not whether the MAST should be grounded)...things
that are covered in detail in the ARRL publications...and that are at least
'covered' in the license-study materials.

Of course, those 'hams' may in fact be unlicensed CB'ers or whatever...but
in any case I think a more solid grounding in the electronic aspects of
operation and installation are more important than learning how to
communicate with dits and dahs.

jak

I think if the FCC gave away ham tickets with no fee or test, there still would
not be a lot of people signing up for one. The hobby does not have the appeal
that it used to.
Too bad because the spectrum we have is worth a lot in the commercial business.

It's simple, really. The only reason the Morse testing was required was
because of the international agreement that code is needed for HF access.
Now that the world agrees that code is no longer required for HF access
(from the WRC-03), there is no reason to keep it as a licensing requirement.
All of the emotional arguments about "tradition" and "keeping the riff-raff
out of the hobby" are irrelevant. Anyone who wants to use code will still
learn it, and the mode will still continue to be used by amateurs (who are
really the only people still using it). Every country should drop the
testing requirement, including Canada and the US because it simply is no
longer needed, and the whole world agrees, except for a bunch of stubborn
old hams (and no one even cares what they think any more).

Despite all the "emergency" arguments, even the coast guard dropped it.

If there ever was a situation where CW might actually be needed, that was
it.
Now, it's just for contests, and hobbies.

jakdedert wrote:
whoever wrote:

jakdedert wrote:

IMHO, requiring a code test is like requiring someone to know how to
reupholster their car in order to get a drivers license. It's
unlikely that they will ever use the knowledge.

OTOH, I've seen a number of very simplistic technical questions posted
lately in this and in other forums, by 'hams' who should know
better....

jak



I think it would be more like knowing how to change a tire to get a
drivers license!


NIMO...in an emergency, one might actually 'have' to change a tire. They'll
never HAVE to reupholster the seats. They might 'want' to, and learn how,
but I can't imagine it ever being required.

If one just learns enough code to pass the test, it's doubtful they'll
remember enough to communicate a year later...even in an emergency.

jak


I think the proper analogy would be to test applicants on how to drive a
buggy or ride a horse to get a drivers license. There are plenty of
people who enjoy these equine hobbies, but they have little to do with
driving a car. Of course, in an emergency, when no gasoline is available
or the roads are washed out, those on horseback will have an advantage
and save the day, but it would be foolish to restrict millions of
potential drivers because they realize it would be STUPID to make them
learn to ride a horse!

I learned the code to get my general and haven't used it since. I did
it, but for me, it was an enormous waste of time.

Another apt analogy is that code is a form of hazing to join the
fraternity of hams. Maybe we should carve our callsigns into paddles and
whack all prospective hams until they copy 20 wpm.

After WWII, there was a huge pool of of veteran radio operators who knew
and loved the code for what it was, the best and most reliable mode OF
ITS TIME. Sadly these pioneers are dying out, but their legacy persists.
Prospective hams are allowed to use newfangled calculators on their
exams. Shouldn't we demand that they use sliderules?

If you are worried about our CB good buddies taking over the bands, tune
into the 80 Meter band any evening. They are already there yammering
about their "legal limit" amps. That battle has already been lost.

As far as being able to fix my radio....I can't even fix my CAR anymore!
I could buy and drive and repair an old VW like I did for so many
years, but I've grown up and actually enjoy my 21st century ride! My
wife owns, rides, and maintains a beautiful horse, but when we need a
half gallon of milk, she doesn't saddle up and ride into town. She gets
into our 21st Century car and DRIVES to the store.

The arrow of time points in one direction. The clock ticks. So what is
it going to be? Buggywhips or PSK? While we argue over buggywhips the
FCC will take back the hambands or destroy them with BPL.

Enough

Tom Nelson KD6EVM
A 21st Century Ham

I happen to still fell that CW is a basic skill that anyone that considers
themselves a radio operator should know.

Every few years this discussion takes off and I have to endure all the same
old arguments each way. I have gotten to the point where I would like to
see CW go away mainly because I am sick of hearing about it.

BTW, I would like to say that KD6EVM has written a very well done response.
Something much too rare on these newsgroups.

Rick
K6LE


On 1/27/05 8:25 PM, in article , "KD6EVM"
wrote:

I think the proper analogy would be to test applicants on how to drive a
buggy or ride a horse to get a drivers license. There are plenty of
people who enjoy these equine hobbies, but they have little to do with
driving a car. Of course, in an emergency, when no gasoline is available
or the roads are washed out, those on horseback will have an advantage
and save the day, but it would be foolish to restrict millions of
potential drivers because they realize it would be STUPID to make them
learn to ride a horse!

I learned the code to get my general and haven't used it since. I did
it, but for me, it was an enormous waste of time.

Another apt analogy is that code is a form of hazing to join the
fraternity of hams. Maybe we should carve our callsigns into paddles and
whack all prospective hams until they copy 20 wpm.

After WWII, there was a huge pool of of veteran radio operators who knew
and loved the code for what it was, the best and most reliable mode OF
ITS TIME. Sadly these pioneers are dying out, but their legacy persists.
Prospective hams are allowed to use newfangled calculators on their
exams. Shouldn't we demand that they use sliderules?

If you are worried about our CB good buddies taking over the bands, tune
into the 80 Meter band any evening. They are already there yammering
about their "legal limit" amps. That battle has already been lost.

As far as being able to fix my radio....I can't even fix my CAR anymore!
I could buy and drive and repair an old VW like I did for so many
years, but I've grown up and actually enjoy my 21st century ride! My
wife owns, rides, and maintains a beautiful horse, but when we need a
half gallon of milk, she doesn't saddle up and ride into town. She gets
into our 21st Century car and DRIVES to the store.

The arrow of time points in one direction. The clock ticks. So what is
it going to be? Buggywhips or PSK? While we argue over buggywhips the
FCC will take back the hambands or destroy them with BPL.

Enough

Tom Nelson KD6EVM
A 21st Century Ham