Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

In article , "Dee Flint" wrote:

"J. D. B." wrote in message
...
John,

Just get on digital modes. Don't worry about CW. Digital is where the
fun is and the copy is much better.

A buddy of mine in St. Louis and I experimented with low power and various
digital modes last night on 40 meters. CW was marginal. The best was
DominoEX with FEC - just about 100% all the time and it also has a second
channel to display additional information.

CW can be fun at times, but maybe it's not your thing. Let the stone-age
hams continue with CW, and move up and on to the digital modes.

MultiPSK, while a bit cluttered and ugly, is a great program you can use.
MixW is cleaner looking and very good, but not as many capabilities in the
program.

Move on and start having fun.


You just don't get it do you. There are conditions for each mode that will
make that mode "the best". Every mode has its place. That goes for voice,
all the multiplicity of digital modes and yes CW. Last night you had the
best luck with DominoEx. Another night RTTY might be better. Another
night, voice might be more intelligible. Yet another night will favor CW.

Based on what I've read about DominoEX, it is a form of Multi-Frequency
Shift Keying. This variation looks to be more robust than others, however,
anything that can compromise FSK and MFSK has the potential to compromise
DominoEX. It will merely be a matter of the degree of severity needed
before it becomes unusable.

Just because something is old doesn't make it useless or stone age. Pencils
have been around far longer and are still highly useful.

Dee, N8UZE


Very well put. Every mode is useful, important and valuable in different
situations. What's unfortunate, is that the only modes the anti-CW crowd
wants and supports are "Lazy Mode" and "Retard mode"

Hymie

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

Hymie wrote:
In article , "Dee Flint" wrote:


Dee, N8UZE


Very well put. Every mode is useful, important and valuable in different
situations. What's unfortunate, is that the only modes the anti-CW crowd
wants and supports are "Lazy Mode" and "Retard mode"
wrong again

Hymie

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:49:00 GMT, (Hymie)
wrote:

Very well put. Every mode is useful, important and valuable in different
situations. What's unfortunate, is that the only modes the anti-CW crowd
wants and supports are "Lazy Mode" and "Retard mode"

Even those who tout digital modes - they want to buy an interface and
software and "be" on digital. Then they wonder why the signal they're
hearing, that sounds just like the digital mode they use, doesn't work
on their setup. Maybe because a PSK program won't decode SSTV?

Reminds me of the GPRS "exerts" who can't understand why changing the
"code" on their radios doesn't eliminate the interference from the guy
next door.

The anti-CW crowd wants no code and a written test you can memorize
the answers to. It's their "right" to be on the air, isn't it? Even
if they need 2 more clues to be totally clueless?

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:49:00 GMT, (Hymie)
wrote:

Very well put. Every mode is useful, important and valuable in different
situations. What's unfortunate, is that the only modes the anti-CW crowd
wants and supports are "Lazy Mode" and "Retard mode"

Even those who tout digital modes - they want to buy an interface and
software and "be" on digital. Then they wonder why the signal they're
hearing, that sounds just like the digital mode they use, doesn't work
on their setup. Maybe because a PSK program won't decode SSTV?

learn what you are tlaking about psk31 sounds very little like sstv and
most of the programs that can demolate it show you a spectrograhand
they look nothing alike

there is some time confusion in wether that sgnal BPSK 31 or QPSK31 but
the marvels of Windows wallo me to run the output of the sound card
interface to at least 2 program so it can be worked out

you just want to bash any ham that doesnot follow your morse fetish

Reminds me of the GPRS "exerts" who can't understand why changing the
"code" on their radios doesn't eliminate the interference from the guy
next door.

The anti-CW crowd wants no code and a written test you can memorize
the answers to. It's their "right" to be on the air, isn't it? Even
if they need 2 more clues to be totally clueless?
it is our right and everybody else right that any restriction to our
access to public spectrum be "neccisary and proper" (one of 3 clauses
in the constitution that give the power to regulate the airwave to the
govet at all) otherwise the 10 reserving all right and power to the
sates or the people applies modifing that is the thrid place where the
consititution of US touches on this issue mby making the constitution
and the TREATIES made the supreme law of the land

according the Govt lost the POWER to impose Morse Code test on the ARS
unless it can be justified under some other powere of the Constitution

I find it interesting that the ProCode tes crowd has such disrespect
for that document

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewithother.
 

Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:49:00 GMT, (Hymie)
wrote:

Very well put. Every mode is useful, important and valuable in different
situations. What's unfortunate, is that the only modes the anti-CW crowd
wants and supports are "Lazy Mode" and "Retard mode"

Even those who tout digital modes - they want to buy an interface and
software and "be" on digital. Then they wonder why the signal they're
hearing, that sounds just like the digital mode they use, doesn't work
on their setup. Maybe because a PSK program won't decode SSTV?

Reminds me of the GPRS "exerts" who can't understand why changing the
"code" on their radios doesn't eliminate the interference from the guy
next door.

The anti-CW crowd wants no code and a written test you can memorize
the answers to. It's their "right" to be on the air, isn't it? Even
if they need 2 more clues to be totally clueless?

There's a world of difference between technical electronics knowledge
and ability to decipher code. One has absolutely nothing to do with the
other. FWIW, I don't even have a ham license anymore. I don't care
about the code, whether it lives or dies. If you enjoy brass pounding,
then do it.

Just don't equate that ability with another that is not even slightly
related.

jak

Eliminating CW will just give retards HF, it won't modernize the service.
 

Proof:


"an_old_friend" wrote in
ups.com:

it is our right and everybody else right that any restriction to our
access to public spectrum be "neccisary and proper" (one of 3 clauses
in the constitution that give the power to regulate the airwave to the
govet at all) otherwise the 10 reserving all right and power to the
sates or the people applies modifing that is the thrid place where the
consititution of US touches on this issue mby making the constitution
and the TREATIES made the supreme law of the land

according the Govt lost the POWER to impose Morse Code test on the ARS
unless it can be justified under some other powere of the Constitution

I find it interesting that the ProCode tes crowd has such disrespect
for that document

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:55:28 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

There's a world of difference between technical electronics knowledge
and ability to decipher code.

Considering that someone with absolutely no knowledge of electronics
can memorize enough to pass the test in about 8 hours, there's no
longer any real test of anything but the ability to memorize.

FWIW, I don't even have a ham license anymore.

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:55:28 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

There's a world of difference between technical electronics knowledge
and ability to decipher code.

Considering that someone with absolutely no knowledge of electronics
can memorize enough to pass the test in about 8 hours, there's no
longer any real test of anything but the ability to memorize.
whta is needed and why?

FWIW, I don't even have a ham license anymore.

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

nope he has full standing he is an american that means the FCC is
suposed serve not the ARS but the people of the USA.

the problem with you procoders is that you think the ARS owns the
bandwidth not the poeple of the USA

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewithother.
 

Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:55:28 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

There's a world of difference between technical electronics knowledge
and ability to decipher code.

Considering that someone with absolutely no knowledge of electronics
can memorize enough to pass the test in about 8 hours, there's no
longer any real test of anything but the ability to memorize.

FWIW, I don't even have a ham license anymore.

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once, at 15 years old; and I've picked up a fair amount
of electronics knowledge as well...proving that one has little to do
with the other.

jak

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

jakdedert wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:55:28 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

There's a world of difference between technical electronics knowledge
and ability to decipher code.

Considering that someone with absolutely no knowledge of electronics
can memorize enough to pass the test in about 8 hours, there's no
longer any real test of anything but the ability to memorize.

FWIW, I don't even have a ham license anymore.

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once, at 15 years old; and I've picked up a fair amount
of electronics knowledge as well...proving that one has little to do
with the other.
you still do don't let this bozo tell you otherwise (unless you are an
ilgeal alien or something)

jak

Eliminating CW will just give retards HF, it won't modernize the service.
 

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:05:08 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

"an_old_friend" wrote in
oups.com:

according the Govt lost the POWER to impose Morse Code test on the ARS
unless it can be justified under some other powere of the Constitution

I find it interesting that the ProCode tes crowd has such disrespect
for that document

Proof:

You actually expected him to be able to differentiate between "has the
power to" and "is forced to"?

Eliminating CW is just the lying of those afraid of change
 

Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:05:08 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

"an_old_friend" wrote in
oups.com:

according the Govt lost the POWER to impose Morse Code test on the ARS
unless it can be justified under some other powere of the Constitution

I find it interesting that the ProCode tes crowd has such disrespect
for that document

Proof:

You actually expected him to be able to differentiate between "has the
power to" and "is forced to"?
the Govt lacks the power to test anymore if chalanced it it only had
the power while it was forced by the treaty

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once

But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once.

proving that one has little to do with the other.

And that you have little to do with this conversation.

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once

But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once.

proving that one has little to do with the other.

And that you have little to do with this conversation.

You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone
sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but it's
just the sign of the times.

BH

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

Brian Hill wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once

But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once.

proving that one has little to do with the other.

And that you have little to do with this conversation.

You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone
sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but it's
just the sign of the times.
Indeed I understand the points of the CW crwod but I simply reject the
ntotions that merits of CW merit the strangle hold it has

after all I can do even EME without knowing a BIT of Morse did so last
night

BH

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

"Brian Hill" wrote in :


"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once

But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once.

proving that one has little to do with the other.

And that you have little to do with this conversation.

You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone
sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but
it's just the sign of the times.

BH


We have to keep trying to save Ham radio while we still can because once
it's all the way in the ****ter it will be even harder to pull back out &
clean up.

A Ham who'll stand for nothing will sit for anything. I won't accept
more dumbing down.


Help save Ham radio:


1- No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all
elements required for their license class every ten years.


2- The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.


3- Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.


4- Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.


5- Cancel your ARRL membership until they decide to work to improve
things and stop them from proposing ham radio that is like CB.

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Brian Hill" wrote in :


"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once

But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once.

proving that one has little to do with the other.

And that you have little to do with this conversation.

You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone
sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but
it's just the sign of the times.

BH


We have to keep trying to save Ham radio while we still can because once
it's all the way in the ****ter it will be even harder to pull back out &
clean up.

A Ham who'll stand for nothing will sit for anything. I won't accept
more dumbing down.


Help save Ham radio:


1- No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all
elements required for their license class every ten years.


No reason to. This has never existed in the history of amateur radio and
there is no reason to think it would improve things.


2- The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.


Might be OK.


3- Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.


Probably wouldn't make a real difference either way.


4- Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.


Probably wouldn't make any difference.


5- Cancel your ARRL membership until they decide to work to improve
things and stop them from proposing ham radio that is like CB.


Terrible idea. The only way to get ARRL to change is to get involved in the
politics of ARRL and work to try to effect the changes that you want.

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

Dee Flint wrote:
"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...


3- Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.


Probably wouldn't make a real difference either way.


4- Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.


Probably wouldn't make any difference.
certainly would but then you are into killing the ars of course


5- Cancel your ARRL membership until they decide to work to improve
things and stop them from proposing ham radio that is like CB.


Terrible idea. The only way to get ARRL to change is to get involved in the
politics of ARRL and work to try to effect the changes that you want.
ask Carl Stevenson about that one

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...


5- Cancel your ARRL membership until they decide to work to improve
things and stop them from proposing ham radio that is like CB.


Terrible idea. The only way to get ARRL to change is to get involved in
the politics of ARRL and work to try to effect the changes that you want.


You're most likely correct on getting into the "politics" of the ARRL to
"try" to get anywhere. But, good luck. It is more like a "good ole boys
club". Anytime I've ever seen any reps to the area at a hamfest - they acted
like snobs more than trying to communicate with hams of their concerns OR to
try to win those hams who weren't members - to become members. If the rep
couldn't give me the time of day, the ARRL didn't need my money either. I
stopped my membership when it was due for renewal. That was a good 15 years
ago or better. How did the rep act like a snob? He turned to his bud who was
with him behind the table and ignored others "trying" to gain his attention
and talk to him about whatever. Oh - he may look and say Hi, but god forbid
you interrupt his conversation with his buddy. So much for the "MEET YOUR
ARRL REP HERE"

lou

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:15:03 -0500, "Brian Hill" wrote:

You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone
sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but it's
just the sign of the times.

The sign reads, "Instant Gratification". Buy the equipment and be
able to put it on the air immediately.

It wouldn't surprise me if, in the not too distant future, one will be
able to buy a ham transceiver, create call letters out of one's
initials or something and legally be on the air while waiting for the
real "ask for it and you get it for a fee" license.

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

somebody wrote ...

Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.

Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.

.... and new aircraft pilot license requirement: Demonstrate an engine start
by spinning the prop -- by hand. Even if you intend to fly only jets, some
old "prop-job" might be the only thing that can get through in an emergency.

I wonder: Did the radio amateur community go through anything like this for
the transition away from spark?

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

On 24 Jul 2006 16:42:15 -0700, "
wrote:

after all I can do even EME

I sincerely doubt that. You probably couldn't even figure the loss on
an EME path.

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:37:53 -0400, "clfe"
wrote:

ago or better. How did the rep act like a snob? He turned to his bud who was
with him behind the table and ignored others "trying" to gain his attention
and talk to him about whatever. Oh - he may look and say Hi, but god forbid
you interrupt his conversation with his buddy. So much for the "MEET YOUR
ARRL REP HERE"

Instead of canceling your membership you should have complained to
Newington. I've known a lot of League reps - some are great, some are
so-so and some are terrible. About the same mix as any large group of
human beings. Canceling your membership didn't make the situation any
better.

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:36:13 +0900, "Brenda Ann"
wrote:


"Al Klein" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:15:03 -0500, "Brian Hill" wrote:

You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone
sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but it's
just the sign of the times.

The sign reads, "Instant Gratification". Buy the equipment and be
able to put it on the air immediately.

It wouldn't surprise me if, in the not too distant future, one will be
able to buy a ham transceiver, create call letters out of one's
initials or something and legally be on the air while waiting for the
real "ask for it and you get it for a fee" license.

Ahh.. the 1977 solution.. first, middle and last initials followed by your 5
digit zip code....

And remember how that "improved" things? :)

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

Al Klein wrote:
On 24 Jul 2006 16:42:15 -0700, "
wrote:

after all I can do even EME

I sincerely doubt that. You probably couldn't even figure the loss on
an EME path.
doubt it all you like

figure the path with any precison no, but I am can use the various
charts to know know I need to contact various types of stations


theseday 100w a 13b2 a preamp and you are able to pick up the larger
stations, and they can hear you

why do Ineed to be figure the path loss when I can determine the
parameters for sucess.

I honestly don't care how much of the signal islost along the way

I care wether a readble signal reach the otherside

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewithother.
 

Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:37:53 -0400, "clfe"
wrote:


ago or better. How did the rep act like a snob? He turned to his bud who was
with him behind the table and ignored others "trying" to gain his attention
and talk to him about whatever. Oh - he may look and say Hi, but god forbid
you interrupt his conversation with his buddy. So much for the "MEET YOUR
ARRL REP HERE"


Instead of canceling your membership you should have complained to
Newington. I've known a lot of League reps - some are great, some are
so-so and some are terrible. About the same mix as any large group of
human beings. Canceling your membership didn't make the situation any
better.


Remember also that most reps are elected by the few who bother to vote
for them. Most are unopposed. Sort of like politicians.

Dave WD9BDZ

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

David G. Nagel wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:37:53 -0400, "clfe"
wrote:


ago or better. How did the rep act like a snob? He turned to his bud who was
with him behind the table and ignored others "trying" to gain his attention
and talk to him about whatever. Oh - he may look and say Hi, but god forbid
you interrupt his conversation with his buddy. So much for the "MEET YOUR
ARRL REP HERE"


Instead of canceling your membership you should have complained to
Newington. I've known a lot of League reps - some are great, some are
so-so and some are terrible. About the same mix as any large group of
human beings. Canceling your membership didn't make the situation any
better.


Remember also that most reps are elected by the few who bother to vote
for them. Most are unopposed. Sort of like politicians.

Dave WD9BDZ
anyone that thinks you jion the ARRL and stand for office should
inquire of Carl Stevenson

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:05:27 -0500, "David G. Nagel"
wrote:

Remember also that most reps are elected by the few who bother to vote
for them. Most are unopposed. Sort of like politicians.

And, like politics, those who don't vote deserve the representatives
they get.

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

On 25 Jul 2006 09:31:14 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

anyone that thinks you jion the ARRL and stand for office should
inquire of Carl Stevenson

Or Steve Mendelson?

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

Al Klein wrote:
On 25 Jul 2006 09:31:14 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

anyone that thinks you jion the ARRL and stand for office should
inquire of Carl Stevenson

Or Steve Mendelson?
sorry don't know his story

I Know Carl stried to stand for ARRL director (midalantic) and was
refused a place on the ballot

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

"Dee Flint" wrote in
:


"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Brian Hill" wrote in :


"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once

But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once.

proving that one has little to do with the other.

And that you have little to do with this conversation.

You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be
gone sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys
but it's just the sign of the times.

BH


We have to keep trying to save Ham radio while we still can because
once it's all the way in the ****ter it will be even harder to pull
back out & clean up.

A Ham who'll stand for nothing will sit for anything. I won't accept
more dumbing down.


Help save Ham radio:


1- No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all
elements required for their license class every ten years.


No reason to. This has never existed in the history of amateur radio
and there is no reason to think it would improve things.


Yah friggen right, NOT! Continuing to stay knowledgable and re-testing
won't improve things? Sheesh!! What's your problem then, If licensees
remembered what was on their exams ten years ago passing the exams again
should be a breeze. Of course, if they don't rememeber, they'll have to
study again. This will make better hams. And the fact that this
requirement has never existed in the history of ham radio doesn't make it
a bad idea. You're just Lazy.



2- The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.


Might be OK.


Thank you.



3- Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.


Probably wouldn't make a real difference either way.


It DOES make a difference. It maintains the number of ways we can
exchange information, and as a filter to keep out some of the riff-raff
allowing you better enjoyment of the service.



4- Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.


Probably wouldn't make any difference.

Of course it WILL make a difference! It creates an incentive to keep
studying and building on radio knowledge & skill by requiring an upgrade
after a year. And we end up with more knowledgable hams. How can that be
bad?



5- Cancel your ARRL membership until they decide to work to improve
things and stop them from proposing ham radio that is like CB.


Terrible idea. The only way to get ARRL to change is to get involved in
the politics of ARRL and work to try to effect the changes that you
want.


The ARRL knew what it's members wanted before restructuring through
surveys of the membership, then did you read the proposal that came out
with? Totally opposite of the feeling of the membership. Google it, we
discussed it long and hard years ago when RRAP groupies actually argued
policy. The ARRL is only interested in padding the corporate bank
account, they don't care about the quality of amateurs getting licensed.
Our HF bands can sound like CB if means the ARRL can get more money. The
ARRL BOD stapped Hiram Percy Maxim in the back. The ARRL doesn't care if
you know anything about radio.

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

Slow Code wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote in
:



Terrible idea. The only way to get ARRL to change is to get involved in
the politics of ARRL and work to try to effect the changes that you
want.


The ARRL knew what it's members wanted before restructuring through
surveys of the membership, then did you read the proposal that came out
with? Totally opposite of the feeling of the membership. Google it, we
discussed it long and hard years ago when RRAP groupies actually argued
policy. The ARRL is only interested in padding the corporate bank
account, they don't care about the quality of amateurs getting licensed.
Our HF bands can sound like CB if means the ARRL can get more money. The
ARRL BOD stapped Hiram Percy Maxim in the back. The ARRL doesn't care if
you know anything about radio.
you mean the ARRL gave in and tired to make a grab for what it thought
it could get (coded extra) and failed opening to door for our final
victory

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Dee Flint" wrote in
:


"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Brian Hill" wrote in :


"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once

But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once.

proving that one has little to do with the other.

And that you have little to do with this conversation.

You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be
gone sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys
but it's just the sign of the times.

BH


We have to keep trying to save Ham radio while we still can because
once it's all the way in the ****ter it will be even harder to pull
back out & clean up.

A Ham who'll stand for nothing will sit for anything. I won't accept
more dumbing down.


Help save Ham radio:


1- No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all
elements required for their license class every ten years.


No reason to. This has never existed in the history of amateur radio
and there is no reason to think it would improve things.


Yah friggen right, NOT! Continuing to stay knowledgable and re-testing
won't improve things? Sheesh!! What's your problem then, If licensees
remembered what was on their exams ten years ago passing the exams again
should be a breeze. Of course, if they don't rememeber, they'll have to
study again. This will make better hams. And the fact that this
requirement has never existed in the history of ham radio doesn't make it
a bad idea. You're just Lazy.



Not hardly. Every time they change the pool, I get an up-to-date study
guide just to keep current and see what's new. Could pass the test any day
of the week and twice on Sunday. By the way the exam has changed in 10
years. There is some common stuff but there is also new stuff.

However, the biggest problem would be manpower for conducting the tests.
Based on the current number of hams, that would be over 60,000 people
retesting every year. The existing test system (and the prior systems when
things were administered by the FCC) were all designed around the single
testing concept. Essentially, it would mean almost every VE team would need
to conduct test sessions weekly or hold huge test sessions monthly. There
just aren't enough of us to do that. Plus many facilities now charge for
the use of the facility. And the bigger the room, the higher the fee.


2- The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.


Might be OK.


Thank you.



3- Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.


Probably wouldn't make a real difference either way.


It DOES make a difference. It maintains the number of ways we can
exchange information, and as a filter to keep out some of the riff-raff
allowing you better enjoyment of the service.


I believe in keeping a basic test simply because a person can't determine if
they will like code until they've tried it. Plus it is one of the basics of
radio. If they have the basics and have thus learned it is not a big, scary
hurdle, they will be willing to pursue it in the future since they already
know it at a basic level.

The filter argument, I consider totally bogus.

Code is either a basic part of ham radio or it is not. That should be the
criteria for determining if it should be tested.



4- Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.


Probably wouldn't make any difference.

Of course it WILL make a difference! It creates an incentive to keep
studying and building on radio knowledge & skill by requiring an upgrade
after a year. And we end up with more knowledgable hams. How can that be
bad?


In today's climate, it will not be an incentive. Those who want to upgrade
don't need the non-renewability clause. The rest will simply let their
licenses lapse. Those who would let it lapse aren't on the air enough to
contribute anyway.



5- Cancel your ARRL membership until they decide to work to improve
things and stop them from proposing ham radio that is like CB.


Terrible idea. The only way to get ARRL to change is to get involved in
the politics of ARRL and work to try to effect the changes that you
want.


The ARRL knew what it's members wanted before restructuring through
surveys of the membership, then did you read the proposal that came out
with? Totally opposite of the feeling of the membership. Google it, we
discussed it long and hard years ago when RRAP groupies actually argued
policy. The ARRL is only interested in padding the corporate bank
account, they don't care about the quality of amateurs getting licensed.
Our HF bands can sound like CB if means the ARRL can get more money. The
ARRL BOD stapped Hiram Percy Maxim in the back. The ARRL doesn't care if
you know anything about radio.


So why don't you go run for office and promote your platform? Or form your
own lobbying group? Complaining here won't get it done. If you want your
platform to prevail, the YOU have to do the work to convince people. While
the ARRL proposal was not what I wanted, it did indeed reflect some of the
things that a significant percentage wanted.

As far as the ARRL padding the corporate bank account, if that is true, then
you need to report them to the IRS as non-profit organizations are not
allowed to do this.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

Dee Flint wrote:
"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Dee Flint" wrote in
:


It DOES make a difference. It maintains the number of ways we can
exchange information, and as a filter to keep out some of the riff-raff
allowing you better enjoyment of the service.


I believe in keeping a basic test simply because a person can't determine if
they will like code until they've tried it. Plus it is one of the basics of
radio. If they have the basics and have thus learned it is not a big, scary
hurdle, they will be willing to pursue it in the future since they already
know it at a basic level.
meaning you basicaly belive that the Mode must be forced on everyone
as mode welfare

The filter argument, I consider totally bogus.
because

Code is either a basic part of ham radio or it is not. That should be the
criteria for determining if it should be tested.
Dee do you seriously support the implied postion that if we end Code
tesing we should indeed end Code USE?



4- Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.


Probably wouldn't make any difference.

Of course it WILL make a difference! It creates an incentive to keep
studying and building on radio knowledge & skill by requiring an upgrade
after a year. And we end up with more knowledgable hams. How can that be
bad?


In today's climate, it will not be an incentive. Those who want to upgrade
don't need the non-renewability clause. The rest will simply let their
licenses lapse. Those who would let it lapse aren't on the air enough to
contribute anyway.

thanks a lot btch

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

"Sal M. Onella" wrote:


I wonder: Did the radio amateur community go through anything like this for
the transition away from spark?


Yes, they did.


--
73, Eric F. Richards, KB0YDN,
"A few old diehards still blazoned 'Spark Forever!' on their QSL cards..."
- from "200 Meters & Down", copyright 1936, ARRL

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

On 25 Jul 2006 21:10:13 -0700, "an old feind"
wrote:

Dee Flint wrote:

I believe in keeping a basic test simply because a person can't determine if
they will like code until they've tried it. Plus it is one of the basics of
radio. If they have the basics and have thus learned it is not a big, scary
hurdle, they will be willing to pursue it in the future since they already
know it at a basic level.

meaning you basicaly belive that the Mode must be forced on everyone
as mode welfare

As opposed to making a ham license something anyone can get merely by
asking for one - because, like you, they don't have the intelligence
to pass a real test.

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

Al Klein wrote:
On 25 Jul 2006 21:10:13 -0700, "an old feind"
wrote:

Dee Flint wrote:

I believe in keeping a basic test simply because a person can't determine if
they will like code until they've tried it. Plus it is one of the basics of
radio. If they have the basics and have thus learned it is not a big, scary
hurdle, they will be willing to pursue it in the future since they already
know it at a basic level.

meaning you basicaly belive that the Mode must be forced on everyone
as mode welfare

As opposed to making a ham license something anyone can get merely by
asking for one - because, like you, they don't have the intelligence
to pass a real test.
no one hass advocated giving a license away except of course procoders
like yourself
Funny I can mange ee qso's (second one last night) and yet you inist I
am unintelgent based on my inabilty to serve as a modem, a machine
funtion