On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 21:13:25 -0700, "Jimmy Mac"
wrote:

Another 20 years and
all you legitimate code endorsed hams will be dx'ing with the worms. We have
to go with the times fool!

Oh? Then you're in favor of REAL testing about digital modes? Like
questions on how Rayleigh fading limits bit rates on HF? That sort of
"the times"? (Or didn't you know that, without frame shifting,
digital modes cause problems on HF?)

Or are you one of those who favors as little testing as can be gotten
away with?

If we are to save amateur radio at all, we need numbers.

So you'd rather have millions of unqualified hams who know nothing
about radio than a few hundred thousand who do. We already have a
Citizen's Band - we don't need a dozen more of them.

Al Klein wrote:


Or are you one of those who favors as little testing as can be gotten
away with?

Yup, as a person who has been a ham for 35 years, yup that's what I believe.

If we are to save amateur radio at all, we need numbers.

I absolutely agree.

So you'd rather have millions of unqualified hams who know nothing
about radio than a few hundred thousand who do.

Yup, that's what I also believe. Get people into the service and they
will start learning what they need to know on their own.


We already have a
Citizen's Band - we don't need a dozen more of them.

Actually the CB argument is really old. I got a CB radio for a trip two
years ago so my 20 something daughters could talk on it. The reality is
that hardly anyone is on CB either. Channel 19 was pretty quiet
compared to what is sounded like 20 years ago.

So not only are people avoiding ham radio, they are also avoiding CB.
Find a new argument Al for keeping people out of ham radio will you?

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:56:58 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote:

Yup, that's what I also believe. Get people into the service and they
will start learning what they need to know on their own.

What color is the sky on your world? (If you were correct, most CBers
would have a pretty good knowledge of electronics and propagation.)

So not only are people avoiding ham radio, they are also avoiding CB.

So how does CW enter into things?

Find a new argument Al for keeping people out of ham radio will you?

Oh? It's not MY argument that CW keeps people from using radios, it's
YOURS! And you just destroyed your own best argument.

Al, you and the rest of the old farts want CW to keep ham radio from
becoming like CB - right? CW does not keep people from using radios, it
keeps people from seeking a amateur radio license. You and the rest of
the crusty old and out-dated hams think that CW is kind of a filter or
the price of admission. It's an over-rated and over-priced ticket.

CBers do not have to have a good knowledge of electronics and
propagation to use the radio because there is little else for them to
venture into - unlike ham radio. But then again, there are darn few
CBers anymore. You, like many other crusty old hams, hang onto this
notion that there are so many CBers out there and that the CB band is
still out of control like it was 25 years ago. It's not. It's somewhat
quiet as people have left CB behind just like they are leaving ham radio
behind - but each for different reasons. CB because cell phones have
replaced its usage and the speed limit isn't 55 anymore. Ham radio has
been left behind because of its image as a hobby for morse code freaks
and glowing tubes. The CW testing requirement just reinforces that belief.

Old fart crusty hams like yourself who continue to promote CW and CW
testing keep reinforcing the belief that the hobby is old and crusty
like yourselves and keep people out in favor of other interest where
they don't have to take a test to get involved and have fun.

I am not destroying any argument, you just cannot follow simple logic.
Face it, we can spar back and forth on this forever. The reality is
that CW testing in the US is going to die soon. You cannot stop the
change. Most of the rest of the world has already changed - the US
cannot be far behind. Be it now, or ten years from now, CW testing is
going to be gone, out of here, adios, good riddance and so long.
Hopefully it will not happen too late. The longer the CW requirement
remains, the closer ham radio is to death.

Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:56:58 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote:

Yup, that's what I also believe. Get people into the service and they
will start learning what they need to know on their own.

What color is the sky on your world? (If you were correct, most CBers
would have a pretty good knowledge of electronics and propagation.)

So not only are people avoiding ham radio, they are also avoiding CB.

So how does CW enter into things?

Find a new argument Al for keeping people out of ham radio will you?

Oh? It's not MY argument that CW keeps people from using radios, it's
YOURS! And you just destroyed your own best argument.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:36:26 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote:

Al, you and the rest of the old farts want CW to keep ham radio from
becoming like CB - right?

Wrong. I want ham radio to stop being what it's been for the last
couple of decades - CB on different frequencies. There are CBers who
are competent communications engineers, but the majority today - CB or
ham band - want to buy a radio and put it on the air. Any license
requirement is just an annoyance they get around any way they can -
except by actually studying and learning enough to pass tests.

Take a close look at a General test from the 50s and one from today.
The difference isn't that the current one dropped old technical
questions and added equivalent questions about modern modes - it's
that the current test has dropped the technical requirement low enough
that it's a joke. Everyone says that CW is old hat and modern modes
have replaced it. Okay - let's see a question asking for a PSK
interface schematic, including full isolation. That's just simple
audio and DC stuff. Let's have questions on Rayleigh fading and its
effect on maximum usable baud rate at various frequencies, so no one
complains about the FCC not giving us permission to run 9600 bps on
20. Modern stuff.

And no more published answers.

Then let's see how many people talk about "modern" and how many yell
"too difficult - there's no reason to know all this stuff". Which is
why, on SWL fora, you'll see people complaining that they listened all
day on 4.2 MHz and only heard noise. Or tried to get some foreign
broadcast station up above 15 MHz all night and couldn't.

It's the "why doesn't this work, and don't give me any of that
technical BS" syndrome. People don't want to know how things work, or
why they don't work, but they're angry that they don't. And don't you
dare tell anyone it's his fault for trying to receive a 440 repeater
80 miles away with a 1/4 wave antenna 5 feet off the ground. His
friend, just 3 doors down, copies the repeater S9+ (with a dual 11
element beam 75 feet in the air and LMR600 coax). Now, without any
technical BS or monetary expenditure, what does he have to do to
receive it?

It's not that no one ever pulled that stuff 50 years ago - but it was
so far in the minority that it was below the noise level. Today it's
the majority of newcomers. "I have a right to use the public
airwaves, and I don't want to have to learn anything."

Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:36:26 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote:

Al, you and the rest of the old farts want CW to keep ham radio from
becoming like CB - right?

Wrong. I want ham radio to stop being what it's been for the last
couple of decades - CB on different frequencies.
then give it up along with your hang ups about cb if you please
There are CBers who
are competent communications engineers, but the majority today - CB or
ham band - want to buy a radio and put it on the air.
granted

now what is WRONG with that?
Any license
requirement is just an annoyance they get around any way they can -
except by actually studying and learning enough to pass tests.
then how do they get the lecnse?
they learn enough to pass clearly not more than that in many case I
grant you

Take a close look at a General test from the 50s and one from today.
The difference isn't that the current one dropped old technical
questions and added equivalent questions about modern modes - it's
that the current test has dropped the technical requirement low enough
that it's a joke. Everyone says that CW is old hat and modern modes
have replaced it. Okay - let's see a question asking for a PSK
interface schematic, including full isolation. That's just simple
audio and DC stuff.
why?
Let's have questions on Rayleigh fading and its
effect on maximum usable baud rate at various frequencies, so no one
complains about the FCC not giving us permission to run 9600 bps on
20. Modern stuff.
why do you need to know that in order to operate?
to just get on the air..
Understand in the case you mention is NOT required only obeinace
understanding hopefully comes later

different folks come to different levels of understanding about
different subjects at different time

the license is a permit to learn not proof you have learned
you convince of the need and I will support you

And no more published answers.
NO can do the court have more or less so, along the long standing body
of the FCC not chaleanceing Bash et all years ago to close the
quiestion pools NOW would more or less require an act of Congress or a
change in ITU treaty lang. It took us No Code what 4 or decades to
acheeve the changes we needd in order to bring off No Code


Then let's see how many people talk about "modern" and how many yell
"too difficult - there's no reason to know all this stuff". Which is
why, on SWL fora, you'll see people complaining that they listened all
day on 4.2 MHz and only heard noise. Or tried to get some foreign
broadcast station up above 15 MHz all night and couldn't.

It's the "why doesn't this work, and don't give me any of that
technical BS" syndrome. People don't want to know how things work, or
why they don't work, but they're angry that they don't. And don't you
dare tell anyone it's his fault for trying to receive a 440 repeater
80 miles away with a 1/4 wave antenna 5 feet off the ground. His
friend, just 3 doors down, copies the repeater S9+ (with a dual 11
element beam 75 feet in the air and LMR600 coax). Now, without any
technical BS or monetary expenditure, what does he have to do to
receive it?
never heard such a complaint ever


It's not that no one ever pulled that stuff 50 years ago - but it was
so far in the minority that it was below the noise level. Today it's
the majority of newcomers. "I have a right to use the public
airwaves, and I don't want to have to learn anything."
Funny all I heard of Ham radio for many years was the "wizards of 80M"
all code tested hams

I have never heard any realy bad behavoi r from any ham that hasn't had
his license renewed at least twice (which leaves out ALL No code techs
BTW)

indeed I have never heard the sort of Vile lang I have heard from that
bunch on CB perhaps midwestern Cber are just different prehaps you are
just full of it

Al Klein wrote:

Wrong. I want ham radio to stop being what it's been for the last
couple of decades - CB on different frequencies. There are CBers who
are competent communications engineers, but the majority today - CB or
ham band - want to buy a radio and put it on the air.

And what is wrong with that?


Any license requirement is just an annoyance they get around any way they can -
except by actually studying and learning enough to pass tests.

How does "passing tests" going to eliminate the problem?

Take a close look at a General test from the 50s and one from today.
The difference isn't that the current one dropped old technical
questions and added equivalent questions about modern modes - it's

How does memorizing answers to "technical questions" make you a better ham?

that the current test has dropped the technical requirement low enough
that it's a joke.


Everyone says that CW is old hat and modern modes

At least we agree on something and nice to see you admit that everyone
is now saying this.

have replaced it. Okay - let's see a question asking for a PSK
interface schematic, including full isolation. That's just simple
audio and DC stuff.

Yup, it is a simple circuit. It's also readily available in books, the
Internet, etc., so how does memorizing the circuit to pass a test, make
you a better ham?

Let's have questions on Rayleigh fading and its
effect on maximum usable baud rate at various frequencies, so no one
complains about the FCC not giving us permission to run 9600 bps on
20. Modern stuff.

"Rayleigh Fading" - that comes up in daily discussions on the radio.
Never heard anyone complaining about not being able to run 9600 baud on
HF - who the heck to you hang around with?

And no more published answers.

Why not? Memorizing answers has people learning just like reading a
book. Learning is learning.

Then let's see how many people talk about "modern" and how many yell
"too difficult - there's no reason to know all this stuff".

That's true, many of the things I had to learn for my test in the 1970s
was worthless in my opinion. But it was conceived by people who had the
same outdated opinion as you. Let's get people communicating and not
continue to figure out ways to make it so hard that new people do not
come into the service. Here's the choice for kids today. Learn code and
other crap to get a license to use a ham radio - or - get on the
Internet immediately where everyone is and communicate with them. Guess
what choice is being made Al - it's a no brainer and why our testing
should be a no brainer.

Which is
why, on SWL fora, you'll see people complaining that they listened all
day on 4.2 MHz and only heard noise. Or tried to get some foreign
broadcast station up above 15 MHz all night and couldn't.

So what? They will seek out the answers and learn on their own.

It's the "why doesn't this work, and don't give me any of that
technical BS" syndrome. People don't want to know how things work,

You know that's true and some will seek answers, others won't.
or
why they don't work, but they're angry that they don't. And don't you
dare tell anyone it's his fault for trying to receive a 440 repeater
80 miles away with a 1/4 wave antenna 5 feet off the ground.

I won't because those discussions never come up in our area. Where the
heck do you live that you have these discussions with so many people?
Arkansas or Mississippi?

His
friend, just 3 doors down, copies the repeater S9+ (with a dual 11
element beam 75 feet in the air and LMR600 coax). Now, without any
technical BS or monetary expenditure, what does he have to do to
receive it?

Something tells me he'll figure it out on his own, via another ham, the
Internet, etc. and he'll learn - learning without being forced is a
wonderful thing.

It's not that no one ever pulled that stuff 50 years ago -

Yup, that's true, and all those strict technical tests back then did not
prevent this from occuring.

but it was
so far in the minority that it was below the noise level. Today it's
the majority of newcomers.

No proof of that statement Al. Just something in your own mind.

"I have a right to use the public
airwaves, and I don't want to have to learn anything."

Is this a great country or what?

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:51:19 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Wrong. I want ham radio to stop being what it's been for the last
couple of decades - CB on different frequencies. There are CBers who
are competent communications engineers, but the majority today - CB or
ham band - want to buy a radio and put it on the air.

And what is wrong with that?

What's wrong with ham radio being turned into CB? For one thing, we
already had a couple of citizen's bands - we didn't need a dozen more.

Any license requirement is just an annoyance they get around any way they can -
except by actually studying and learning enough to pass tests.

How does "passing tests" going to eliminate the problem?

For them? It's not. If they can't pass the test they don't get the
privilege. That's just the way life is. If you're not 75 inches
tall, we don't let you be 6'3". These days some people want to be
what they aren't, regardless of reality. Giving ham licenses to
anyone who wants one doesn't make hams of people who know nothing, it
makes the ham license worthless.

Take a close look at a General test from the 50s and one from today.
The difference isn't that the current one dropped old technical
questions and added equivalent questions about modern modes - it's

How does memorizing answers to "technical questions" make you a better ham?

I said it doesn't. I said that learning makes you more knowledgeable.

that the current test has dropped the technical requirement low enough
that it's a joke.

Everyone says that CW is old hat and modern modes

At least we agree on something and nice to see you admit that everyone
is now saying this.

That thing passing over your head was the point.

have replaced it. Okay - let's see a question asking for a PSK
interface schematic, including full isolation. That's just simple
audio and DC stuff.

Yup, it is a simple circuit. It's also readily available in books, the
Internet, etc., so how does memorizing the circuit to pass a test, make
you a better ham?

Understanding how it works makes you more knowledgeable. Evidently
you're one of those who needs things repeated a few times.

Let's have questions on Rayleigh fading and its
effect on maximum usable baud rate at various frequencies, so no one
complains about the FCC not giving us permission to run 9600 bps on
20. Modern stuff.

"Rayleigh Fading" - that comes up in daily discussions on the radio.
Never heard anyone complaining about not being able to run 9600 baud on
HF - who the heck to you hang around with?

You never listened to QSOs on 20? Or questions asked at ham club
meetings? Or in radio fora?

And no more published answers.

Why not? Memorizing answers has people learning just like reading a
book. Learning is learning.

Learning requires understanding. Memorizing isn't understanding. It
was proved over 100 years ago that rote memorization isn't even a
mediocre way of teaching.

Then let's see how many people talk about "modern" and how many yell
"too difficult - there's no reason to know all this stuff".

That's true, many of the things I had to learn for my test in the 1970s
was worthless in my opinion. But it was conceived by people who had the
same outdated opinion as you. Let's get people communicating and not
continue to figure out ways to make it so hard that new people do not
come into the service. Here's the choice for kids today. Learn code and
other crap to get a license to use a ham radio - or - get on the
Internet immediately where everyone is and communicate with them. Guess
what choice is being made Al - it's a no brainer and why our testing
should be a no brainer.

So let them get on radio immediately with no testing. The method has
been available since the 60s.

IT'S CALLED CB! You want HF? Get on 11 meters. You want UHF? Get
on 465. It's all there.

And leave ham radio to hams.

Which is
why, on SWL fora, you'll see people complaining that they listened all
day on 4.2 MHz and only heard noise. Or tried to get some foreign
broadcast station up above 15 MHz all night and couldn't.

So what? They will seek out the answers and learn on their own.

Or, as has happened over the past few decades, they won't. But now
that you said they will ... magic ... they will, eh?

It's the "why doesn't this work, and don't give me any of that
technical BS" syndrome. People don't want to know how things work,

You know that's true and some will seek answers, others won't.

So those who seek answers become hams - those who don't become CBers.
What's with the "everyone is equal even if the only way to achieve it
is to dumb the entire world down" crap?

or
why they don't work, but they're angry that they don't. And don't you
dare tell anyone it's his fault for trying to receive a 440 repeater
80 miles away with a 1/4 wave antenna 5 feet off the ground.

I won't because those discussions never come up in our area. Where the
heck do you live that you have these discussions with so many people?

In the real world.

His
friend, just 3 doors down, copies the repeater S9+ (with a dual 11
element beam 75 feet in the air and LMR600 coax). Now, without any
technical BS or monetary expenditure, what does he have to do to
receive it?

Something tells me he'll figure it out on his own, via another ham, the
Internet, etc. and he'll learn - learning without being forced is a
wonderful thing.

Demanding answers without putting in any effort seems to have
substituted for learning.

It's not that no one ever pulled that stuff 50 years ago -

Yup, that's true, and all those strict technical tests back then did not
prevent this from occuring.

but it was
so far in the minority that it was below the noise level. Today it's
the majority of newcomers.

No proof of that statement Al. Just something in your own mind.

About like everything you've said here.

"I have a right to use the public
airwaves, and I don't want to have to learn anything."

Is this a great country or what?

Yes, if you're in the bottom 10%, it must surely look that way. You
get to be in the top 10% merely because that's the way you want things
to be, and heaven help the rest of us if we don't give you your way.

"J. D. B." wrote in
:

Al, you and the rest of the old farts want CW to keep ham radio from
becoming like CB - right? CW does not keep people from using radios, it
keeps people from seeking a amateur radio license. You and the rest of
the crusty old and out-dated hams think that CW is kind of a filter or
the price of admission. It's an over-rated and over-priced ticket.

SNIP


And people shouldn't have to learn multiplication tables because we have
calculators now.


SC

Slow Code wrote:
"J. D. B." wrote in
:

Al, you and the rest of the old farts want CW to keep ham radio from
becoming like CB - right? CW does not keep people from using radios, it
keeps people from seeking a amateur radio license. You and the rest of
the crusty old and out-dated hams think that CW is kind of a filter or
the price of admission. It's an over-rated and over-priced ticket.

SNIP


And people shouldn't have to learn multiplication tables because we have
calculators now.
agreed they should spend their school days learning something more
important than that


SC