CW shold be protected
Keith Henderson
As Mr. Bill Sohl K2UNK does not agree with me and nor does many others,
CW is a filter to weed out some of the trash from the ham bands. Yes
true there as flamers on 80 meters but such is life.
CW has more going for it than just a filter for the CB element.
I am attaching a e-mail that Bill sent me and deleted from the news
group. Bill I don't like to way you hid behind your key board. Face
the issue that CW is here to stay. Stop being a whiner.
Subject:
Re: CW should die, children, please...
Date:
Sat, 05 Apr 1997 10:57:07 -0500
From:
Keith Henderson <kt...@bellsouth.net>
To:
Bill Sohl <bill...@planet.net>
References:
1
Bill Sohl wrote:
>
> On Fri, 04 Apr 1997 23:11:37 -0500, you wrote:
> >I took my code and passed. Ham radio is a hobby. You show your
> >commitment to the hobby by passing the code. Besides, I set hour after
> >hour studying to pass my code and I think everyone else should as
> >well. If you do away with code then bands will be filled with trash
> >like CB.
>
> Keith:
> You echo the same empty logic that has gone on before.
> Read Part 97 and come back and tell us where Ham Radio
> is defined by the FCC as a hobby.
>
> You then end with the same tripe that others
> before you have said (although at least you said it in a
> clear statement).. i.e. I did it, now so should everyone
> else. Sorry to inform you, but that is not how national or
> international license requirments should be established
> or maintained. If a requirement has no compelling and
> rational reson to exist, then it should go...irrespetive
> of how many had to pass that requirement before.
>
> Lastly, you claim that without code the bands will
> be like CB, yet with over 100,000 no-code hams
> we have nothing CB like on the VHF bands at all.
> Neither you nor anyone else can predict what the
> impact might be if code is dropped. Fear of the unknown
> is understandable but the comparison to CB is so
> far off the mark it bears comarison.
>
> CB - No license, buy a $40 radio and go on the air.
>
> HF Hams (assuming there was no code test)
> License still required. Theory and regs testing at
> the general level would still be retained (indeed,
> I and others have offered several ways the test
> pool can and shoould be improved).
> HF radios are not cheap...even older used ones.
>
> rec.radio.amateur.misc deleted from distribution
> as it is an inappropriate newgroup for this topic.
>
> Bill Sohl K2UNK
> ARRL Local Gov't Liaison, Mt. Olive Township, NJ
Keith wrote:
Well Bill thank you for sharing your feelings. I still do not agree
with your comments regardless of how much logical you try to insert.
The CW part of ham radio is as much a vaild part of the "hobby" as the
the written requirements. Any ham study manual you read, and even
documents that does not relate to ham radio, always seem to reference
some part of the cw history and theory behind what has led to modern day
communications. As modern digital communications is taught in the
schools and colleges, they reference cw as an early form of digital
communication.
You may reference part 97 if you like. I can tell you that as much as
some folks may want to think of ham radio as something more than a hobby
it is still nothing but a hobby. I don't beleive there is any
requirement on becoming a ham that requires me to in the event of an
emergency turn on my equipment and begin passing traffic. I do
understand that in an emergency that any frequency (fire, police,
business radio, etc...) can be marked for emergency traffic only until
the emergency is over. But that goes for our good buddies on 11 meter
as well.
I do not mean this as a negative comment and please don't take it that
way but, it is the efforts of liberal thinking folks like you that are
adding to the complete decay of not only amatuer radio but our society
in general.
There is simply no harm in continuing the code requirement. I can't
think of a single person that has died from the study of code. The FCC
gave in to the weak by allowing no-code in the 1st place. So for those
with enough money (reference your statement of cost) and able to pass
the test, go get yourself a VHF rig and talk till your are content. I
myself started as a no-code.
Have a great day and if you feel that you must delete my message because
you no you can't provide a positive reason to remove the code
requirement. I have a suggestion.....why don't you focus your engery on
something more useful like.....drugs, and other hard hiting issues that
impact real life!
Cecil A. Moore
Keith Henderson wrote:
> CW is a filter to weed out some of the trash from the ham bands.
If we could only weed out the CW trash from r.r.a.misc.
73, Cecil, W6RCA, OOTC
Keith Henderson
Did I piss you off there Cecil?
Cecil A. Moore
Keith Henderson wrote:
> Did I piss you off there Cecil?
Hi Keith, not just you. rec.radio.amateur.policy was created for the
express purpose of getting the never-ending CW arguments to go
somewhere else besides rec.radio.amateur.misc. Why can't everyone
abide by the rules? Having CW arguments in this newsgroup is like
throwing your garbage over the fence into your neighbor's yard. It
stinks!
73, Cecil, W6RCA, OOTC
Keith Henderson
You make me proud to be an American. I am happy to hear one person say
oh what the hey, I will live in the box and pass the code. Yes, forget
it afterwards if you have no desire to communicate via CW. I think you
may be surprised to find that you may like it once you have tried it.
But, atleast you respect the fact that it is a requirement and are not
going to let it be a road block for you. Way to go, do whin, just do
it. Good job!
Oh, when you get your General Class ticket or in your case Advanced
Class ticket, send me an e-mail and I will set up a schedule cause I
would enjoy having a QSO with someone with the guts to stick it out.
Pom E Grante wrote:
>
> Right, let's protect CW. (And when you hams lose another couple
> of Mhz from your VHF/UHF allocations I'll sure love 2 hear you all
> moan & groan) BTW, I will be going for my ham call in April or May.
> Have FCC/Commercial since the mid-70's. Took your advanced
> class theory test and would have aced it but for 2 questions on ham
> rules & regs. Now I'll have to learn that stupid code, oh well, guess I
> can get it and then forget it as I don't intend to use CW. BTW, the
> engineers I work with said that they would go get a ham ticket
> "tomorrow", if they did not have to learn code. Can't say I blame them.
> I'm learning it via the tape method, only since I have some spare time
> available. Just thought that you hams might like to know that your
> stubborn neo-fanatacisim over keeping 150 year old morse code has
> kept two of my associates, each of whom has a Masters in electrical
> engineering, away from your ham radio hobby as they feel that learning a
> 150 year old mode of communications in 1997 is a complete waste of valuable
> time. (Chaps like me, who passed your Advanced theory "test"
> in one sitting) Hell of a filter....eh mon?
>
> Kurt - SWL since '69, CB since 73.
Jeffrey Herman
>Bill Sohl wrote:
>> Read Part 97 and come back and tell us where Ham Radio
>> is defined by the FCC as a hobby.
does encourage us to work DX, and I honestly can't see who
or what we're serving in that regard; it would appear the
FCC did leave the hobby door ajar for us.
Tell us, Bill - what service did you provide the last time you
got on HF? Do you provide a service each and every time you key
your mic and ragchew?
>> Lastly, you claim that without code the bands will
>> be like CB, yet with over 100,000 no-code hams
>> we have nothing CB like on the VHF bands at all.
The amateurs in at least L.A. and Seattle will certainly
disagree with you.
>> Neither you nor anyone else can predict what the
>> impact might be if code is dropped. Fear of the unknown
We have a living example of what happens when an HF amateur
band, 11m, is given to no-coders.
Jeff
Pom E Grante
Gerald Schmitt
In <01bc4239$24f5f840$68432299@94387684762264> "Pom E Grante "
Kurt,
Same here. Since I had a tech license at the time I didn't miss the two
rules questions. The filter the pro code folks wimper about is intended
to keep technically competent folks out so the beepers don't have to be
embarassed by how far they have fallen behind the state of the art.
Just look at how Len and Carl are treated by these Neanderthals both
have impressive technical credentials and are subject to continuous
abuse for the high crime and misdimeanor of not supporting code
testing.
The code hazing was the only thing that kept me out of amateur radio
for 30 years, and it is what will eventually kill the hobby. At that
time the beepers will proudly say to each other (over the internet)
"Well we kept those no code riff raff out." The fact that they no
longer have a play ground to be bullies in will be completely lost on
them.
Jerry
Keith Henderson
Gerald, just stop whinning, buckle down and pass you code. If you are
as smart as you claim to be then there is no reason you can't pass the
code. .-.. .- - . .-. -.. ..- -.. .
(Get you book and look it up!)
Gerald Schmitt
In <334808...@bellsouth.net> Keith Henderson <kt...@bellsouth.net>
writes:
Keith, just stop whining (spelled correctly) and learn to use a call
book before you insult someone, you jerk. No one has been stupid enough
to publicly make an incorrect assumption about my license class in a
long time, thanks for the opportunity to publicly make a fool of you.
BTW reflex response to aural stimuli has very little to do with
intelligence. I do like the mix of ebonics and surfer talk however.
Jerry
Bill Sohl
jeff...@Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman) wrote:
>>Bill Sohl wrote:
>>> Read Part 97 and come back and tell us where Ham Radio
>>> is defined by the FCC as a hobby.
>
>Nowhere in Part 97 is "ham" mentioned, either. But 97.1(e)
>does encourage us to work DX, and I honestly can't see who
>or what we're serving in that regard; it would appear the
>FCC did leave the hobby door ajar for us.
>Tell us, Bill - what service did you provide the last time you
>got on HF? Do you provide a service each and every time you key
>your mic and ragchew?
No I don't, so what. That doesn't change the amateur service
into a hobby all the time.
>>> Lastly, you claim that without code the bands will
>>> be like CB, yet with over 100,000 no-code hams
>>> we have nothing CB like on the VHF bands at all.
>The amateurs in at least L.A. and Seattle will certainly
>disagree with you.
I've been to Seattle and found nothing like that.
>>> Neither you nor anyone else can predict what the
>>> impact might be if code is dropped. Fear of the unknown
>We have a living example of what happens when an HF amateur
>band, 11m, is given to no-coders.
Completely false statement. !!m was given to a
totally free license operation. That you constantly avoid
acknowledging that is amazing.
Bill Sohl K2UNK
ARRL Local Gov't Liaison, Mt. Olive Township, NJ
Visit the No-Code WEB site: http://www.nocode.org
K0PW
emptier place without your giant intellect. Beep Beep.
K0PW
Keith Henderson wrote:
>
> You make me proud to be an American. I am happy to hear one person say
> oh what the hey, I will live in the box and pass the code. Yes, forget
> it afterwards if you have no desire to communicate via CW. I think you
> may be surprised to find that you may like it once you have tried it.
> But, atleast you respect the fact that it is a requirement and are not
> going to let it be a road block for you. Way to go, do whin, just do
> it. Good job!
>
> Oh, when you get your General Class ticket or in your case Advanced
> Class ticket, send me an e-mail and I will set up a schedule cause I
> would enjoy having a QSO with someone with the guts to stick it out.
>
> Pom E Grante wrote:
> >
> > of Mhz from your VHF/UHF allocations I'll sure love 2 hear you all
> > moan & groan) BTW, I will be going for my ham call in April or May.
> > Have FCC/Commercial since the mid-70's. Took your advanced
> > class theory test and would have aced it but for 2 questions on ham
> > rules & regs. Now I'll have to learn that stupid code, oh well, guess I
> > can get it and then forget it as I don't intend to use CW. BTW, the
> > engineers I work with said that they would go get a ham ticket
> > "tomorrow", if they did not have to learn code. Can't say I blame them.
> > I'm learning it via the tape method, only since I have some spare time
> > available. Just thought that you hams might like to know that your
> > stubborn neo-fanatacisim over keeping 150 year old morse code has
> > kept two of my associates, each of whom has a Masters in electrical
> > engineering, away from your ham radio hobby as they feel that learning a
> > 150 year old mode of communications in 1997 is a complete waste of valuable
> > time. (Chaps like me, who passed your Advanced theory "test"
> > in one sitting) Hell of a filter....eh mon?
> >
> > Kurt - SWL since '69, CB since 73.
That's right Kurt, a Scmuck is a Scmuck -- a masters degree isn't a
Schmuck filter.
Keith Henderson
I enjoyed your reply. It give me the chance to how easy it is to make
folks angry. Making folks angry is not my objective. My objective is
to try and understand why the no-code folks are so uptight about code.
Don't let it be a road block to something that they want so badly. The
energy spend fighting over the code is enough to learn and pass the
code.
BTW Jerry, are you attempting to impress someone with a few words that
you had to look up in the synonym dictionary? I am glad you know how to
spell
Take a chill pill dude!!!
Gerald Schmitt
In <334816...@minn.net> K0PW <pwen...@minn.net> writes:
>
>Gerald Schmitt wrote:
>>
>> In <01bc4239$24f5f840$68432299@94387684762264> "Pom E Grante "
>> <seno...@themall.net> writes:
>> >
>>
>> Same here. Since I had a tech license at the time I didn't miss the
two
>> rules questions. The filter the pro code folks wimper about is
intended
>> to keep technically competent folks out so the beepers don't have to
be
>> embarassed by how far they have fallen behind the state of the art.
>> Just look at how Len and Carl are treated by these Neanderthals both
>> have impressive technical credentials and are subject to continuous
>> abuse for the high crime and misdimeanor of not supporting code
>> testing.
>>
>> The code hazing was the only thing that kept me out of amateur radio
>> for 30 years, and it is what will eventually kill the hobby. At that
>> time the beepers will proudly say to each other (over the internet)
>> "Well we kept those no code riff raff out." The fact that they no
>> longer have a play ground to be bullies in will be completely lost
on
>> them.
>>
>> Jerry
>Gosh Jerry -- sorry you couldn't hack it. I'm sure the hobby is an
>emptier place without your giant intellect. Beep Beep.
Well at least I'm a little smarter than to shoot off my big mouth
without checking a call book. Did I forget to mention I did the code
hazing at the same test session. Why don't you run my name through a
current call book you arrogant jackass. It has been a long time since
any of you stupid Code Nazis fell for the old call sign. Gosh you're
stupid in your monoscopic desire to put down people with whom you
disagree. Beep beep dummy.
Gerald Schmitt
In <334841...@bellsouth.net> Keith Henderson <kt...@bellsouth.net>
writes:
>I enjoyed your reply. It give me the chance to how easy it is to make
>folks angry. Making folks angry is not my objective. My objective is
>to try and understand why the no-code folks are so uptight about code.
Do you still not understand that I hold an Advanced license? Can you
really be that dumb?
>Don't let it be a road block to something that they want so badly.
The
>energy spend fighting over the code is enough to learn and pass the
>code.
I passed the code amazingly I didn't transform in a pro code nitwit at
that juncture.
>
>BTW Jerry, are you attempting to impress someone with a few words that
>you had to look up in the synonym dictionary? I am glad you know how
>to spell
Sorry if I sent you to your dictionary, I forgot I was dealing with the
great unwashed. And some people don't understand why cousins should not
marry.
Let me explain this in small words that even you can understand.
I have learned Morse Code. I have been tested on two occasions. At both
of these testing sessions I passed both by the questions and by the one
minute of copy. If that is too difficult for you perhaps a no code tech
with some education can explain it to you.
>
>Take a chill pill dude!!!
Take your foot out of your mouth and buy a new call book.
Jerry
Keith Henderson
Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, what did your mother tell you about getting so
upset!
--
Bill Sohl
Keith Henderson <kt...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>I enjoyed your reply. It give me the chance to how easy it is to make
>folks angry. Making folks angry is not my objective. My objective is
>to try and understand why the no-code folks are so uptight about code.
>Don't let it be a road block to something that they want so badly. The
>energy spend fighting over the code is enough to learn and pass the
>code.
You don't get it at all. Many of us have already done it. We are
intent on changing things for future hams. That is at least my
goal. Others I know believe the same.
Gerald Schmitt
In <334871...@bellsouth.net> Keith Henderson <kt...@bellsouth.net>
writes:
>Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, what did your mother tell you about getting so
>upset!
>--
Apparently more than yours told you about doing your home work. Do you
yet understand what class of amateur license I hold?
The attitude you displayed at the start of this thread demonstrated
exactly what is wrong with amateur radio in the US today. The
"incentive" license structure has led to code snobs who think because
the worship at the altar of Morse that they are somehow better that
other people. In your case the condition is particularly advanced. If
someone makes a comment that triggers the "wants something for nothing"
response you launch into the retoric. In my case the "just learn the
code retoric" was rather stupid since I hold an Advanced Class license.
The most telling comment though was when you accused me of using a
synonym generator, talk about the dumbing down of amateur radio. I'm
sorry if my everyday vocabulary sends you to the dictionary try and
think of it as a learning experience.
Jerry
K0PW
Sorry, OM I should have been more clear -- I should have said: hack it
as a rational human being. Have you ever considered seeking psychiatric
help? Your're so easy to bate, it's hilarious! Beep Beep Bozo
Keith Henderson
Jerry, it is apparent you feel that code is a useless method of
communications. It is ok for you to feel that way.
It still does not change the fact that it is a requirement for getting
onto HF.
My point is for those that have not passed their code YET, to stop
whining pass the code and then put it in the closet. Then they will
have all of the HF bandwidth they want.
Just that easy. I think the engry that most folks waste fussing about
the things they don't want to do is a shame.
I don't use my code. I passed my code to get HF. I will most likely
never use it again. But, I don't use PACTOR either and I had to answer
questions about it in order to pass my exam.
I don't plan to contine explaining myself to you anymore. Congrats on
the Advanced ticket. You passed your code apparently because you wanted
something....my guess is HF access.......let's see could the others do
that as well?
Good Luck to you in your efforts to open the HF airwaves to those too
lazy to put forth enough effort to pass the code.
Happy RFing!
Have a nice day!
--
Keith - KT4VQ
Dave Stadt
Then again we have an example of what happens when bands are
given to those that have passed the code test.....20m, 40m, etc.
It's pretty hard to tell 11m from 20m from 40m. What's your
point?
DHS
N9LWO
Jeffrey Herman wrote:
>
>
> We have a living example of what happens when an HF amateur
> band, 11m, is given to no-coders.
> Jeff
Gerald Schmitt
Nice try but your foot is a little too big to get out of your mouth
now. BTW try "bait" for the term you were trying to use.
Gerald Schmitt
In <334978...@bellsouth.net> Keith Henderson <kt...@bellsouth.net>
writes:
>Jerry, it is apparent you feel that code is a useless method of
>communications. It is ok for you to feel that way.
I never said that code was useless, it has a place and in fact I use it
from time to time.
>
>It still does not change the fact that it is a requirement for getting
>onto HF.
It is now a requirement but I do not think that it should be forever.
Times change and we should explore the possibility of change without
all of the invective.
>
>My point is for those that have not passed their code YET, to stop
>whining pass the code and then put it in the closet. Then they will
>have all of the HF bandwidth they want.
But what you said explicitly was that I should stop whining without
bothering to check if I had passed code or not. Checking is easy to do
but the "stop whining" response seem to be so automatic that it gets
used when it is just plain foolish to do so. Why say that to someone
who has an HF license?
>
>Just that easy. I think the engry that most folks waste fussing about
>the things they don't want to do is a shame.
Things don't get changed if people don't make a fuss. Look at the fall
of the Soviet Union and its client states, a very god thing resulting
from people fussing.
>
>I don't use my code. I passed my code to get HF. I will most likely
>never use it again. But, I don't use PACTOR either and I had to
answer
>questions about it in order to pass my exam.
Ah yes but the Pactor question was not a pass/fail gateway to HF for
you, the code test was and that is the rub. I would not object to a
code test in perspective. I don't want to see code die but even more I
don't want to see it kill the hobby.
>
>I don't plan to contine explaining myself to you anymore. Congrats on
>the Advanced ticket. You passed your code apparently because you
wanted
>something....my guess is HF access.......let's see could the others do
>that as well?
I didn't really want HF access all that much. As a technocrat the stuff
above 50MHz is really more interesting to me. No I tested for two
reasons. VEs are getting hard to come by and I needed to upgrade to
help with that effort. Secondly I really thought to have credibility in
the code test debate I should have taken the test.
>
>Good Luck to you in your efforts to open the HF airwaves to those too
>lazy to put forth enough effort to pass the code.
Not at all what I want I would like to see the hobby develop in a way
that young people would be more interested and technical experts
attracted. Look at the way Carl and Len are treated on these news
groups. If you read either of them, when they have not been provoked to
the point of loosing their tempers, they make very good points. Len is
well known in his field and those with a lick of sense would welcome
him for what he knows not what tests he has passed.
>
>Happy RFing!
>
>Have a nice day!
>--
>Keith - KT4VQ
Consider the points I have tried to raise and in turn I apolgize for my
loss of temper. I worked very hard to pass those code exams it is not a
matter of a "couple of weeks of effort" for everyone I assure you. That
is why I get a little testy about it.
Jerry KK5YY
Ed Legenza AA6NI
Gerald Schmitt wrote:b
Dear sir, no code ham licenses have been available for quite some time
now. Get a update rule book for more information.
and Good Luck on you license test
Bill Sohl
Keith Henderson <kt...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Jerry, it is apparent you feel that code is a useless method of
>communications. It is ok for you to feel that way.
>It still does not change the fact that it is a requirement for getting
>onto HF.
That's true, but the requirments can be changed and that is
what we are working to do.
>My point is for those that have not passed their code YET, to stop
>whining pass the code and then put it in the closet. Then they will
>have all of the HF bandwidth they want.
In other words, just do it, don't stick to your convictions and
hopefully you'll be converted to pro-code (IMHO).
>Just that easy. I think the engry that most folks waste fussing about
>the things they don't want to do is a shame.
I've expended much energy for ham radio that benefited
far more than myself. That's how I view my role in the
code issue.
>I don't use my code. I passed my code to get HF. I will most likely
>never use it again. But, I don't use PACTOR either and I had to answer
>questions about it in order to pass my exam.
But you could have gotten EVERY pactor question wrong and
still passed. That's not the same with CW. Many, including myself
have suggested merging the scoring which, if done, would put
CW on the same bsis as the Pactor. Would you support that?
>I don't plan to contine explaining myself to you anymore. Congrats on
>the Advanced ticket. You passed your code apparently because you wanted
>something....my guess is HF access.......let's see could the others do
>that as well?
Most of us have.
>Good Luck to you in your efforts to open the HF airwaves to those too
>lazy to put forth enough effort to pass the code.
That you simply apply the LAZY label to those you don't
know is just the continuing effort to personalize the issue
rather than discuss the merits of it.
Gerald Schmitt
Ed you deleted a bit too much here please explain what heck you
are trying to say.
Jeffrey Herman
>Gerald Schmitt wrote:
>>> Pom E Grante wrote:
>>>> Just thought that you hams might like to know that your
>>>>stubborn neo-fanatacisim over keeping 150 year old morse code has
>>>>kept two of my associates, each of whom has a Masters in electrical
>>>>engineering, away from your ham radio hobby as they feel that learning
>>>>a 150 year old mode of communications in 1997 is a complete waste of
>>>>valuable time.
>>>> CB since 73.
Well Pom, Modern English is over 200 years old (although spelling was
only standardized about 190 years ago) yet you still use that "mode"
on the air. The telephone is about 120 years old yet you still use
it to communicate daily. Seems these older communication styles are
still around because of their proven effectiveness.
"... a complete waste of valuable time..." is subjective; I feel going
to a movie theater and watching TV (except for PBS and CNN) are a
complete wastes of vaulable time, but few would agree with me.
Did you mention to your colleagues that over 97% of the US amateur
spectrum (up through 23 cm band) is available code free? Shame on
you if you didn't.
>> ... big mouth
>> ... you arrogant jackass.
>> ... you stupid Code Nazis
>> ...stupid
>> ... dummy.
>> Jerry
Hi Jerry - Have a bad day today?
73,
Jeff KH2PZ
Stan Aughenbaugh
Bill Sohl wrote:
> Keith Henderson <kt...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Jerry, it is apparent you feel that code is a useless method of
> >communications. It is ok for you to feel that way.
> >It still does not change the fact that it is a requirement for getting
> >onto HF.
> That's true, but the requirments can be changed and that is
> what we are working to do.
<snip for redundancy>
> >Good Luck to you in your efforts to open the HF airwaves to those too
> >lazy to put forth enough effort to pass the code.
> That you simply apply the LAZY label to those you don't
> know is just the continuing effort to personalize the issue
> rather than discuss the merits of it.
> Bill Sohl K2UNK
> ARRL Local Gov't Liaison, Mt. Olive Township, NJ
> Visit the No-Code WEB site: http://www.nocode.org
Bill, Bill, Bill,
when you came in to ham radio, you knew the requirements.
And I know that here in the 90's a pervasive thought is "you have
something I want, therefor you should give it to me"
Works for food...doesn't it? Works for medical care ...doesn't it?
Just because someone can't pay for the best doctors, society should pay
for it...right?
And it's natural for people to carry that same attitude to Ham radio.
And if it's too hard..or you don't feel like the energy expenditure, you
can always say:
1. It isn't relevant
2. Just because you did it doesn't mean I should.
3. There are better ways.
4. The technology makes it irrelevant.
5. I want it!
6. It's too hard.
7. It's against my principles to conform to these rules.
and all the other tired cliches that the nocoders use. We've heard them
all. Now, you can continue as you are ...whining, or you can get off
your #$%^ and learn the code and operate on HF while you continue your
fight for no code.
Depends how you want to spend (or waste) your time.
But leave the entitlement attitude with foodstamps and medical care out
of Ham radio.
73,
Stan KF0NC
"90% of all statistics are made up"
Gerald Schmitt
In <335294...@MCI.COM> Stan Aughenbaugh <Stan.Aug...@MCI.COM>
writes:
Stan KF0NC
Would that be King Fool Zero Non Comprehending.
I suppose it would greatly suprise you to find that Bill, Gary Coffman,
myself and many others who oppose CW testing as it now exists are, in
fact coded, hams who ARE able to use the HF bands just any old time
they please. What is it about the pro code test crowd that assumes that
if someone disagrees with the current system that they want something
for nothing. Get a clue there are a number of people who just think the
system needs some change and have nothing personally to gain.
Jerry
Stan Aughenbaugh
Gerald Schmitt wrote:
<snip>
> >all. Now, you can continue as you are ...whining, or you can get off
> >your #$%^ and learn the code and operate on HF while you continue your
> >fight for no code.
> >Depends how you want to spend (or waste) your time.
> >But leave the entitlement attitude with foodstamps and medical care
> out
> >of Ham radio.
> >
> >73,
> >Stan KF0NC
> >"90% of all statistics are made up"
>
> Stan KF0NC
>
> Would that be King Fool Zero Non Comprehending.
approximately the normal type of response we've come to expect from the
no-coders.
> I suppose it would greatly suprise you to find that Bill, Gary Coffman,
> myself and many others who oppose CW testing as it now exists are, in
> fact coded, hams who ARE able to use the HF bands just any old time
> they please.
No it doesn't... I have maintained that the code is no major
impediment... if fact I've said many times that it's so easy that any
fool can learn... and from YOUR statement above YOU did. Proof!
A shining example.
> Jerry
Point is ... these no-coders that hide behind principles etc in order
not to upgrade but only bitch about the code are stupid, lazy, dyslexic,
possessed of a welfare mentality or some combination of them.
People who've passed the code and upgraded I am perfectly willing to
listen to even if they can't come up with any new arguments. Those that
think they should be given the full HF privileges just because they
*want* them are just plain sad 90's welfare mentality cases.
"I want it' don't cut it.
If this Ham radio is supposed to be something fun to do, and the HF
privilege desireable to have, then get the damn upgrade and keep
fighting to change, don't just sit in the middle of the floor and
shine.
Gerald Schmitt
In <335527...@MCI.COM> Stan Aughenbaugh <Stan.Aug...@MCI.COM>
writes:
>
>Gerald Schmitt wrote:
><snip>
A very big snip. You left out the name of the person you launched the
following diatribe at: Bill Sol a coded ham. Why is it that you
launched the tirade below at a coded ham then snip to hide it. Is this
"get off your dead ass" crap so ingrained in the CW is all myth that
you just post it by muscle memory. Don't you feel just little foolish.
Think before answering this is a test.
Below is the blast by Aughenbaugh aimed at Bill Sol
>> >all. Now, you can continue as you are ...whining, or you can get
off
>> >your #$%^ and learn the code and operate on HF while you continue
your
>> >fight for no code.
>> >Depends how you want to spend (or waste) your time.
>> >But leave the entitlement attitude with foodstamps and medical care
>> out
>> >of Ham radio.
>> >
>> >73,
>> >Stan KF0NC
>> >"90% of all statistics are made up"
>>
>> Stan KF0NC
>>
>> Would that be King Fool Zero Non Comprehending.
>
>approximately the normal type of response we've come to expect from
the
>no-coders.
Please identify the no-coder making said response.
>
>73,
>Stan KF0NC
To whom is above tirade directed? You previously acknowledged that I
had done my code so it can't be me. More mouth muscle memory? Lots of
us have done it. Unfortunatly it didn't make us unthinking codebots so
despite the fact that we have upgraded and can play on HF to our hearts
content we still don't see a point to continuing a stand alone CW test.
If, as I suspect, CW is the only acomplishment you can look to in your
life, then I can understand your heated defense of the skill. Reflex
actions in response to aural stimuli are savant skills at best, not
really indicative of commitment or work or any other admirable trait.
Jerry
Len Anderson
ST>From: Stan Aughenbaugh <Stan.Aug...@MCI.COM>
ST>Subject: Re: CW shold be protected
ST>Point is ... these no-coders that hide behind principles etc in order
ST>not to upgrade but only bitch about the code are stupid, lazy, dyslexic,
ST>possessed of a welfare mentality or some combination of them.
ST>People who've passed the code and upgraded I am perfectly willing to
ST>listen to even if they can't come up with any new arguments. Those that
ST>think they should be given the full HF privileges just because they
ST>*want* them are just plain sad 90's welfare mentality cases.
Please express a reason for retention of the code test for an amateur
license other than "you have passed a code test, therefore all others
must also pass a code test." All the tough-guy talk, the
name-calling of "no-coders" (actually, no-code-TEST advocates) does
nothing but color your version of the amateur HF-access license as
nothing more than a Hazing Ritual. You wish to lord it over others
who haven't been able to master the code or don't think that a code
test is necessary for licensing...fine, that makes you feel good. It
does nothing for your side of the argument...nor does the use of
negative ideological attributes against "no-coders."
ST>"I want it' don't cut it.
WHY is the code test STILL NECESSARY? Logical reasons, please, not
the Morse Myths. Should the governments support Hazing Rituals just
to please those who've had to pass a code test? Shall the code test
remain in place in perpetuity just because it has never been removed
since the first radio regulations?
ST>If this Ham radio is supposed to be something fun to do, and the HF
ST>privilege desireable to have, then get the damn upgrade and keep
ST>fighting to change, don't just sit in the middle of the floor and
ST>shine.
All the no-code-TEST advocates in rec.radio.amateur.policy except one
have already passed a code test for a higher-class license. Most of
them have "upgraded" to Advanced just as you did in 1990.
On the "90's mentality" phrasing: Morse code was a valuable commodity
in the 90s for business and government communications. The 1890s. By
1900 the teleprinters were making serious inroads into landline
telegraphy and by the 1920s had already displaced telegraphy as a text
communications medium. About the only thing that saved the telegraphic
skills was the advent of Radio...the first radios were consigned to
on-off keying communications out of low-tech necessity. In 1912 it made
sense to have a telegraphy skill test for a radio license. In 1997 it
does not...yet the telegraphy test is still the only operating test
given to applicants for a radio amateur license having HF-access.
There are a number of rationalizations made in favor of the code test.
There is only one legal requirement and that is based on national
foreign policy. All the rest of the rationalizations are based on old,
outmoded reasons or on the "we had to take the code test, therefore
everyone else has to also" variety. Government regulations are not
applicable to fraternal hazing rituals nor the sour grapes of old-timers
claiming some "toughness" rating above younger generations. All the bad
names in the world may be written against "no-coders" but it does not
change the fact that the code test is no longer a logical reason for
an amateur license examination requirement to satisfy the government
that a license would be able to operate and maintain a station.
Len Anderson, commercially licensed since 1956
WA8ULX
Well since CW is out dated Mode, then Im sure you would agree Phone is
outdated Mode, why not just have you guys go ahead and take a real written
test and just give you Modern up to Dated Modes to use, of course CW and
Phone would not be Allowed with your new License since both our Outdated,
and you really wouldnt want to use them anyway right?
Stan Aughenbaugh
Len Anderson wrote:
>
> ST>From: Stan Aughenbaugh <Stan.Aug...@MCI.COM>
> ST>Subject: Re: CW shold be protected
>
> ST>Point is ... these no-coders that hide behind principles etc in order
> ST>not to upgrade but only bitch about the code are stupid, lazy, dyslexic,
> ST>possessed of a welfare mentality or some combination of them.
> ST>People who've passed the code and upgraded I am perfectly willing to
> ST>listen to even if they can't come up with any new arguments. Those that
> ST>think they should be given the full HF privileges just because they
> ST>*want* them are just plain sad 90's welfare mentality cases.
>
> Please express a reason for retention of the code test for an amateur
> license other than "you have passed a code test, therefore all others
> must also pass a code test."
<snip>
> ST>"I want it' don't cut it.
>
> WHY is the code test STILL NECESSARY? Logical reasons, please, not
> the Morse Myths. Should the governments support Hazing Rituals just
> to please those who've had to pass a code test? Shall the code test
> remain in place in perpetuity just because it has never been removed
> since the first radio regulations?
>
> ST>If this Ham radio is supposed to be something fun to do, and the HF
> ST>privilege desireable to have, then get the damn upgrade and keep
> ST>fighting to change, don't just sit in the middle of the floor and
> ST>shine.
>
> All the no-code-TEST advocates in rec.radio.amateur.policy except one
<except one??? Include please those of the Tech+ types who refuse to
upgrade NOTE that isn't all of them>
> have already passed a code test for a higher-class license. Most of
> them have "upgraded" to Advanced just as you did in 1990.
Just as I did in 1990 ?
> On the "90's mentality" phrasing: Morse code was a valuable commodity
> in the 90s for business and government communications. The 1890s. By
> 1900 the teleprinters were making serious inroads into landline
> telegraphy and by the 1920s had already displaced telegraphy as a text
> communications medium. About the only thing that saved the telegraphic
> skills was the advent of Radio...the first radios were consigned to
> on-off keying communications out of low-tech necessity. In 1912 it made
> sense to have a telegraphy skill test for a radio license. In 1997 it
> does not...yet the telegraphy test is still the only operating test
> given to applicants for a radio amateur license having HF-access.
<snip again>
>
> Len Anderson, commercially licensed since 1956
Jeez Len, except for a few facts you got it almost right.
You use the same tired old arguments.
First...my real point (you seemed to miss it) is that there are
lots more than one whiners on the *various* newgroups that are no code
or
the 5wpm wonders that REFUSE to try to upgrade..please note this does
not
mean all or any other such.
They are missing a lot of fun by taking a 'moral' stand. The pragmatic
approach is to take the #$%^ code test, upgrade, get on HF ....and keep
fighting to change the world or at least the ARRL WARU and any other
organizations. eg they don't want to get involved...they just want to
whine.
BTW Len when you're checking your 'facts' you might notice I was KC3GT
before I was KF0NC... and the 1990 event you represent as 'fact'
was an address change. I had changed the call 2-3 years before.
And I don't even remember when I got my advanced, someone could check
the
old callbooks I suppose.
BTW my first license was '58 or so. I did have a lapse in there while I
served in viet nam but I got back in there later.
So I guess I should be more respectful of an older ham even if he
makes unwarrented assumptions, misrepresents facts, etc.
Incidentally my code speed is still about 15wpm today. I don't think
much of the code, slthough I do use it, but I'm not going to sit around,
and waste my time bitching about the piece of HF I'm not allowed to use.
If I want it I'll work on my code and pass 20 WPM. But it's my choice.
Here's one for you... the only valid argument you or anybody else I've
heard so far is that you can fail by failing the code element while
it only takes 70% for all the rest... lets make
code, PACTOR, AMTOR, Fast Scan, SLO Scan, Packet, SS, Microwave, high
power and the rest of the modes ALL SEPARATE ELEMENTS, 70% required to
pass any element.
Fail any element and you don't get a license. That should level the
playing field.
Next someone will bitch because they don't see the relevance (a common
argument)
I'll say it again...'I want it' don't cut it.
73,
Stan KF0NC (license address CHANGED in 1990 you might want reexamine
your other assumptions)
Stan Aughenbaugh
Actually Jerry,
It was the person that started out:
"Would that be King Fool Zero Non Comprehending."
Oh! was that you...?
And I did perhaps snip too closely. Suggest you go back and check
the sequence and you *might* find out I wasn't directing at Bill
and you might try to follow the singular you and plural you.
But you don't worry about facts do you ?
BTW there's more imbedded...
Gerald Schmitt wrote:
>
> In <335527...@MCI.COM> Stan Aughenbaugh <Stan.Aug...@MCI.COM>
> writes:
> >
> >Gerald Schmitt wrote:
> ><snip>
>
> A very big snip. You left out the name of the person you launched the
> following diatribe at: Bill Sol a coded ham.
WRONG!
> >> >
> >> >73,
> >> >Stan KF0NC
> >> >"90% of all statistics are made up"
> >>
> >> Stan KF0NC
> >>
> >> Would that be King Fool Zero Non Comprehending.
> >
> >approximately the normal type of response we've come to expect from
> the
> >no-coders.
>
> Please identify the no-coder making said response.
I admit it, it was Jerry above where I said the kind of response we've
come to know and love...HINT: starts out..."Would that be King Fool
Zero" ...You DO espouse no-code don't you? eg no-coder.
> >> I suppose it would greatly suprise you to find that Bill, Gary
> Coffman,
> >> myself and many others who oppose CW testing as it now exists are,
> in
> >> fact coded, hams who ARE able to use the HF bands just any old time
> >> they please.
you again just above.
> >
> >No it doesn't... I have maintained that the code is no major
> >impediment... if fact I've said many times that it's so easy that any
> >fool can learn... and from YOUR statement above YOU did. Proof!
> >A shining example.
that was ME above...
> >
so I snipped and then added a comment in the wrong spot. YOU should
recognize your own ...no, if I said some of that crap, I'd try to forget
it too...sorry Jerry, I keep expecting too much from you (singular).
> >> Jerry
> >
> >Point is ... these no-coders that hide behind principles etc in order
> >not to upgrade but only bitch about the code are stupid, lazy,
> dyslexic,
> >possessed of a welfare mentality or some combination of them.
> >People who've passed the code and upgraded I am perfectly willing to
> >listen to even if they can't come up with any new arguments. Those
> that
> >think they should be given the full HF privileges just because they
> >*want* them are just plain sad 90's welfare mentality cases.
> >
> >"I want it' don't cut it.
> >
> >If this Ham radio is supposed to be something fun to do, and the HF
> >privilege desireable to have, then get the damn upgrade and keep
> >fighting to change, don't just sit in the middle of the floor and
> >shine.
Meant whine there...
>
> >
> >73,
> >Stan KF0NC
>
> To whom is above tirade directed? You previously acknowledged that I
> had done my code so it can't be me. More mouth muscle memory? Lots of
You support no-code, you push no-code, If I support the xx party then
that makes me an XX'r. EG YOU qualify as a no-coder.
Tell me is this english stuff new to you or is this a second language?
I know quite a few people for whom this IS a second language, and NONE
of them have so much trouble figuring it out.
> us have done it. Unfortunatly it didn't make us unthinking codebots so
> despite the fact that we have upgraded and can play on HF to our hearts
> content we still don't see a point to continuing a stand alone CW test.
>
> If, as I suspect, CW is the only acomplishment you can look to in your
> life, then I can understand your heated defense of the skill. Reflex
> actions in response to aural stimuli are savant skills at best, not
> really indicative of commitment or work or any other admirable trait.
>
> Jerry
Lest we forget the immediately above starting"If, as I suspect, CW
is the only acomplishment.."
I suppose that's all your terminally softened brain can come up with,
aside from all the tired old arguments, and responses like 'that's
irrelevant", "it's all history not modern" . If you have no intelligent
*new* arguments, then you fall back on name calling just like the rest
of the whiners.
>
If YOU want it then it's intelligent and thoughtful, but if we
pro-coders want it's irrelevant, hazing, etc...
Work on your logic, and get some new catchwords.
--
Stan KF0NC
Robert Casey
One reason for requiring CW testing is to have that ability for emergency
communications. That you'd be able to womp together a crude transmitter
and send code. Maybe true 40 or 50 years ago, but today's HT's and
modern rigs are likely to survive a disaster, and be available for
emergency use. And voice is faster than CW. Also, non hams could use
the radios during the duration of the emergency in voice mode. Modern
radios don't drift that much that a licensed ham must continiously
monitor the adjustments of the transmitter. The ham could get some
sleep and whatever while others handle emergency traffic. The ham
would teach people to "push to talk", shouldn't take more than a few
minutes to learn how to handle traffic.
Point is that today's portable HT's and mobile mounted HF rigs are
sufficiently rugged to survive and be avaliable for emergency service
when a disaster hits. And if the only ham at the disaster site needs
to be relieved, others could easily handle the PTT mic key and use
voice and listen to voice. I'd tell them to not mess with the
tuning and such, and say "Mayday" and stuff.
Part of the FCC's reason for having ham radio around is to have a large
number of stations, some of who would survive and handle disaster
traffic. Say 10% of ham setups survive and are usable, given enough
hams, you can have emergency comm links.
Gary Coffman
In article <wa2iseE8...@netcom.com> wa2...@netcom.com (Robert Casey) writes:
>One reason for requiring CW testing is to have that ability for emergency
>communications. That you'd be able to womp together a crude transmitter
>and send code.
Yeah, but don't forget about womping together a *receiver*. Without
that, you're just transmitting blind, and could be doing more harm
than good.
>Maybe true 40 or 50 years ago, but today's HT's and
>modern rigs are likely to survive a disaster, and be available for
>emergency use. And voice is faster than CW. Also, non hams could use
>the radios during the duration of the emergency in voice mode. Modern
>radios don't drift that much that a licensed ham must continiously
>monitor the adjustments of the transmitter. The ham could get some
>sleep and whatever while others handle emergency traffic. The ham
>would teach people to "push to talk", shouldn't take more than a few
>minutes to learn how to handle traffic.
Bad idea, and probably illegal too if the disaster communications isn't
directly related to an *immediate* threat to life. There's more to emergency
communications than operating the "push to talk". Without some training and
knowledge of proper emergency operating procedures, the net can deteriorate
into CB-like chaos. This generally can't be taught in "a few minutes".
And being licensed doesn't assure it either. Amateurs need to participate
in ARES drills and nets to garner the necessary skills *before* the balloon
goes up (some NTS skills won't hurt either).
>Point is that today's portable HT's and mobile mounted HF rigs are
>sufficiently rugged to survive and be avaliable for emergency service
>when a disaster hits.
True, but having the ability to affect repairs or jury rig something
is still pretty important. Knowing Morse isn't of much use, however,
if the problem is a damaged FM receiver. Receivers are generally more
delicate than transmitters, and are more likely to suffer damage in
a disaster. Antennas are even more likely to be damaged. An amateur
needs the skills to quickly evaluate damage and effect necessary
repairs (or to know when give it up as a bad job and start looking
for alternative equipment).
>And if the only ham at the disaster site needs
>to be relieved, others could easily handle the PTT mic key and use
>voice and listen to voice. I'd tell them to not mess with the
>tuning and such, and say "Mayday" and stuff.
That might be Ok if you're in a downed aircraft or drifting at sea,
but don't even think about it for the more normal types of emergency
communications amateurs do. The bulk of amateur emergency communications
falls under the headings of tactical and logistical support communications.
To do either effectively requires operator training in the *cooperative*
techniques of ad hoc network communications. This is *very* different
from some other amateur activities, such as Dxing. The only effective
ways to acquire these skills are to practice them *before* the balloon
goes up. It isn't something you can pick up in a few minutes.
>Part of the FCC's reason for having ham radio around is to have a large
>number of stations, some of who would survive and handle disaster
>traffic. Say 10% of ham setups survive and are usable, given enough
>hams, you can have emergency comm links.
If that were a big part of the FCC's reason for amateur radio, CB handles
it better since there are lots more of them. But you don't have a real
emergency communications system unless you have trained operators competent
to operate it. All you have is a mob yelling into radios. That's even
true when the mob holds amateur licenses. Effective emergency communications
requires specific operator training. Our license exams don't address that
in any realistic way. It is something you have to learn *after* you're
licensed. Join ARES, join NTS, participate in packet networks. Learn how
to work in a cooperative and orderly fashion with other amateurs. That's
the heart of emergency communications.
Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | Due to provider problems
Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | with previous uucp addresses
534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | Email to ke...@radio.org
Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | |
Bill Sohl
Stan Aughenbaugh <Stan.Aug...@MCI.COM> wrote:
>Jeez Len, except for a few facts you got it almost right.
>You use the same tired old arguments.
>First...my real point (you seemed to miss it) is that there are
>lots more than one whiners on the *various* newgroups that are no code
>or
>the 5wpm wonders that REFUSE to try to upgrade..please note this does
>not mean all or any other such.
>They are missing a lot of fun by taking a 'moral' stand. The pragmatic
>approach is to take the #$%^ code test, upgrade, get on HF ....and keep
>fighting to change the world or at least the ARRL WARU and any other
>organizations. eg they don't want to get involved...they just want to
>whine.
Visit the nocode web site and then tell us that we are just whiners.
Every article posted there is by a general or above. We are working
towards change...AND that includes the constant responce to the
tired old bull that pro-coders keep putting forth...such as that all
we are a whiners who should just do it.
>Incidentally my code speed is still about 15wpm today. I don't think
>much of the code, slthough I do use it,
You readily admit you don't think uch of the code yet you refuse
to see it ended as a mandatory, separate test elemnt. Amazing.
>but I'm not going to sit around,
>and waste my time bitching about the piece of HF I'm not allowed to use.
>If I want it I'll work on my code and pass 20 WPM. But it's my choice.
So have almost all of us that are in the forfront of the argument on
the nocode test side.
>Here's one for you... the only valid argument you or anybody else I've
>heard so far is that you can fail by failing the code element while
>it only takes 70% for all the rest... lets make
>code, PACTOR, AMTOR, Fast Scan, SLO Scan, Packet, SS, Microwave, high
>power and the rest of the modes ALL SEPARATE ELEMENTS, 70% required to
>pass any element.
What some people will suggest to protect their love
of code testing is incredible.
>Fail any element and you don't get a license. That should level the
>playing field.
It is also incredibly stupid suggestion.
>Next someone will bitch because they don't see the relevance (a common
>argument)
>I'll say it again...'I want it' don't cut it.
Procode whining I'd say, absent any logical, rational or
compelling reasons to keep code testing.
Jeffrey Herman
Robert Casey, a tech+, writes:
>And voice is faster than CW.
Boy, is that a load of horse poop.
In preparation for our hurricane season (1 June to 30 November) we
just had a message handling workshop. Part of the practice was passing
formal voice messages. To do that effectively you have to speak at
*writing* speed. Using code would have gotten the messages passed
much quicker, with a much more accurately received hard-copy.
73,
Jeff KH2PZ / KH6
(Please respect the "followup-to:" line in the header)
Len Anderson
ST>Len Anderson wrote:
ST>> ST>Point is ... these no-coders that hide behind principles etc in order
ST>> ST>not to upgrade but only bitch about the code are stupid, lazy, dyslexic
ST>> ST>possessed of a welfare mentality or some combination of them.
ST>> ST>People who've passed the code and upgraded I am perfectly willing to
ST>> ST>listen to even if they can't come up with any new arguments. Those that
ST>> ST>think they should be given the full HF privileges just because they
ST>> ST>*want* them are just plain sad 90's welfare mentality cases.
ST>> Please express a reason for retention of the code test for an amateur
ST>> license other than "you have passed a code test, therefore all others
ST>> must also pass a code test."
ST><snip>
You have not provided an answer. You insist and insist on the code
test as if it is some "moral imperative" and yet you do not justify
it. Those who do not accept your moral imperative are then labelled
(wrongly) as "whiners." Please try to explain your position without
all the pejoratives against those who do not favor the code test.
ST>Jeez Len, except for a few facts you got it almost right.
ST>You use the same tired old arguments.
No. If you call them "tired old arguments," then I'm forced to call
you a "tired old argumentative coder." Please try to avoid the
labels on others and explain your position in favor of the code test.
ST>First...my real point (you seemed to miss it) is that there are
ST>lots more than one whiners on the *various* newgroups that are no code
ST>or
All the "whiners" in rec.radio.amateur.policy except myself are
licensed radio amateurs who have already been code tested. Some got
their license via FCC examination rather than the VEC system.
ST>They are missing a lot of fun by taking a 'moral' stand. The pragmatic
ST>approach is to take the #$%^ code test, upgrade, get on HF ....and keep
ST>fighting to change the world or at least the ARRL WARU and any other
ST>organizations. eg they don't want to get involved...they just want to
ST>whine.
On the other hand, you are taking an arrogant, righteous stand by
maintaining the code test and insisting that all should jump through
the hoops you hold in place. Is arrogance and righteousness some
new kind of "morality?"
The "whiner" label is quite tiresome. It attempts to prove some
point about international amateur radio licensing by calling others
names. Radio regulations are not set by one side calling the other
names. Radio regulations are set by governments. In the USA the FCC
does not require Commissioners to be licensed radio amateurs in order
to set rules and regulations for the amateur radio service.
[it's the IARU, not WARU, by the way...you can see that on the ARRL
website where the IARU has its own page]
Gerald Schmitt
In <3357F5...@MCI.COM> Stan Aughenbaugh <Stan.Aug...@MCI.COM>
writes:
>
>Actually Jerry,
>
>
Far too much bandwidth snipped
Actually Stan,
You tried to make the ususal lazy winer blah blah accusation and you
made a mistake. I'm not nocode nor will I ever be nocode again at least
in the sense that the term is used on the newsgroups. No code here
means not having passed the code test for HF access. I have done that
so I am not "nocode". Neither am I anti code I do not want to see it
banned or any of the other preposterous claims I have heard. I would
like to see it stand on its own merits rather than continue its welfare
exsistence. Apparently you code fans don't believe it can or you would
not be so adamant about continuing the dole.
Lest you continue to misunderstand let me clarify my position. I am
against fast code testing. Our treaty obligations are satisfied by 5
WPM (actually no speed is specified) so why have faster testing. Well
the only reason I can come up with is so that the code savants can look
down their noses at other who they (the savants)consider less worthy.
The collateral damage to the hobby as a whole from all of this is
conviently covered up by the security blanket, maintaining the
standards. Why not tell is like it really is, maintining the status
quo. Interestigly it is attitudes like yours than drove me from a bit
pro code test, to neutral, to strongly anti code test. I wonder how
many more there are like me who don't want your verbal abuse so just
say nothing.
Free at last, free at last, I passed my code I'm free at last.
Jerry
Gary Coffman
On 20 Apr 1997 23:17:01 GMT, jeff...@Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman)
wrote:
>Robert Casey, a tech+, writes:
>
>>And voice is faster than CW.
>
>Boy, is that a load of horse poop.
>
>In preparation for our hurricane season (1 June to 30 November) we
>just had a message handling workshop. Part of the practice was passing
>formal voice messages. To do that effectively you have to speak at
>*writing* speed. Using code would have gotten the messages passed
>much quicker, with a much more accurately received hard-copy.
Even back in the 60s we had a solution to that problem. It is called
the tape recorder. We'd pass books of traffic at normal reading speed
while the other station recorded,, or on nights when signals were good
at 2x reading speed by recording at 7.5 ips and playing the tape over
the air at 15 ips. The receiving station would record at 15 ips and
play back, a sentence at a time, at 7.5 ips and transcribe the
messages. Meanwhile other stations would be passing their traffic.
When transcription was complete, any fills were requested (rarely
needed since you could just rewind the tape and listen to it again)
and message receipt was confirmed. Our phone net QTC was
usually about 4x that of our sister CW traffic net.
Now this is still a pretty crummy way to pass traffic, and with
crummy band conditions it got slow due to more requests for
fills, but it worked. With robust digital modes available to us today,
we can pass traffic much faster and more accurately than we could
back then, or than you can do today with Morse.
Gary
Brian Carling
United we stand, divided we fall!
Whining about NO-CODE vs. NO CODE will not acheive anything!
LEAVE well enough alone guys! Stop trying top destroy CW.
Learn to enjoy it - you'll never know what you are missing until you
try it!
On Fri, 18 Apr 1997 16:20:50 -0600, Stan Aughenbaugh
<Stan.Aug...@MCI.COM> wrote:
>Len Anderson wrote:
>
>>
>
>> ST>From: Stan Aughenbaugh <Stan.Aug...@MCI.COM>
>
>> ST>Subject: Re: CW shold be protected
>
>>
>
>> ST>Point is ... these no-coders that hide behind principles etc in order
>
>> ST>not to upgrade but only bitch about the code are stupid, lazy, dyslexic,
>
>> ST>possessed of a welfare mentality or some combination of them.
>
>> ST>People who've passed the code and upgraded I am perfectly willing to
>
>> ST>listen to even if they can't come up with any new arguments. Those that
>
>> ST>think they should be given the full HF privileges just because they
>
>> ST>*want* them are just plain sad 90's welfare mentality cases.
>
>>
>
>> Please express a reason for retention of the code test for an amateur
>
>> license other than "you have passed a code test, therefore all others
>
>> must also pass a code test."
>
>Jeez Len, except for a few facts you got it almost right.
>
>You use the same tired old arguments.
>
>First...my real point (you seemed to miss it) is that there are
>
>lots more than one whiners on the *various* newgroups that are no code
>
>or
>
>the 5wpm wonders that REFUSE to try to upgrade..please note this does
>
>not
>
>mean all or any other such.
>
>They are missing a lot of fun by taking a 'moral' stand. The pragmatic
>
>approach is to take the #$%^ code test, upgrade, get on HF ....and keep
>
>fighting to change the world or at least the ARRL WARU and any other
>
>organizations. eg they don't want to get involved...they just want to
>
>whine.
>
>
>
>BTW Len when you're checking your 'facts' you might notice I was KC3GT
>
>before I was KF0NC... and the 1990 event you represent as 'fact'
>
>was an address change. I had changed the call 2-3 years before.
>
>And I don't even remember when I got my advanced, someone could check
>
>the
>
>old callbooks I suppose.
>
>
>
>BTW my first license was '58 or so. I did have a lapse in there while I
>
>served in viet nam but I got back in there later.
>
>So I guess I should be more respectful of an older ham even if he
>
>makes unwarrented assumptions, misrepresents facts, etc.
>
>
>
>Incidentally my code speed is still about 15wpm today. I don't think
>
>much of the code, slthough I do use it, but I'm not going to sit around,
>
>and waste my time bitching about the piece of HF I'm not allowed to use.
>
>If I want it I'll work on my code and pass 20 WPM. But it's my choice.
>
>
>
>Here's one for you... the only valid argument you or anybody else I've
>
>heard so far is that you can fail by failing the code element while
>
>it only takes 70% for all the rest... lets make
>
>code, PACTOR, AMTOR, Fast Scan, SLO Scan, Packet, SS, Microwave, high
>
>power and the rest of the modes ALL SEPARATE ELEMENTS, 70% required to
>
>pass any element.
>
>Fail any element and you don't get a license. That should level the
>
>playing field.
>
>Next someone will bitch because they don't see the relevance (a common
>
>argument)
>
>
>
>I'll say it again...'I want it' don't cut it.
>
>
>
>73,
>
>Stan KF0NC (license address CHANGED in 1990 you might want reexamine
>
>your other assumptions)
>
>"90% of all statistics are made up"
To reply to this message, you MUST remove ".no.ads" from my address.
It is there to fool those annoying unsolicited e-mail advertising robots!
Send replies ONLY to: b...@mnsinc.com
VISIT: http://www.mnsinc.com/bry/
Jon27787
You know like it or not soon it will be good by code or good by ham radio.
In 30-40 years how many of the 50-60 year olds running ham now will be
alive??
Yes not many.
And in 30-40 years how many 16-30 year olds just getting into ham now will
be alive.
Yes quite a few.
But how many hams will their be in 30-40 years...
Not many.
New hams are not becomeing new hams because of the code....
So I guess the question is how many hams will be left in 30-40 years??
Not many.
Gerald Schmitt
In <335bfe9e...@news.mnsinc.com> b...@mnsinc.com.no.ads (Brian
Carling) writes:
>
>United we stand, divided we fall!
>
>Whining about NO-CODE vs. NO CODE will not acheive anything!
>
>LEAVE well enough alone guys! Stop trying top destroy CW.
>Learn to enjoy it - you'll never know what you are missing until you
>try it!
>
>
What about those who have learned it and don't feel they are missing
much by not using it any more?
No one is trying to destroy CW, unless you subscribe that if it was
taken off life support ( mandatory fast code testing) it would expire.
Nuff said Jerry
Gary Coffman
On Mon, 21 Apr 1997 23:57:38 GMT, b...@mnsinc.com.no.ads (Brian
Carling) wrote:
>United we stand, divided we fall!
So unite with us in our quest to get rid of this archaic requirement.
>Whining about NO-CODE vs. NO CODE will not acheive anything!
>
>LEAVE well enough alone guys! Stop trying top destroy CW.
>Learn to enjoy it - you'll never know what you are missing until you
>try it!
Learned it, used it (a lot as KTN net control), still despise it as
archaic, slow, and error prone. It is a technique, like spark, whose
time has passed as something every HF amateur *must* know.
Let it go to the radio museum where it belongs.
Gary
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You Make It | Email:
Destructive Testing Systems | We Break It | ke...@bellsouth.net
534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed | or
Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ke...@radio.org
Carl R. Stevenson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Brian Carling <b...@mnsinc.com.no.ads> wrote in article
<335bfe9e...@news.mnsinc.com>...
> United we stand, divided we fall!
>
> Whining about NO-CODE vs. NO CODE will not acheive anything!
>
> LEAVE well enough alone guys! Stop trying top destroy CW.
> Learn to enjoy it - you'll never know what you are missing until you
> try it!
Most of us HAVE tried it and many don't like it.
Even those who DO like it don't think everyone should be forced
to learn Morse just to gain access to unrelated HF privs.
We're NOT going to shut up just because YOU don't want to hear
what we have to say ... if you don't like what we say, don't read it.
In other words ... go to hell.
Carl - wa6vse
ca...@ais.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5
iQCVAwUBM11WPeIP1XFmaCFVAQFQBgP8CJApIX6jBP6omf+5HIkSzDMeqLepLa8p
PaDr24g8EkN7n76dVw3GWsNhteqsOTSgSSrP/rx9QNsH1YkEocVdolOtGDKdbMUM
gSBo1x1omoeU+LmRp3uoojyzIQhildHfK7EMRYY/dFWysr66Z8s6KM5gAsWjNrtu
SUbj0QOhL1c=
=cdW5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ka9...@ka9hrt.com
On Mon, 21 Apr 1997 23:57:38 GMT, b...@mnsinc.com.no.ads (Brian
Carling) posted:
>United we stand, divided we fall!
>
>Whining about NO-CODE vs. NO CODE will not acheive anything!
>
>LEAVE well enough alone guys! Stop trying top destroy CW.
>Learn to enjoy it - you'll never know what you are missing until you
>try it!
>
... you can lead a horse/mule to water, but you can't make it drink
.. you can diatribe/preach/flame at each other until the cows come
home (if they can make it through the bs) -- but the only one who's
gonna change any mind is the one whose skull it's in - *you* can't
make 'em ...
as for me ...
my experience: studied it (1979-1980), passed it, got it (licensed
1980, novice), tried it (cw opping), didn't have much fun with it,
dropped out because of it (wasn't fun), got busy with other more
important things in life anyway (like making a living, raising a
family, changing careers, et al) ... 14 years later ... got some free
time, upgraded (from novice -- kept it current, kept qst -- to tech+),
discovered vhf and above, repeaters, weak signal, skywarn, packet, et
al ... now looking at RACES, SATERN, wanting to get involved with
public service and emergency service (solid need in our area, always
has been) but currently on semi-hold as people in our area who train
and teach are busy in grand forks/fargo/drayton/ area, and will be for
some time ...
my 2 cents: cw is interesting (so are antique keys and telegraph
sounders and old-time radios -- wish i had the old S20-R of my youth),
and does have a place (as does everything) ... cw out-moded? no -- it
is still useful, as is rtty (and spark, too, if the situation were
appropos) ... cw, as a requirement? i don't think so -- it
discriminates much, generates more discrimination of all kinds (don't
think so? go back and read the archives of this ng) ... as a "filter"?
to me, it becomes one and is "needed"/used if you're elitist, classist
(possibly racist), a "nimby," if you think your crap don't stink, if
*you* are always "right" and insistent on making everyone else see
things *your* way, or if you're so dead-set blind, deaf and inflexible
that you can't see the forest (pick *your* forest) for the trees (pick
*your* species) ... i try very hard not to fall into those mind-sets
and their traps ... and it ain't easy ...
possibilities? if i could suggest it, i would say this: no code in
the exams ... however, implement an official (i.e., fcc) endorsement,
similar to the commercial radar endorsement, to be applied to any one
of three license levels corresponding to beginning, intermediate and
highest license levels (*you* pick the naming conventions -- that's
another whole pandora's box of emotionality tailor-made for combative
trollers and flamers) ... could it work? do we not already have
cw-only sections of various bands? do we not already limit access to
various bands on the basis of license level attained (license level
granting access to frequencies with bandwidth to be utilized,
concomitantly linked to demonstrated -- via testing -- appropriate
knowledge/experience?) ... could we not say that such a "cw
endorsement" could be the "extra" icing on the cake (it takes those
who wish to go there "right to the top," yet does nothing to
discriminate against those who want to belong to the ham community as
a whole, at all license levels)? ...
something to ponder -- at least for most; for others, perhaps if their
emotions and calcified gray matter would allow such mental exercise
..
... but then, what do i know, right? right ... such things are for
experts ...
WA8ULX
Yes the Whiner bit is Tiring but not as Tiring as you Losers who think you
should be given HF Privilages without doing anything to earn them.
Masa
On 4 May 1997 13:10:19 GMT, wa8...@aol.com (WA8ULX) wrote:
>Yes the Whiner bit is Tiring but not as Tiring as you Losers who think you
>should be given HF Privilages without doing anything to earn them.
what I don't understand is that the people cannot use HF band (in
north america) if they don't know CW... why ? we use CW in 2M
(many are repeaters) but we don't have to know CW to use 2M...
just open HF bands to non-CWers !!
Masataka Noda
Ma...@WriteMe-X.com
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/1325/
Spam Security is ON:
Remove "-x" from noted e-mail address to contact me.
Oxyura
Hi,
I am looking for a group of amateur radio operators in or around
Warrensburg, Missouri. If you know of (or are a part of) such a group
please reply by E-mail.
Thanks,
William Lund
W0YOU