CW..More Than Just a mode
W6RCecilA
> CW in much more than just a mode...it is a Skill that requires no radio or
> antenna to use. It is as *basic* as communication can be and for that reason
> it must remain a part of the Amateur Radio Service.
CW requires an RF generator BY DEFINITION. How the hell do you
generate RF with "no radio"?
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://people.delphi.com/CecilMoore
Richard Plourde
C.F. Kane wrote:
> CW in much more than just a mode...it is a Skill that requires no radio or
> antenna to use. It is as *basic* as communication can be and for that reason
> it must remain a part of the Amateur Radio Service.
For that reason it doesn't need the Amateur Radio Service! <:})8-<
>
>
> C.F. Kane
73 de Dick - N1SJM
ERLPN K4YZ
You are right on all except one point...CW is more than a "skill" that
must be mastered for an Amateur Radio license.
It is truly an artform. Anyone who has carried on a CW QSO that lasted
longer than "599 TN 73 DE K4YZ" knows that CW is as individual and
characteristic as thier finger prints...even if you're using a keyer.
It's a shame that so many are crying foul at having to help perpetuate
this art over thier short term goals of getting on HF SSB. It truly will be a
loss.
73
Steve Robeson, K4YZ
Chattanooga, TN
No CW Test
(ERLPN K4YZ) writes:
>Subject: Re: CW..More Than Just a mode
>From: erlp...@aol.com (ERLPN K4YZ)
>Date: 5 Sep 1998 07:30:23 GMT
>
>C.F.,
>
> You are right on all except one point...CW is more than a "skill" that
>must be mastered for an Amateur Radio license.
>
> It is truly an artform. Anyone who has carried on a CW QSO that lasted
>longer than "599 TN 73 DE K4YZ" knows that CW is as individual and
>characteristic as thier finger prints...even if you're using a keyer.
Fine, if it is such an ART FORM, then take that request to the
National Endowment for the Arts, the NEA, not the FCC.
Radio operator licenses aren't meant to be ART FORMs.
Governments grant them when they are satisfied that examinees
demonstrate sufficient capability to understand regulations.
Part 97 does not state anything about ART FORMS.
> It's a shame that so many are crying foul at having to help perpetuate
>this art over thier short term goals of getting on HF SSB. It truly will be
>a loss.
No, it's NOT A GAIN by many...so that a minority can keep a public
resource all to themselves just because of an aptitude to know and
demonstrate ONE communications mode.
Len Anderson
Robert L. Coyle Jr.
: C.F. Kane wrote:
: > CW in much more than just a mode...it is a Skill that requires no radio or
: > antenna to use. It is as *basic* as communication can be and for that reason
: > it must remain a part of the Amateur Radio Service.
: CW requires an RF generator BY DEFINITION. How the hell do you
: generate RF with "no radio"?
Citizen Kane is confusing CW with Morse code.
Robert L. Coyle Jr.
: No, it's NOT A GAIN by many...so that a minority can keep a public
: resource all to themselves just because of an aptitude to know and
: demonstrate ONE communications mode.
Actually, it is available to anyone who passes the required elements.
Currently, you can enter the hobby with or without code. If you choose not
to demonstrate competence in Morse code, the Technician license is
available to you. I can't see how Morse code is keeping you our of the
hobby. Enlighten me.
By the way, there is no such thing as a "CW Test." Never has been. If this
has been the point that has been holding you back, rest assured that you
may upgrade all the way to Extra and never once will you be required to
take a "CW Test."
ERLPN K4YZ
Thank you for that enlightening post and putting words in people's
mouths again, Lenny No Calls.
Here I have been trying to be a good boy all week and avoid you, and you
have to reward me with more of your childish diribble.
Lenny, how does it feel going to bed at night knowing there are 3rd
graders who can do something you haven't got the GUTS to do?!?!
You can't even keep up with a GRADESCHOOLER!. Yet you ELITIST
professional radio technicains always did hold us mere amateurs in contempt
anyway. Why should any of us be surprised?!?!? Your PROFESSIONAL ranking
put's you ABOVE those of us who don't pursue a GRTL, doesn't it?
My 6 year old will be licensed before you, a I will laugh ALL THE WAY
HOME FROM THE VE SESSION! HAHAHAHAHA!! My 6 year old will have a radio license
and all Lenny NoCall will have is MORE egg on his face!
"I am laughing at the superior intellect!"
PS Lenny, according to a poll recounted in THIS newsgroup, approximately
64% of all amateur radio operators (in the United States) have at least SOME
occassion to use SOME CW. Guess that makes MORE Lenny-isims ring pretty
hollow, eh, No Calls? Seems Morse useage isn't such the minority you keep
insisiting it is, huh?!?!
Keep it up, No Calls...you are your own best enemy! And it makes such
GREAT sport!
ma...@sa.apana.org.au
"C.F. Kane" <cqd...@alliance.net> wrote:
> CW in much more than just a mode...it is a Skill that requires no radio or
> antenna to use.
If you don't need a radio, then you don't need a licence to use it. If you
don't need a licence to do it, you don't need it in the licence exam.
BTW, typing is in the same category, along with speaking - neither of which
have a test. Also, like Morse, they can be used on-air. In short they are
just like Morse.
--
Mark Little | mailto: ma...@sa.apana.org.au
http://brigadoon.apana.org.au
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Brian Kelly
ERLPN K4YZ wrote:
> C.F.,
>
> You are right on all except one point...CW is more than a "skill" that
> must be mastered for an Amateur Radio license.
>
> It is truly an artform. Anyone who has carried on a CW QSO that lasted
> longer than "599 TN 73 DE K4YZ" knows that CW is as individual and
> characteristic as thier finger prints...even if you're using a keyer.
>
> It's a shame that so many are crying foul at having to help perpetuate
> this art over thier short term goals of getting on HF SSB. It truly will be a
> loss.
Fear not, when the dust settles and the anti-code agenda gets it way and has to
live with the trash radio it foisted upon iteslf, the artform WILL still be alive
and well down the band. Of course, the presumption is that they'll get their own
way and they're seriously overestimating their ability to "make" any such thing
happen.
> 73
>
> Steve Robeson, K4YZ
> Chattanooga, TN
--
Brian Kelly w3rv
No-SSB International (tm)
Member Number 1,000,010
Believe It (tm)
If You *CAN* Beep, NSI Wants YOU !
http://www.qsl.net/kh2d/nossb.html
Brian Kelly
No CW Test wrote:
> In article <199809050730...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, erlp...@aol.com
> (ERLPN K4YZ) writes:
>
> >Subject: Re: CW..More Than Just a mode
> >From: erlp...@aol.com (ERLPN K4YZ)
> >Date: 5 Sep 1998 07:30:23 GMT
> >
> >C.F.,
> >
> > You are right on all except one point...CW is more than a "skill" that
> >must be mastered for an Amateur Radio license.
> >
> > It is truly an artform. Anyone who has carried on a CW QSO that lasted
> >longer than "599 TN 73 DE K4YZ" knows that CW is as individual and
> >characteristic as thier finger prints...even if you're using a keyer.
>
> Fine, if it is such an ART FORM, then take that request to the
> National Endowment for the Arts, the NEA, not the FCC.
>
> Radio operator licenses aren't meant to be ART FORMs.
> Governments grant them when they are satisfied that examinees
> demonstrate sufficient capability to understand regulations.
> Part 97 does not state anything about ART FORMS.
>
> > It's a shame that so many are crying foul at having to help perpetuate
> >this art over thier short term goals of getting on HF SSB. It truly will be
> >a loss.
>
> No, it's NOT A GAIN by many...so that a minority can keep a public
> resource all to themselves just because of an aptitude to know and
> demonstrate ONE communications mode.
>
> Len Anderson
Yo, Lenny: There was a thread created earlier just for you, why don't you take
advantage of it? The rest of the threads are for amateur radio operators.
James Rosenthal
: C.F. Kane wrote:
: > CW in much more than just a mode...it is a Skill that requires no radio or
: > it must remain a part of the Amateur Radio Service.
: CW requires an RF generator BY DEFINITION. How the hell do you
: generate RF with "no radio"?
: --
: 73, Cecil, W6RCA http://people.delphi.com/CecilMoore
A new myth has been added to the ham radio CW list. It doesn't even
require a radio or antenna to "get thru"!
Mr. C. Kane,
I believe you will find that a "radio and antenna" are much -more- basic
to radio communication than one particular mode which utilizes same. If
you will think about it for a moment, if you remove the "radio and
antenna" and try to communicate, you will find it much easier to just *TALK*!
Communicating was being done by "talking" long before ol' Sam came along.
This "skill" is being tested for because of international regulations,
that will most likely change in the near future.
--
Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
Mark VandeWettering
C.F. Kane <cqd...@alliance.net> wrote:
>CW in much more than just a mode...it is a Skill that requires no radio or
>antenna to use. It is as *basic* as communication can be and for that reason
>it must remain a part of the Amateur Radio Service.
Pie is more than just a la Mode. It is a dessert that requires no radio or
antenna to use. It is as *basic* as a dessert experience can be, and for
that reason it must remain a part of the Amateur Radio Service.
Mark
>C.F. Kane
--
Mark T. VandeWettering Telescope Information (and more)
Email: <ma...@pixar.com> http://www.idle.com/~markv/
No Code International Member #1173
W6RCecilA
> It is truly an artform.
> this art over thier short term goals of getting on HF SSB.
What other forms of art do you advocate the feds coerce people
into partaking of? Abstract? Modern? Traditional?
W6RCecilA
> I can't see how Morse code is keeping you our of the
> hobby. Enlighten me.
He doesn't care about vhf/uhf and wants to use HF only?
ka9...@nospam.qsl.net
<Ke...@dvol.com> posted:
>No CW Test wrote:
>> In article <199809050730...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, erlp...@aol.com
>> (ERLPN K4YZ) writes:
>> >Subject: Re: CW..More Than Just a mode
>> >From: erlp...@aol.com (ERLPN K4YZ)
>> >Date: 5 Sep 1998 07:30:23 GMT
>> >C.F.,
>> > You are right on all except one point...CW is more than a "skill" that
>> >must be mastered for an Amateur Radio license.
>> > It is truly an artform. Anyone who has carried on a CW QSO that lasted
>> >longer than "599 TN 73 DE K4YZ" knows that CW is as individual and
>> >characteristic as thier finger prints...even if you're using a keyer.
>> Fine, if it is such an ART FORM, then take that request to the
>> National Endowment for the Arts, the NEA, not the FCC.
>> Radio operator licenses aren't meant to be ART FORMs.
>> Governments grant them when they are satisfied that examinees
>> demonstrate sufficient capability to understand regulations.
>> Part 97 does not state anything about ART FORMS.
>> > It's a shame that so many are crying foul at having to help perpetuate
>> >this art over thier short term goals of getting on HF SSB. It truly will be
>> >a loss.
>> No, it's NOT A GAIN by many...so that a minority can keep a public
>> resource all to themselves just because of an aptitude to know and
>> demonstrate ONE communications mode.
>> Len Anderson
>Yo, Lenny: There was a thread created earlier just for you, why don't you take
>advantage of it? The rest of the threads are for amateur radio operators.
OOOOooooohhhhhh!!!!!! Muy bigoted elitism y members-only
machismo...
>Brian Kelly w3rv
>No-SSB International (tm)
>Member Number 1,000,010
>Believe It (tm)
>If You *CAN* Beep, NSI Wants YOU !
>http://www.qsl.net/kh2d/nossb.html
-----------------------
NCI 1291 - Believe it.
W6RCecilA
> I believe you will find that a "radio and antenna" are much -more- basic
> to radio communication than one particular mode which utilizes same.
Maybe he needs to join the Amateur No-Radio Service. :-)
ERLPN K4YZ
Would make witty, possibly poignant comment if this were worth it.
W6RCecilA
> Would make witty, possibly poignant comment if this were worth it.
It's a pretty simple question. What other art forms besides CW do you
think the federal government should be coercing upon otherwise free
American citizens?
Mark Morgan
>C.F.,
>
> You are right on all except one point...CW is more than a "skill" that
>must be mastered for an Amateur Radio license.
>
> It is truly an artform. Anyone who has carried on a CW QSO that lasted
>longer than "599 TN 73 DE K4YZ" knows that CW is as individual and
>characteristic as thier finger prints...even if you're using a keyer.
Fine, if it is such an ART FORM, then take that request to the
National Endowment for the Arts, the NEA, not the FCC.
>
> It's a shame that so many are crying foul at having to help perpetuate
>this art over thier short term goals of getting on HF SSB. It truly will be a
>loss.
Damm it why do the ProCoders seem to make such an effort to
rude rude and trollish. 20 years is short term to you. If you want
money to promote Morse Code as an Art fine there places to go for that
money and I support the continued funding of them, even when they
produce stuff that turns My personal stomach, or my head on edge, as
Morse code does, but I am sick of the elist attittude that says I MUST
support your personal trips at the price of not being able to INDULGE
in mine wishes and dreams.
>
>73
>
>Steve Robeson, K4YZ
>Chattanooga, TN
Sorry about having to use a obivously fake ID but
I would like to confine thethe flame to the Newsgroup
instead of my email box also being Involved
Mark Morgan
KB9RQZ
Illiopolis IL
ERLPN K4YZ
You are regressing....
I said:>>>It truly will be a loss.
What's this crap about your stomach turning and getting money? I said it
will be sad when it all passes. I said NOT ONE WORD about perpetuating the
code requirement, nor did I say anything about forcing you to indulge ANYTHING.
Get a grip Mark. I said NOTHING about how you MUST support anything you
don't like. Now stop wasting your $5.oo/hour ISP service, completely read
posts before you respond, and COOL OFF!
73
Steve, K4YZ
Mark Morgan
>Mark,
>
> You are regressing....
>
> I said:>>>It truly will be a loss.
Perhaps IYO it will be a loss
>
> What's this crap about your stomach turning and getting money? I said it
>will be sad when it all passes. I said NOT ONE WORD about perpetuating the
>code requirement, nor did I say anything about forcing you to indulge ANYTHING.
Not FORCING BUT PREVETING you bastard, and it is not going
anywhere any time real soon. 2002 is ways off yet, and there is a lot
of work to be done.
>
> Get a grip Mark. I said NOTHING about how you MUST support anything you
>don't like. Now stop wasting your $5.oo/hour ISP service, completely read
>posts before you respond, and COOL OFF!
I read every word of it. As I have every word of your posts
before I repsond to them.
> It's a shame that so many are crying foul at having to help perpetuate
>this art over thier short term goals of getting on HF SSB. It truly will be a
>loss.
There are your words, I seem to see the word Having in there
don't you. You seem to think that NoCode is a done deal, or you say
you do, but that just ins't the case. It requires continued work and
effort or the forces of reaction will somehow obtain yet another stay
of exectution. You do advocate all of us HAVING to help peretuate
this "art", wether or not you conceed that we will not have too that
much longer is another matter . Your words are clear, you think we
should have to, and that we should have to by suffering "Torture by
Morse".
>
>73
>
>Steve, K4YZ
ERLPN K4YZ
You are still free, and free to not use Morse if you so desire. That it's
implementation takes on an artform aura for some of us does not make it so for
the rest of society. You of all people should know that, Cecil. Your mastery
of semantics is bar none!
I am not aware of the Government of the United States denying the freedom
of ANY of it's citizens vis-a-vis the use of Morse Code.
Only those who INSIST on fighting it have a problem. And those that do
are ususally those who have the least self discipline to apply themselves to
the prerequisites of study and practice required to pass the test. Period.
It's no different than some college kid who spends all of Daddy's money
partying, then can't understand why they got an "F" on the final!
There's no "elitism" or "caste" system here ...you study, you pass...you
procrastinate and whine, you get squat.
I am unaware of any Amateur Radio operator ever having a U. S. Marshal
standing over their shoulder "coercing" them to use Morse Code. If there has
been, I'd like to hear from them
You study and practice, you pass the test. Just like High School, you
quickly forget all the BS you had to study that made no sense and apply the
rest as you need it. You get on with your life. But like most folks, they
usually suddenly realize that that English teacher wasn't as useless as they
thought!
Or you can bitch and whine, you get ulcers and frustrated! You let it eat
at you until there is nothing but anxiety and depression left., and you have
nothing to show for it except wrinkles and lost opportunities.
Steve
W6RCecilA
> I am not aware of the Government of the United States denying the freedom
> of ANY of it's citizens vis-a-vis the use of Morse Code.
W5GYJ was denied access to 75m phone by the feds for 25 years because
he is biologically incapable of copying Morse code above about 8wpm.
This is while he had a commercial radio license and was chief engineer
of an AM broadcast station. So now you are aware.
No CW Test
(ERLPN K4YZ) writes:
>Subject: Re: CW..More Than Just a mode
>From: erlp...@aol.com (ERLPN K4YZ)
>Date: 5 Sep 1998 10:15:39 GMT
>
>Lenny,
>
> Thank you for that enlightening post and putting words in people's
>mouths again, Lenny No Calls.
>
> Here I have been trying to be a good boy all week and avoid you, and
>you have to reward me with more of your childish diribble.
I'll leave it up to readers to determine who has "childish dribble."
Is the USA amateur radio license code test to be kept because it is
an "art form?" Is the FCC staffed with engineer-artist-lawyer types?
> Lenny, how does it feel going to bed at night knowing there are 3rd
>graders who can do something you haven't got the GUTS to do?!?!
There are a few third graders who can do things I and many other
adults cannot do. Very few, actually. I don't think there are any
third graders who have tested and passed a commercial license of
any type, or operated radios for real in harsh environments both as
subordinates and supervisors, or (certainly not) actually designed
and tested radio equipment. I've done all those in addition to
learning the true martial arts of destroying an enemy if necessary.
The question of "guts" (courage or physical abdominal mass) is an
artificiality in the discussion/debate/argument over radio regulations.
Introducing some artificial machismo into this only shows that
Robeson has given in to the emotional side of the force and cannot
argue the point logically.
> You can't even keep up with a GRADESCHOOLER!. Yet you ELITIST
>professional radio technicains always did hold us mere amateurs in contempt
>anyway. Why should any of us be surprised?!?!? Your PROFESSIONAL ranking
>put's you ABOVE those of us who don't pursue a GRTL, doesn't it?
Ranting and raving does not argue any point. There is no argument or
statement or implication that professionals are "elite" in reference to
amateurs. They are simply professionals who have acquired experience
in a field, have passed "tests" (job performance) sufficiently well to
remain employed as professionals. In the case of radio that means
that professionals have acquired some measure of technical knowledge
which is probably more than the technical knowledge acquired by
radio amateurs who are not radio professionals. No more, no less.
It should be pointed out that there exist radio amateurs who are also
radio professionals.
What has been demonstrated in this newsgroup for all to read is
that a few radio amateurs (nearly all Amateur Extra) have expressed
that they are "superior" in radio, either directly or by implication
through denigrating those not so licensed. That is irrefutable.
> My 6 year old will be licensed before you, a I will laugh ALL THE WAY
>HOME FROM THE VE SESSION! HAHAHAHAHA!! My 6 year old will have a radio
>license
>and all Lenny NoCall will have is MORE egg on his face!
>
> "I am laughing at the superior intellect!"
Some readers will come to the conclusion, as I have, that Robeson
has some serious emotional stability problems from this outburst.
If the hobby of amateur radio is to be "ranked" by the ability of some
to publicly denigrate and/or humiliate others for not achieving their
status, then the pursuit of amateur radio is not for adults.
> PS Lenny, according to a poll recounted in THIS newsgroup, approximately
>64% of all amateur radio operators (in the United States) have at least SOME
>occassion to use SOME CW. Guess that makes MORE Lenny-isims ring pretty
>hollow, eh, No Calls? Seems Morse useage isn't such the minority you keep
>insisiting it is, huh?!?!
If this is in reference to last year's "poll" of selected individuals, Robeson
is referred to the much larger set of posts on that poll.
That is beside the point. Robeson made the claim that morse code is
an "art form." That is no doubt in the minds of skilled practitioners of
morse code. However, as an "art form" it does not seem to meet the
needs of any government in granting a radio license. The FCC does
not give out "art" grants.
> Keep it up, No Calls...you are your own best enemy! And it makes such
>GREAT sport!
It is not "sport" to continually swat down bullies who act as if this
were all some infantile schoolyard. Robeson acts the bully but
remains a boor. His "arguments" are childish and easily refuted.
Len Anderson
No CW Test
writes:
>Subject: Re: CW..More Than Just a mode
>From: ka9...@NOSPAM.qsl.net
>Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 19:17:29 GMT
>
>On Sat, 05 Sep 1998 08:32:38 -0400, Brian Kelly
><Ke...@dvol.com> posted:
>
>>No CW Test wrote:
>
>>> In article <199809050730...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>erlp...@aol.com
>>> (ERLPN K4YZ) writes:
>
>>> >Subject: Re: CW..More Than Just a mode
>>> >From: erlp...@aol.com (ERLPN K4YZ)
>>> >Date: 5 Sep 1998 07:30:23 GMT
>
>>> >C.F.,
>
>>> > You are right on all except one point...CW is more than a "skill"
>that
>>> >must be mastered for an Amateur Radio license.
>
>>> > It is truly an artform. Anyone who has carried on a CW QSO that
>lasted
>>> >longer than "599 TN 73 DE K4YZ" knows that CW is as individual and
>>> >characteristic as thier finger prints...even if you're using a keyer.
>
>>> Fine, if it is such an ART FORM, then take that request to the
>>> National Endowment for the Arts, the NEA, not the FCC.
>
>>> Radio operator licenses aren't meant to be ART FORMs.
>>> Governments grant them when they are satisfied that examinees
>>> demonstrate sufficient capability to understand regulations.
>>> Part 97 does not state anything about ART FORMS.
>
>>> > It's a shame that so many are crying foul at having to help
>perpetuate
>>> >this art over thier short term goals of getting on HF SSB. It truly will
>be
>>> >a loss.
>
>>> No, it's NOT A GAIN by many...so that a minority can keep a public
>>> resource all to themselves just because of an aptitude to know and
>>> demonstrate ONE communications mode.
>
>>> Len Anderson
>
>>Yo, Lenny: There was a thread created earlier just for you, why don't you
>take
>>advantage of it? The rest of the threads are for amateur radio operators.
>
>OOOOooooohhhhhh!!!!!! Muy bigoted elitism y members-only
>machismo...
Si, senor, comprendo...
Seems like the authoritative Voice had his armband on too tight, the
jackboots didn't fit well, and he stuck his swagger stick in the wrong
orifice. That's an indication that too much CW may be dangerous to
its practitioners... ;-)
Len Anderson
ERLPN K4YZ
Lenny said:>>Seems like the authoritative Voice had his armband on too
tight, the
jackboots didn't fit well, and he stuck his swagger stick in the wrong orifice.
That's an indication that too much CW may be dangerous to its practitioners...
;-)
Lenny, wasn't it you who just a few days ago said that the references to
the "jackboots" and similar Nazi regalia was a fallback by those for whom a
point was unarguable and irrefuteable?....Making an inference to the Nazi
regime is relevant? (even if I am erroneously attributing these comments to
you?)
Perhaps some civil conversations by Morse might temper your tone...It
takes time and patience to formulate a thought by that mode. Here you can just
rattle on...
The clock's ticking Lenny....tic, toc, tic, toc...
Planned your VE session yet?
Times a wasting!
ERLPN K4YZ
I make a post lamenting the passing of an era.
You make posts about getting money from the NEA and what not. Where in
the hell did that come from and WHAT does it have to do with Morse Code
Examinations. (You DO know there is NO CW test, don't you Lenny?)
I challenge you to do what gradeschoolers are doing every week.
You make verbose excuses.
You call Amateur Extras "elitists", stagnant, caste oriented, etc, then
you rant on about your lengthy "military" expertice, martial arts skills, and
your "professional licensure". You are a HYPOCRITE, Lenny, no matter what you
say. You are an unrelenting hypocrite, and that will follow you to your grave!
Say what you will, No Calls,....the truth is apparent to more eyes than
mine...there may be outbursts here, but I am NOT the only one prone to them!
And as for this BS: > His "arguments" are childish and easily refuted.
Not so, Lenny! I am not the first to call you on your lies, and I won't
be the last. I reposted my comments in a thread specific to that, and you
ignored it. You can't respond without disproving YOURSELF! PROVE ME WRONG!
H-I-P-O-C-R-I-T-E!
Say what you will, Lenny, your verbose ramblings can't deflect the truth,
and the truth is that you don't have the initiative, guts or intestinal
fortitude to accomplish the simple skills an 8 year old can master! You are a
loser! An angry, lonely, unfulfilled loser!
Excuse me now...the bands are open!
ERLPN K4YZ
HOW is W5GYL's "biological" incapacity to copy Morse Code (which I
doubt...) have ANYTHING to do with 75 meter phone? He has a license to
operate, I assume, with that call!
That was NOT the topic at hand!
Lastly, the "commercial radio license" and "chief engineer" status you
quoted are not relevant to the Amateur Service. My Amateur Extra grants me no
priviledge to work as a technician commercially, (despite years of technical
skills accumulated in the Armed Forces), therefore WHY should the possession of
a commercial license grant priviledge in the Amateur Service?
I know blind and even deaf people who have overcome obstacles to become
proficient in Morse operation. It only takes diligence and determination to do
so.
73
Steve
ma...@sa.apana.org.au
erlp...@aol.com (ERLPN K4YZ) wrote:
> Only those who INSIST on fighting it have a problem. And those that do
> are ususally those who have the least self discipline to apply themselves to
> the prerequisites of study and practice required to pass the test. Period.
> It's no different than some college kid who spends all of Daddy's money
> partying, then can't understand why they got an "F" on the final!
This is typical of the weak arguments that are put forward in this debate.
Mind you, this sort of backhand character attack isn't limited to either
side, but it serves no useful purpose, except to highlight the weakness of
the case being put forward.
There are just as many people who pass exams without any great amount of
dedication and self discipline. The exam results are no indication of whether
a person has self discipline and motivation. If that were the case, we would
be giving licences to those people who have studied hard, failed and tried
again and again. This is self discipline and motivation, yet the licence
exams do not reward it.
The licence system and its exams have nothing to do with motivation and self
discipline, there are about measuring minimum acceptable standards. The
question is, "What is the minimum acceptable standard for Morse Code for
Amateurs on the HF bands?" Once Amateurs have passed the Morse test, they
don't have to reach a minimum standard on air, or even know it all. If your
licence, does not require you to know or do something, then it does not need
to be examined.
When Amateurs on the HF bands can have their licences revoked for having poor
or even no Morse Code, then it is a subject that should be examined. You can
have your licence revoked for breaking the rules or using a dud transmitter,
therefore examinations on these topics is reasonable.
What other licence even pretends to be testing motivation and self discipline?
They all test minimum acceptable knowledge.
How about arguing why Amateurs on HF must have a minimum acceptable standard
of Morse and what penalties you would impose on those current amateurs who
cannot meet them? If it is unacceptable to let a person start using the HF
bands without Morse, why is it acceptable to let someone continue using them
if they cannot do Morse either? From a Morse skill level, they are equal.
The fact that one _used_ to be able to do it is irrelevant, it is whether the
person can do it now that counts. Just ask someone going in for surgery ;-)
ERLPN K4YZ
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
But I have to disagree on you adamantly that the Amateur examination
process is not about self discipline and study. It is ALL about self discipline
and study! Regardless of wether you study the text from the basics or wether
you study the Q&A books...it still requires those traits to make it work.
To be sure, some can sit down and breeze through a study text and pass the
exams "no sweat". Others have to put theit nose in a book and bust it hard if
they are to get through it. It's all a matter of relativeity. But it can work
and it does.
Do people fail? Sure! But as a VE, I have seen some people return as
much as four times before they got thier "ticket". I can assure you those
people have a deep appreciation for the effort it took to pass that test!
I would wholeheartedly agree on your comments vis-a-vis a surgeon going
into the OR that hasn't been there in a while, but as a Nurse myself, I can
tell you that doesn't happen, and there are pathways for persons "rusty" in
certain skills from being put in a position that would risk another humans
life. Morse proficiency will hardly meet that criteria! Your analogy is left
wanting!
If there are a sufficient number of persons out there that want HF
priviledges without the testing criteria, I suggest they form a
rec.radio.no.test group so they can plan thier strategy to get an expanded 11
meter band and no license at all.
When I first came here, I believe I did so with a fairly
moderate/middle-of-the-road attitude towards the possible changes in the
iminent future. But the harder the "No Code Agenda" people try to sway me with
their rhetoric on why they should get IMMEDIATE access to HF, the more sure I
am that Morse proficiency should remain in the Amateur cirricula for a long
time to come.
In 26 years...and no releveance to my class of license...I have seen a
great many number of people come and go with the "drop the test NOW" attitude,
and go away sulking. Perhaps the greater "immediate return" on opinions here
on the Internet will change those days, but the harder people try to get so
much for so little in return, the incumbents will dig in deeper and become even
more vehement.
Read my "One Radio Service, One Voice"original thread. It went a whole 3
comments before it went from a "can't we all get along" tone to "Gimme, gimme,
gimme". To be sure, only one or two are responsible for these selfish,
self-serving posts, but if I were in the "No Code" camp, I sure as hell
wouldn't want friends like them on MY side!
And if you think my analogy to "partying" at college all year long only to
be amazed at the "f" grade is, in your words, "weak", take a long listen to
many of the creeps and charlatans on 75 meters and 2 meters. This is
definitely NOT the same Amateur Radio Service that I had to bust my butt to get
a license in!
I didn't have test pools and CD-ROM to study by. Mind you I am not
decrying the use of the computer to help in the educational role, but the
question pools should NOT be in the public domain! Can you imagine your
Algebra teacher being carted out on an Ambulance gurney from laughing so hard
if you asked him/her to publish the question pool at the beginning of the
semester?!?!?
Weak testing restrictions and poor enforcement by the FCC has resulted in
this quagmire, and further diluting the pool isn't going to help it. Either by
dropping the Morse proficiency or slacking the testing standards. Either way,
we have it at our discretion to tighten the service up and weed out the chaff.
Tough Code and a reasonable theory test or a No Code test with a strict
and tough test is needed to help this mess, along with the judicial teeth to
back it up. If we don't do it on our own, it may be done for us, and I'd much
rather be in control of my own destiny.
As for the lack of Morse proficiency in the HF bands, that will be decided
at WRC by a vote of the memeber nations and thier various representitives.
Nothing we do here will matter except to rile each other up. Approriate
filings with the appropriatte agencies is the answer.
I imagine we will see a codeless Amateur examination by 2002, but all
this rediculous in-fighting about it isn't helping a soul. There are so many
other aspects of the service to discuss but almost every thread in this NG is
about Morse proficiency. How foolish.
73 and thanks again for your post.
Brian Kelly
W6RCecilA wrote:
> ERLPN K4YZ wrote:
> > Would make witty, possibly poignant comment if this were worth it.
>
> It's a pretty simple question. What other art forms besides CW do you
> think the federal government should be coercing upon otherwise free
> American citizens?
> --
> 73, Cecil, W6RCA http://people.delphi.com/CecilMoore
The FBI seems to make a fetish out of imposing the artform of civil behavior
on felons. There are others.
--
W6RCecilA
> HOW is W5GYL's "biological" incapacity to copy Morse Code (which I
> doubt...) have ANYTHING to do with 75 meter phone? He has a license to
> operate, I assume, with that call!
You young'uns have a lot to learn. W5GYJ was a tech call 40 years ago.
There are still techs with 1x3 calls. Those were the techs who had to
pass the general exam and 5wpm.
> I know blind and even deaf people who have overcome obstacles to become
> proficient in Morse operation. It only takes diligence and determination
> to do so.
Being blind and deaf has nothing to do with the brain's ability to
decode Morse code. That is simply an input/output problem to be solved
using one of the other senses.
Some people's brains are biologically incapable of copying Morse code at
13wpm no matter how diligent and determined they are. W5GYJ spend hundreds
of hours over tens of years and never made it to 13wpm. The only thing
that allowed him on 75m SSB was the code waiver which didn't save him
from 25 years of suffering before it was adopted. Pretty shabby treatment
for a man with a EE degree, a commercial radio license, and 25 years
experience as an AM broadcast engineer. If he's not qualified, neither
am I.
W6RCecilA
> The FBI seems to make a fetish out of imposing the artform of civil behavior
> on felons. There are others.
Funny, my English dictionary seems to disagree with yours.
W6RCecilA
> The licence system and its exams have nothing to do with motivation and self
Guess I should turn in my ham license. I am completely unmotivated and
am void of self discipline. I learned Morse code as a cub scout long
before I knew ham radio existed. I passed my advanced exam, without
looking at the Q&A pool, on a whim one vacation day in San Francisco.
My ham license was effortless. My EE degree was effortless. My whole
engineering career was effortless. Woe is me.
W6RCecilA
> But I have to disagree on you adamantly that the Amateur examination
> process is not about self discipline and study. It is ALL about self discipline
> and study! Regardless of wether you study the text from the basics or wether
> you study the Q&A books...it still requires those traits to make it work.
Baloney, any military trained CW operator can pass the code exams without
effort, self discipline, or study. Except for the rules and regulations,
any EE can pass the written exam without effort, self discipline, or study.
I passed the Morse code exam and the advanced exam without effort, self
discipline, or study.
brian...@my-dejanews.com
erlp...@aol.com (ERLPN K4YZ) wrote:
>Perhaps some civil conversations by Morse might temper your tone...It
> takes time and patience to formulate a thought by that mode.
No, formulating a thought is natural, and for some, relatively effortless.
Converting that thought into the mashings of a cw key is what takes time and
patience.
Brian/N0iMD
ERLPN K4YZ
I used to hold your posts in some regard, but you are demonstrating some
really severe reallity deficit problems here.
> Baloney, any military trained CW operator can pass the code exams
without
effort, self discipline, or study. Except for the rules and regulations, any EE
Congratulation on your ease of passing the test, Sir Cecil, however for
most folks, it requires SOME effort. Even for people with some background in
either Morse proficiency or a technical background, Joe and Jane Q. Public
require some effort to pass the exams.
If you want to throw in the Nuclear Physiscist and other out-of-the-norm
applicants, all could "possibly" pass the tests. But unless they are
clairvoyant, they still require some study, wether it was gained prior to the
exam (from employment) or military experience. But these people don't make up
the majority of Hams. If they did, we wouldn't have cry babies like Lenny No
Calls fussing about the tests.
If you passed the Advanced exam without "effort, self discipline, or
study," you either already had significant background in the material (ie:
practice and OJT), or you are a blatant liar.
Which is it, Cecil?
ERLPN K4YZ
You said >Guess I should turn in my ham license. I am completely
unmotivated and
am void of self discipline. I learned Morse code as a cub scout long before I
knew ham radio existed. I passed my advanced exam, without looking at the Q&A
pool, on a whim one vacation day in San Francisco. My ham license was
effortless. My EE degree was effortless. My whole engineering career was
effortless. Woe is me<<
Congratulations. But you do not make up the majority of the populace. If
it did not require any study or effort for the amjority of us, we could ALL
walk in and take the test.
You are an anomaly, not the norm.
Re-entry to reality is approved.
.
ERLPN K4YZ
You said: > If he's not qualified, neither
am I.<< (And there are still General's and Advanced Class licensee's with
1X2's also, Cecil...so what?)
You passed the test. He didn't. You're qualified, he's not.
I have over 26 years of experience in Aviation Electronics and field
communications experience. That and $.75 will get me a cup of coffee at the
Waffle House if I go shopping for a communications technician job since I
don't have a commercial ticket (or NABER certification) to back it up. If I go
pass the test, fine. I'm not whining because I know that's what I have to do
to get it. And to get it I need to study. SOME of my technical experience in
Amateur Radio MAY be relevant, but most not.
Your friend could very well do a "MacGuyver" trick and make a radio from a
tennis shoe, kite string and a Captain Midnight decoder ring. But if FCC Form
660 isn't on his wall, he's not qualified to be the licensee of an Amateur
Radio Station. Period. No License, No Play...We clear on that concept?
W6RCecilA
> You passed the test. He didn't. You're qualified, he's not.
You're confusing qualifications with arbitrary governmental requirements.
Jim is a magnitude more qualified than I am. He taught me everything I
know about antennas and still has 90% to go. When he talks about Maxwell's
curls and gradients, he loses me.
> But if FCC Form
> 660 isn't on his wall, he's not qualified to be the licensee of an Amateur
> Radio Station. Period. No License, No Play...We clear on that concept?
We are clear that you are confusing arbitrary governmental requirements
with qualifications. We are also clear on the fact that something is in
the process of being done about it.
W6RCecilA
> If you passed the Advanced exam without "effort, self discipline, or
> study," you either already had significant background in the material (ie:
> practice and OJT), or you are a blatant liar.
It's just what I have been telling you guys for months. Compared to a EE
degree, the extra exam is trivially easy. You don't seem to realize that the
real heavyweight radio people are out there in industry earning $100k per
year while you guys play king of the ham radio molehill and they laugh
at your puny efforts. Most hams are so technically incompetent that I am
ashamed to admit that I am one when in the presence of RF heavyweight
engineers.
I am a EE. I passed the advanced exam on a whim one vacation afternoon in
San Francisco without cracking a book. I noticed I was across from the
federal building, walked into the FCC office, took the exam, and walked
out with advanced privileges. The extra exam is like a college sophmore
mid-term. I know, I know, hams don't need to be technically competent.
They know Morse code and operations skill is all in the world that
matters. - sighhhhhhh -
W6RCecilA
> But you do not make up the majority of the populace.
I would be awfully foolish to say I made up a majority, wouldn't I?
> If it did not require any study or effort for the amjority of us,
> we could ALL walk in and take the test.
All it takes to prove your broad sweeping statements wrong is a
single example. I suggest you be more careful in what you say.
You said hams should expend effort toward acquiring their
privileges. I didn't. What are you going to do about it?
Michael P. Deignan
>You don't seem to realize that the
>real heavyweight radio people are out there in industry earning $100k per
>year while you guys play king of the ham radio molehill and they laugh
>at your puny efforts.
Yet, you claim these are the same people who won't get licensed because of
the existing code test, and they don't want to settle for an 'affirmative
action' license like the codeless tech. Seems to me that your 'friends'
are themselves nothing more than primadonnas, and would do nothing more than
replace one brand of elitism on the part of some individuals with their own
brand of elitism.
Maybe if they stopped for a moment and remembered that this is *amateur*
radio, not the *professional RF engineers radio service*, they might have
better perspective. If I wanted to be an EE, I'd be one. If I wanted to
be an astrophysicist, I'd be one. Instead, I enjoy amateur radio, learning
about things in my spare time, the same way I enjoy amateur astronomy with
my LX200.
Overall, it doesn't sound like we're loosing all that much.
MD
--
-- Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have
-- with my guns.
--
-- If you don't like my opinions, that's just too damn bad.
No CW Test
steviema...@aol.com (ERLPN K4YZ) writes:
>Subject: Re: CW..More Than Just a mode
>From: erlp...@aol.com (ERLPN K4YZ)
>Date: 6 Sep 1998 06:18:05 GMT
>
> I make a post lamenting the passing of an era.
Nostalgia is fine. Practitioners of morse code skills can consider
code to be an "art form." No problem with either. My comment
was to the "art form" forming any justification for the code test
continuation.
Robeson becomes Furious when he is pinned down by replies to
his posts that don't agree with His views or use his posting to
illustrate some contrary viewpoints regarding morse code in general.
Witness the following -
> You make posts about getting money from the NEA and what not. Where in
>the hell did that come from and WHAT does it have to do with Morse Code
>Examinations. (You DO know there is NO CW test, don't you Lenny?)
The question is doubly raised: Does the FCC promote or license "art
forms?"
The suggestion is repeated again: Take "art forms" to the National
Endowment for the Arts. They DO reward "art forms." NO mention of
money was made. The NEA can award certificates or other public
notice of appreciation in lieu of money.
> I challenge you to do what gradeschoolers are doing every week.
Is Robeson serious?!? Go to a group of buildings to sit inside
learning children's subjects? Play simple games in a schoolyard?
> You make verbose excuses.
Robeson makes vapid "challenges" on abilities, then denigrates
those who will not accept His challenges. Robeson is, by example
for all to read, NOT promoting amateur radio or anything else but
his own juvenile control-freak/bully desires. Read on...
> You call Amateur Extras "elitists", stagnant, caste oriented, etc, then
>you rant on about your lengthy "military" expertice, martial arts skills, and
>your "professional licensure".
Robeson has taken too much newsgroup content personally. That's
typical of a beginning computer-modem communicator in newsgroups.
Robeson should go back over a year to previous postings where I
HAVE indeed called SOME Extras, and a few Advanceds, elitists,
ego-prone to the point of ludicrosity, believers in a quasi-religious
belief that morse code skill are necessary in radio, arrogant to the
point that they demonstrate attributes of paramilitary vigilantes,
and a few other choice labels which were clear in THEIR public
postings made to personally denigrate those who disagree with them.
On "ranting," Robeson is mistaken once again. Some past life
experience of EVERYONE is considered necessary to provide some
qualifier on viewpoints. I've never claimed "longevity" in voluntary
U.S. Army service; 4 years active duty, 4 years reserve is not
lengthy. Neither have I claimed "martial arts" skills other than
learning to be a soldier-infantryman. Robeson is mistaken in
stating that I have "professional licensure." I do not nor have I
ever claimed to have a Professional Engineer License. What I
HAVE claimed, with references to callsigns of managers and
supervisors named in here, was professional experience IN
radio and electronics, receiving pecuniary rewards for same for
some time. [amateurs are not allowed to collect pecuniary
interest for amateur activity...see beginning of Part 97]
The state of California does not confuse professional
employment with professional licensure.
You are a HYPOCRITE, Lenny, no matter what
>you
>say. You are an unrelenting hypocrite, and that will follow you to your
>grave!
<smile>
> Say what you will, No Calls,....the truth is apparent to more eyes than
>mine...there may be outbursts here, but I am NOT the only one prone to them!
<smile>
> And as for this BS: > His "arguments" are childish and easily refuted.
>
> Not so, Lenny! I am not the first to call you on your lies, and I won't
>be the last. I reposted my comments in a thread specific to that, and you
>ignored it. You can't respond without disproving YOURSELF! PROVE ME WRONG!
>
> H-I-P-O-C-R-I-T-E!
[it's spelled "hypocrite" with only one i]
Robeson is once again confused on the nature and content of
newsgroups on the Internet. There is NO requirement of anyone to
reply to any public or private message. Anyone may start a new
Subject thread in unmoderated newsgroups (such as this one).
Starting a thread or issuance of a "challenge" in an existing thread
is no qualification of the poster being right/wrong/smart/ignorant
on the subject...or for/against the person under attack in that
posting...readers can only judge the validity of statements made,
opinions opined, or personal attack flames' heat by the contents
of each message.
If any reader is directly addressed or mentioned in a public
posting, they are fully free to choose whether or not to reply. If
they reply, they are fully free to choose the content of their
replies. To repeat, the validity of either side is only as good as
the words presented. The evidentiary rage and frustration
displayed by some is NO qualifier as correctness of counter-
statements.
> Say what you will, Lenny, your verbose ramblings can't deflect the
>truth, and the truth is that you don't have the initiative, guts or intestinal
>fortitude to accomplish the simple skills an 8 year old can master! You are
>a loser! An angry, lonely, unfulfilled loser!
Robeson is unaware that proof exists of "accomplishing the simple skills
an 8 year old can master." Such is on record in the archives of the
Board of Education of Rockford, IL, up to and including skills that 18
year olds must "master" to graduate from a high school. No "losing"
involved there at all, nor feelings of "anger" or "lonliness" (except,
perhaps, in not being able to fully make out with a certain blonde
girl at age 18...that solved right after graduation by a more compliant
brunette...but that is irrelevant to the subject).
> Excuse me now...the bands are open!
That's nice. Don't forget to close them when you are done.
Len Anderson
ERLPN K4YZ
>> H-I-P-O-C-R-I-T-E!
>
>[it's spelled "hypocrite" with only one i]
If it's spelled with six e's, it's the same.
1. You go into lengthy, verbose recitals of your "skills and knowledge"
and berate for others. TRUTH
2. Your presence here is as a distractor, a "wannabe". You STILL can't
master the skills mastered by some 8 year olds but belittle otheres here for
having mastered the Amateur licensing program.
3. You are what you are, a LIAR and (thank you for the spelling
corrrection) a HYPOCRITE. That is by YOPUR hand, Anderson, no one elses.
4. You haven't got what it takes to be a Radio Amateur, and I am grateful
you have made excuse after excuse to NOT take an examination. I'd feel spoiled
in company like you.
Adios
PS: > No "losing" involved there at all, nor feelings of "anger" or
"lonliness" (except,
perhaps, in not being able to fully make out with a certain blonde girl at age
18...that solved right after graduation by a more compliant
brunette...but that is irrelevant to the subject).
Thank you for once again going into what Lenny's done. I am sure we are all
excited that your sister finally got a male to pay attention to her. Or was
it a cousin?...Who can tell in some families, eh Lenny?
W6RCecilA
> Arbitrary or not, it's the law. So sorry.
Only temporarily. Sorry.
W6RCecilA
> Yet, you claim these are the same people who won't get licensed because of
> the existing code test, and they don't want to settle for an 'affirmative
> action' license like the codeless tech. Seems to me that your 'friends'
> are themselves nothing more than primadonnas, and would do nothing more than
> replace one brand of elitism on the part of some individuals with their own
> brand of elitism.
Yes, but their brand of elitism at least has some rational logic to support
it. This technical hobby needs more technical people, pure and simple.
> Maybe if they stopped for a moment and remembered that this is *amateur*
> radio, not the *professional RF engineers radio service*, they might have
> better perspective.
There's nothing wrong with their perspective. It's yours that I'm worried
about. We will continue to have these problems until Morse code is no
longer considered equal in importance to all other aspects of amateur
radio combined.
ERLPN K4YZ
Arbitrary or not, it's the law. So sorry.
>We are clear that you are confusing arbitrary governmental requirements
with qualifications. We are also clear on the fact that something is in the
process of being done about it.<
And when it's done I am sure it will be under the banner of Part 95. The
results of other recent "accomodations" to Part 97 are bearing fruit now, and
we can see what it's done.
73
Bill Sohl
>Mark,
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
>
> But I have to disagree on you adamantly that the Amateur examination
>process is not about self discipline and study. It is ALL about self discipline
>and study! Regardless of wether you study the text from the basics or wether
>you study the Q&A books...it still requires those traits to make it work.
Not true for some people. I've met folks that
take to electronics like a uck takes to water. No
effort at all.
> To be sure, some can sit down and breeze through a study text and pass the
>exams "no sweat". Others have to put theit nose in a book and bust it hard if
>they are to get through it. It's all a matter of relativeity. But it can work
>and it does.
Exactly an the point is that the tests are NOT intended to
be any measurement of an inividual's dedication.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
ERLPN K4YZ
Lenny says: >Is Robeson serious?!? Go to a group of buildings to sit
inside learning children's subjects? Play simple games in a schoolyard?<
The matter at hand is Lenny No Call taking an Amateur Exam. Nothing else.
More verbose camoflage. tic,toc,tic,toc......
Thank you, Lenny.
ERLPN K4YZ
You are quite correct: >Converting that thought into the mashings of a cw
key is what takes time and patience.
Something Lenny is incapable of.
73
Steve
ERLPN K4YZ
I stand corrected...But you are still the anomoly, not the norm.
The average applicant to the Amateur Service has little or no radio
threory, regulatory or practice experience. For some, certain "knowledge" must
be "un-learned" and turned into useful knowledge.
You are a Model Ham, Cecil.
You said:>> You said hams should expend effort toward acquiring their
privileges. I didn't. What are you going to do about it?<<
Nothing at all...Again, Congratulations. You have proven the superior
intellect!
73
Steve, K4YZ
ERLPN K4YZ
"Bastard"? Not FORCING BUT PREVETING you bastard, and it is not going
anywhere any time real soon. <<
Geez, Mark, and I just thought we were getting to get to be buddies.
Guess the engagement's off, huh?
Mark said: >Your words are clear, you think we should have to, and that
we should have to by suffering "Torture by Morse".
I said nothing of the kind, Mark. You need to quit emulating the "Lenny
No Call School of Putting Words in Other People's Mouth" He's no good at it
and you are even worse.
S-P-E-L-L-C-H-E-C-K-E-R
Now put another $5.00 bill in the computer and try again.
73
Steve, K4YZ
ERLPN K4YZ
No no need to be sorry, that's the democratic process. It's the way it's
SUPPOSED to work. I defended it. I helped keep it that way. Enjoy it!
Too band there's too few here who appreciate that.
Adios.
Steve
ERLPN K4YZ
You stated: >>Yes, but their brand of elitism at least has some rational
logic to support
it. This technical hobby needs more technical people, pure and simple.
First of all, there is no "rational logic" for "elitism", unless you are a
Navy SEAL, Army RANGER, or Marine FORCE RECON...THEY have something to brag
on...THEY are the "elite"..
I won't even presume to argue that we need more technically oriented
persons in the hobby, but not if they are too "put out" at having to take the
appropriate exam. That "We know it, why don't you" snobbery is the same
"elitist" crap Lenny No Balls is constantly accusing Amateur Extras of being
guilty of...that's all we need...an entirely NEW brand of snobs!
You Said: >There's nothing wrong with their perspective. It's yours that
I'm worried
about. We will continue to have these problems until Morse code is no longer
considered equal in importance to all other aspects of amateur radio
combined.<<
The code is NOT a coequal aspect of the amateur service. It is pertinent
ONLY to HF operation which accounts for only 3.6MHz of amateur allocations
which is less than 10% of all Amateur allocations below 450MHz. And that
percentage drops even farther when you start including 902Mhz, 1.2GHz, etc.
Since all of the current technological focus is on wideband data transfer
systems and spread spectrum technologies, among others, isn't it reasonable
that all your EE buddies would be satisfied with access to those allocations
where they are best suited? One test, no code, and wah-LA! Instant
techno-nerd ham explosion! Isn't progress wonderful?!
The "elitism" exisits with your techno-nerd buddies, Cecil. They are part
of the "gimmie'gimmie'gimmie" yuppie-puppie crowd, and deserve to sit and whine
if ONE written test is separating them from access to 95% of the Amateur Radio
Service. Especially since YOU breezed through it so effortlessly. I would
think an hour or two with a study guide just to be familiar with ham regs and
practices should be sufficient, don't you, Cecil?
What a selfish bunch of brats. Michael Denigen was right...your friends
are primadonnas, and I think he was being gracious in THAT description.
If the No Code exam is too trivial for them to take so they can bestow
their infinite wisdom upon we unwashed masses, then they can STAY unlicensed.
I'll stay with Joe Average ham who is really anxious to be a part of something,
rather than be innundated with techno-nerds intent on impressing us with thier
"superior intellect".
See ya later
Steve
No CW Test
(ERLPN K4YZ) writes:
>Subject: Re: CW..More Than Just a mode
>From: erlp...@aol.com (ERLPN K4YZ)
>Date: 6 Sep 1998 23:54:50 GMT
>
>Lenny No Calls,
>
> >> H-I-P-O-C-R-I-T-E!
>>
>>[it's spelled "hypocrite" with only one i]
>
> If it's spelled with six e's, it's the same.
>
> 1. You go into lengthy, verbose recitals of your "skills and knowledge"
>and berate for others. TRUTH
Only as much "truth" as others have written. Robeson should read his
own postings sometime.
> 2. Your presence here is as a distractor, a "wannabe". You STILL can't
>master the skills mastered by some 8 year olds but belittle otheres here for
>having mastered the Amateur licensing program.
Incorrect. I have mastered most of the skills of an 8 year old when I was
8 years old. Not difficult.
The "wannabe" remark is a straw construct erected when no other reply
could be made. My comments are in regard to federal regulations
regarding amateur radio and its licensing requirements...in particular the
elimination of the morse code test for licensing.
Robeson has not made any case for the retention of the morse code
test other than:
1. It is the law, therefore it must be met. That the same law can be
changed to eliminate it is conveniently overlooked since that does
fit the "I've done it so nyah nyah" school of replies.
2. Robeson did it at the highest morse code rate, thereby "mastering"
amateur radio licensing...somehow giving him carte blanche in
the denigration of others who have not done so.
> 3. You are what you are, a LIAR and (thank you for the spelling
>corrrection) a HYPOCRITE. That is by YOPUR hand, Anderson, no one elses.
"YOPUR?!?" <smile> Rage has a way of causing spelling errors...
Robeson is invited to search the entire DejaNews archive for evidence
of this alleged hypocrisy. He is also invited to search for evidence of
alleged "lying."
> 4. You haven't got what it takes to be a Radio Amateur, and I am
>grateful
>you have made excuse after excuse to NOT take an examination. I'd feel
>spoiled
>in company like you.
Robeson should really try to understand his own comments in the above.
He made some sort of "challenge" that I "must" take a radio amateur
license examination within some "deadline." That challenge was "issued"
in some sort of pique/outrage from newsgroup public message exchanges
on the part of Robeson. Such does absolutely nothing positive towards
encouraging anyone to enter amateur radio...unless they, too, have a
juvenile behavior mindset.
The discussion, debate, or argument over federal regulations does NOT
require anyone to be "licensed" in anything. Robeson should really
read the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution a bit more carefully.
It would seem he has wrapped himself in the ARS flag so tightly that
he cannot understand what is in the First Amendment.
Robeson has also elevated himself on his own pedestal, proclaiming
that I "have made excuse after excuse to NOT take an examination."
because he would "feel spoiled in company like [me]." He should
understand that the reverse can be stated in equally-valid terms...
regardless of whatever "license" or other situation exists.
>Adios
Premature ejaculation of a sign-off...witness the following -
>
>PS: > No "losing" involved there at all, nor feelings of "anger" or
>"lonliness" (except,
>perhaps, in not being able to fully make out with a certain blonde girl at
>age
>18...that solved right after graduation by a more compliant
>brunette...but that is irrelevant to the subject).
>
>Thank you for once again going into what Lenny's done. I am sure we are all
>excited that your sister finally got a male to pay attention to her. Or was
>it a cousin?...Who can tell in some families, eh Lenny?
Robeson's statement above is one of the bad sides of computer-
modem communications. In outrage he demonstrated snideness
by taking a statement intended for "lightness" and turned it into an
accusation of incest and perversion. All in an attempt to "get
back" at someone who holds opposite views on certain radio
regulations. That is a truly pathetic indicator that Robeson's
motivations are not at all in line with amateur radio ideals.
Len Anderson
No CW Test
(ERLPN K4YZ) writes:
>Subject: Re: CW..More Than Just a mode
>From: erlp...@aol.com (ERLPN K4YZ)
>Date: 7 Sep 1998 03:22:51 GMT
>
>Cecil,
>
> You stated: >>Yes, but their brand of elitism at least has some rational
>logic to support
>it. This technical hobby needs more technical people, pure and simple.
>
> First of all, there is no "rational logic" for "elitism", unless you are
>a
>Navy SEAL, Army RANGER, or Marine FORCE RECON...THEY have something to brag
>on...THEY are the "elite"..
Interesting sidelight into motivations. Rage often conjurs up analogues
pertaining to combat. Invalid analogues to amateur radio, however.
> I won't even presume to argue that we need more technically oriented
>persons in the hobby, but not if they are too "put out" at having to take the
>appropriate exam.
Robeson hasn't yet demonstrated that the morse code test is
"appropriate." Why should technical people of today have to test
for a 158-year-old simple, low-technology communications mode?
> That "We know it, why don't you" snobbery is the same
>"elitist" crap Lenny No Balls is constantly accusing Amateur Extras of being
>guilty of...that's all we need...an entirely NEW brand of snobs!
Hmmm...does VE Robeson demand a sperm count certificate
from each examinee in order to complete a license test?!?
> You Said: >There's nothing wrong with their perspective. It's yours
>that
>I'm worried
>about. We will continue to have these problems until Morse code is no longer
>considered equal in importance to all other aspects of amateur radio
>combined.<<
>
> The code is NOT a coequal aspect of the amateur service. It is
>pertinent
>ONLY to HF operation which accounts for only 3.6MHz of amateur allocations
>which is less than 10% of all Amateur allocations below 450MHz. And that
>percentage drops even farther when you start including 902Mhz, 1.2GHz, etc.
True, code is not a coequal aspect of the ARS. It is ELEVATED
ABOVE all other modes by its alleged "need" in testing for any
amateur license having below-30-MHz priveleges. This is reflected
by the no-code Technician class license labelled as an "entry" level
and the "upgrade" classes having three, successively-higher-rate
code tests.
> Since all of the current technological focus is on wideband data
>transfer
>systems and spread spectrum technologies, among others, isn't it reasonable
>that all your EE buddies would be satisfied with access to those allocations
>where they are best suited?
Coffman has already explained twice that spread spectrum technology
has greater benefit to HF ham bands than at VHF and higher. Good
postings both of them.
> One test, no code, and wah-LA! Instant
>techno-nerd ham explosion! Isn't progress wonderful?!
In reality, the number of no-code Technician class licensees are
increasing at a rapid rate while all the code-test USA classes are
decreasing in number. See the statistics tabulated at AH0A's
amateur website (www.speroni.com for home page).
Would Robeson like me to present a summary of that?
> The "elitism" exisits with your techno-nerd buddies, Cecil. They are
>part
>of the "gimmie'gimmie'gimmie" yuppie-puppie crowd, and deserve to sit and
>whine
>if ONE written test is separating them from access to 95% of the Amateur
>Radio
>Service.
Heh heh heh heh heh...the hidden resentment of technical knowledge
by others comes out.
> Especially since YOU breezed through it so effortlessly. I would
>think an hour or two with a study guide just to be familiar with ham regs and
>practices should be sufficient, don't you, Cecil?
>
> What a selfish bunch of brats. Michael Denigen was right...your friends
>are primadonnas, and I think he was being gracious in THAT description.
Please, have the courtesy to spell the RF Commando chieftan's name
correctly. It is Deignan. Michael P. Deignan. [this has been a public
service announcement and not an indicator of agreement with MPD]
The second quoted paragraph above is somewhat remarkable. It
extends the "insult range" far enough out to include ANYONE engaged
in advancing the technical state of the art of radio and electronics...all
because of a difference of opinion regarding the morse code exam for
an amateur radio license. Perhaps that is an indicator of the mindset
that has come about from the five-tiered USA amateur radio "incentive
plan" structure?
> If the No Code exam is too trivial for them to take so they can bestow
>their infinite wisdom upon we unwashed masses, then they can STAY unlicensed.
Thank you ever so much.
>I'll stay with Joe Average ham who is really anxious to be a part of
>something,
>rather than be innundated with techno-nerds intent on impressing us with
>thier
>"superior intellect".
Robeson should strike for a return of spark and crystal sets, when
hams were Men of Long Wavelength spanning tens of KM with
their low-technology superequipment smelling of ozone and Brasso
(used to keep the key shiny). He should have added a Docket
98-143 comment that all new ham exams should include an IQ
certificate indicating the examinee rated below a 60 maximum.
Len Anderson
ERLPN K4YZ
K4YZ said: >> First of all, there is no "rational logic" for "elitism",
unless you are a Navy SEAL, Army RANGER, or Marine FORCE RECON ...THEY have
something to brag on...THEY are the "elite"..<<
(I will add in Army Green Beret...sorry guys!)
Lenny said: >Interesting sidelight into motivations. Rage often conjurs
up analogues pertaining to combat. Invalid analogues to amateur radio,
however.
Anderson, you blithering idiot...do you honestly think that others here
aren't so well versed in YOUR frequent regression to analogies that your
attempt to deflect my comments isn't apparent? You make RAMPANT military
analogies, then duck for cover! Which is it Lenny, yea or nay?
Only a week ago you were quoting military parlance to me as if your
miniscule experience in the Armed Forces was going to impress anyone.
Now you use it to deflect from a rational conversation. How sad. And now
it's martial arts too?? THAT was hillarious!
Hoooieeee! Another pointless reference to some "skill" I doubt you
posses, and in any case if you do, I doubt you could sustain! And in ANY case,
irrelevant to Morse proficiency, as you so often obviate!
You really are stupid, and I thought it was just a summer thing!
Rage? There's no rage here! I am laughing with every post you make like
this! It's so ludicrius that it surpasses innane!
>>Hmmm...does VE Robeson demand a sperm count certificate from each
examinee in order to complete a license test?!?
Oh...now THIS was real pertinent to the conversation at hand! From what
daydream did you produce this thought? Maybe you are having impure thoughts
about me, Lenny? I'm flattered you care, but I DO prefer women!. Sorry!
Lenny said: >>>Heh heh heh heh heh...the hidden resentment of technical
knowledge
by others comes out<<<
Heh heh heh heh...Lenny has an e mail with my technical qualifications. I
need not relate them all of them here unless someone asks for them, either
privately or in the NG. Lenny knows better, but he dare not relate that
knowledge unless he prove himself wrong AGAIN.
I am more than "adequately" trained from flightline avionics to
microminiature maintenence, instructor qualified, including a former 1st Phone
holder, etc, etc. But Lenny doesn't want you to know that. Would blow his
story, as lame as it is!
The statement has nothing to do with "resentment" of technical knowlwedge.
It has to do with snobs who want access to the ENTIRE Amateur Service without
having to take the same examination that any other person who would want a
license would have to do.
THAT is elitism, but you don't see Lenny No Calls complaining...those are
HIS buddies, and THAT'S OK, that's not "elitism"! People who deem themselves
above having to comply with the same requirements as the "average" citizens are
"elitist".
THAT is ELITISM, Lenny. You are the FIRST one to latch onto that and make
hay out of it, UNLESS of course it is contrary to YOUR point of view.
H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E!
Lenny said:>> He should have added a Docket 98-143 comment that all new
ham exams should include an IQ certificate indicating the examinee rated below
a 60 maximum.<<
Lenny promoting the "dumbing down" theory? Tsk tsk tsk.....Of course that
would be ANOTHER excuse to not get an Amateur License, wouldn't it Lenny ol'
pal? Another hurdle you couldn't clear!
A person your age is starting to get a bit forgetful...might not be able
to make that same GCT or IQ test you did when you were a troop, huh?
Of course this would give you a VALID reason to not take the test if it
were so. At least it would validate your position for once.
Anderson, I'm fighting a battle of wits here with an unarmed person, and
my Code of Honor decries such acts. So unless you can prove any of this (Such
as I DISPROVED your other assertions about ME!). I am going to give it a rest.
There are IMPORTANT subjects to be discussed here, none of which YOU
have any valid points to make as you are NOT a licensed Amateur so have no
reference by which to make any decisions or judgements. Comment away to the
FCC, but your comments here ring hollow!
So unless you'd like to put up or shut up on either getting an Amateur
license, or would like to find some neutral ground where you could regale us
with your martial arts prowess, give it a rest. You have made a mockery of
"the superior intellect!"
E mail me with a response, if you'd like, Lenny. My box is open
Good Luck!
Steve
ERLPN K4YZ
>All in an attempt to "get back" at someone who holds opposite views
on certain radio regulations. That is a truly pathetic indicator that
Robeson's motivations are not at all in line with amateur radio ideals<<
First off, what do YOU know about the ideals of the Amateur Radio
Srervice, Mr. No Calls? You haven't spent day one with a license in your
pocket! Your persepctive is as an outsider. As you shall mostlikely always
be!
It has nothing more to do with my ideals or my comprehension of the
Constitutiuon. The Constitution allows Lenny No Calls to be a public jester,
and he has mastered it well.
I ASKED for conversation...remember my frequent implorings in my
positing?...All you do is yell "ELITIST"! "He's an Amateur Extra...he is
jaded!"... I have repeatdly come out in favor of the code reductions. Quit
lying Lenny. Your spots are showing!
ma...@sa.apana.org.au
erlp...@aol.com (ERLPN K4YZ) wrote:
> The "elitism" exisits with your techno-nerd buddies, Cecil. They are
part
> of the "gimmie'gimmie'gimmie" yuppie-puppie crowd, and deserve to sit and
whine
> if ONE written test is separating them from access to 95% of the Amateur Radio
> think an hour or two with a study guide just to be familiar with ham regs and
> practices should be sufficient, don't you, Cecil?
>
> What a selfish bunch of brats. Michael Denigen was right...your friends
> are primadonnas, and I think he was being gracious in THAT description.
>
> their infinite wisdom upon we unwashed masses, then they can STAY unlicensed.
something,
> rather than be innundated with techno-nerds intent on impressing us with thier
> "superior intellect".
Calm down, take a valium and re-read your own posting:-
< I imagine we will see a codeless Amateur examination by 2002, but all
<this rediculous in-fighting about it isn't helping a soul. There are so many
<other aspects of the service to discuss but almost every thread in this NG is
<about Morse proficiency. How foolish.
--
Mark Little | mailto: ma...@sa.apana.org.au
http://brigadoon.apana.org.au
Brian Kelly
> In article <199809060505...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> erlp...@aol.com (ERLPN K4YZ) wrote:
> >Perhaps some civil conversations by Morse might temper your tone...It
> > takes time and patience to formulate a thought by that mode.
>
> No, formulating a thought is natural, and for some, relatively effortless.
> Converting that thought into the mashings of a cw key is what takes time and
> patience.
As one gains cw experience the sending side becomes very similar to the
receiving side, it's reflexive and you don't mull the matter of what to tap out
next any more than you mull what you are going to say next on phone. The more I
read the posts of folks who don't operate cw the more I'm convinced they have
absolutely no idea what actually goes on in an average cw qso. But somehow they
seem eminently qualified to bash the mode.
> Brian/N0iMD
--
Brian Kelly w3rv
No-SSB International (tm)
Member Number 1,000,010
Believe It (tm)
If You *CAN* Beep, NSI Wants YOU !
http://www.qsl.net/kh2d/nossb.html
Michael P. Deignan
MD> Seems to me that your 'friends'... would do nothing more than
MD> replace one brand of elitism ... with their own brand of elitism.
>Yes
Okay, so now we get the the crux of the matter. What you're really upset
about is not that the code test exists, but that the code tests prevent
you from imposing your own brand of elitism on the amateur service.
Michael P. Deignan
ERLPN K4YZ <erlp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Oh...now THIS was real pertinent to the conversation at hand! From what
>daydream did you produce this thought? Maybe you are having impure thoughts
>about me, Lenny? I'm flattered you care, but I DO prefer women!. Sorry!
Don't worry, Steve. Lennie seems to have a preoccupation with what is under
other guy's belts. You'll notice it is a common theme that pops up from time
to time in his messages. I imagine at Gran'pa's 65+ years the plumbing isn't
working all that well anymore.
W6RCecilA
> I won't even presume to argue that we need more technically oriented
> persons in the hobby, but not if they are too "put out" at having to take the
> appropriate exam.
They are absolutely not "put out" at having to take the appropriate exam.
They are "put out" at having to take the *inappropriate* Morse code exam.
> The code is NOT a coequal aspect of the amateur service.
It is for HF access. Morse code is one pass/fail exam. All other aspects
of amateur radio is a separate pass/fail exam. That makes Morse code equal
in importance to all other aspects of ham radio combined (for HF access).
> Since all of the current technological focus is on wideband data transfer
> systems and spread spectrum technologies, among others, isn't it reasonable
> that all your EE buddies would be satisfied with access to those allocations
> where they are best suited?
No they wouldn't, vhf/uhf is the bread. HF is the cake. Why should experts
in the field be relegated forever to the entry level license? It is akin
to racism. It is ridiculous to require a EE to be Morse colored.
> What a selfish bunch of brats. Michael Denigen was right...your friends
> are primadonnas, and I think he was being gracious in THAT description.
They are primadonnas in the only field that matters in amateur radio.
Primadonna is not a bad word as long as it's in the right field.
> If the No Code exam is too trivial for them to take so they can bestow
> their infinite wisdom upon we unwashed masses, then they can STAY unlicensed.
Yep, let them eat cake! Watch out Steve! The commoners are at the gates
of the Bastille! Don't lose your head!
W6RCecilA
> But somehow they seem eminently qualified to bash the mode.
The biggest bashers of Morse code are Shannon, et.al. They
probably didn't know it either.
ERLPN K4YZ
My commnets vis-a-vis CW refere to the facts that except for the
occasional "DX COP" during pile-ups, I have yet to experience the foul mouthed,
jamming and shennanigans that goes on in the phone bands.
When it takes time to be rude, ie: you have to spell it all out, ypou are
less prone to being obnoxious in Morse. It is far easier to say "XYL CLG BT
SRI MUST QRT BT 73 DE.......
73
Steve
K4YZ
ERLPN K4YZ
>Calm down, take a valium and re-read your own posting:-
There's nothing to calm down about, Mark...and I don't need to read it...I
took my time writing it, prooof reading it, and re-writing it. The only
apology I have to offer is for spelling Deigan's name incorrectly.
I stand by every word.
7e
Steve, K4YZ
ERLPN K4YZ
1 >>.They are absolutely not "put out" at having to take the appropriate
exam.
They are "put out" at having to take the *inappropriate* Morse code exam<<
They don't HAVE to take a Morse exam. Or didn't that set in in the last
basting I gave you?..Are you blind?.
2.>>It is for HF access. Morse code is one pass/fail exam. All other
aspects of amateur radio is a separate pass/fail exam. That makes Morse code
equal in importance to all other aspects of ham radio combined (for HF
access).<<
If your Techno-nerd buddies can't pass 5WPM, they need to have their
slide-rules and pocket protectors donated to science.
3 >No they wouldn't, vhf/uhf is the bread. HF is the cake. Why should
experts in the field be relegated forever to the entry level license? It is
akin to racism. It is ridiculous to require a EE to be Morse colored.
Are you just plain ignorant, Cecil? Noone is "relegated forever" to ANY
class of license! That includes the Extra if you're not careful! And if they
can't find something to do with that EE from 50MHz to daylight, that EE they
have is worthless. And it seems to me that that 90+% access would be something
to have, but you once again bolster my point...yuppie scum want what they want
when they want it, and they don't want to have to earn it.
4. >They are primadonnas in the only field that matters in amateur
radio.Primadonna is not a bad word as long as it's in the right field.
Primadonna IS derisive as it was applied and intended. WHO WANTS
THEM?!?!?
5. >Yep, let them eat cake! Watch out Steve! The commoners are at the
gates of the Bastille! Don't lose your head!
It's not the commoners that are of concern. They work for and appreciate
what it is that an Amateur License bestows upon them. It's the yuppie scum
techno-nerds that are a problem. Luckily, they are too self centered to bring
themselves to a VE session, so I have little to worry about...I'll leave my
Excederin at home, Cecil, but I appreciate the concen.
73
Steve
brian...@my-dejanews.com
Ke...@dvol.com wrote:
> brian...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > In article <199809060505...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> > erlp...@aol.com (ERLPN K4YZ) wrote:
> > >Perhaps some civil conversations by Morse might temper your tone...It
> > > takes time and patience to formulate a thought by that mode.
> >
> > No, formulating a thought is natural, and for some, relatively effortless.
> > Converting that thought into the mashings of a cw key is what takes time and
> > patience.
>
> As one gains cw experience the sending side becomes very similar to the
> receiving side, it's reflexive and you don't mull the matter of what to tap
out
> next any more than you mull what you are going to say next on phone.
Thus, you negate the K4YZ argument. We'll assume that with such a spiffy
call, he is a qualified codester.
The more
I
> read the posts of folks who don't operate cw the more I'm convinced they have
> absolutely no idea what actually goes on in an average cw qso. But somehow
they
> seem eminently qualified to bash the mode.
I have an idea because my comments are from my personal experience. Your
experience may vary. Some people are good at it, some aren't. I'm lousy at
it. And I was not bashing the mode, just stating that having practiced speech
since a youngster, I find it far more natural that trying to convey the same
ideas using code.
> > Brian/N0iMD
>
> --
> Brian Kelly w3rv
> No-SSB International (tm)
> Member Number 1,000,010
> Believe It (tm)
> If You *CAN* Beep, NSI Wants YOU !
> http://www.qsl.net/kh2d/nossb.html
>
>
Brian/N0iMD
Michael P. Deignan
ERLPN K4YZ <erlp...@aol.com> wrote:
>The only apology I have to offer is for spelling Deigan's name incorrectly.
Steve,
No apology necessary. My name is almost universally misspelled. The
"I before E except after C" rule is the one that gets most people
confused.
W6RCecilA
> They don't HAVE to take a Morse exam.
And therefore they don't take a Morse exam. And therefore the ARS is
dumbed-down. The Morse code requirement is keeping the brightest and
best out of the ARS.
> If your Techno-nerd buddies can't pass 5WPM, they need to have their
> slide-rules and pocket protectors donated to science.
They could pass it but it is irrelevant. They simply don't choose
to waste their valuable time on irrelevant things. And the ARS keeps
dumbing-down and dumbing-down.
> And it seems to me that that 90+% access would be something
> to have, ...
Not for me. There is only a single 2m repeater within range of
my QTH. HF is 99.9% of the fun.
W6RCecilA
> No apology necessary. My name is almost universally misspelled. The
> "I before E except after C" rule is the one that gets most people
> confused.
Why do you misspell your own name, Michael? :-)
ERLPN K4YZ
Prepare to suffer at your own hand:
1. You said: > And therefore they don't take a Morse exam. And therefore
the ARS is
dumbed-down. The Morse code requirement is keeping the brightest and best out
of the ARS.
If they are already "the brightest and the best", (ie: degeed Electrical
Engneers) what has the Morse code examination have to do with them? EE's would
"dumb down" the Amateur Service?
2. They could pass it but it is irrelevant. They simply don't choose to
waste their valuable time on irrelevant things. And the ARS keeps dumbing-down
and dumbing-down.
Let me get this straight, Oh Pontificating One...guys with EE's would be
"dumbing down" the radio service? Explain THAT one to me!
3.>> Not for me. There is only a single 2m repeater within range of my
QTH. HF is 99.9% of the fun.<<
Then let the "professionals" who are going to save us from ourselves help
you put a new repeater up, Cecil. And while they are at it, put it on 222Mhz
or above so they could "remote base" an HF facility. I am sure they would
enjoy the comraderie of your company!
73
Steve
W6RCecilA
> EE's would "dumb down" the Amateur Service?
Just the opposite. EEs and other technically qualified individuals would
smarten-up the ARS but the Morse code requirement is keeping them out.
Most highly technical professionals refuse to suffer the ARS hazing ritual.
They would rather not be members of the ARS than allow Morse code to be
stuffed down (or up) their private orifices. As a result the ARS keeps
getting dumber and dumber.
> Then let the "professionals" who are going to save us from ourselves help
> you put a new repeater up, Cecil. And while they are at it, put it on 222Mhz
> or above so they could "remote base" an HF facility. I am sure they would
> enjoy the comraderie of your company!
I don't work for a company, Steve. I've retired to my home town in Texas
to take care of my aging parents. Sometimes I feel so old someone needs
to take care of me.
There is only one repeater within 30 miles of my home town. VHF/UHF
is close to useless to me here. HF world-wide access is where it's at.
Mark Morgan
>Mark,
>
> "Bastard"? Not FORCING BUT PREVETING you bastard, and it is not going
>anywhere any time real soon. <<
>
> Geez, Mark, and I just thought we were getting to get to be buddies.
>Guess the engagement's off, huh?
That is your best shot. I notice that you don't disagree
>
> Mark said: >Your words are clear, you think we should have to, and that
>we should have to by suffering "Torture by Morse".
>
> I said nothing of the kind, Mark. You need to quit emulating the "Lenny
>No Call School of Putting Words in Other People's Mouth" He's no good at it
>and you are even worse.
Yes you have , you siad we Should all Have to suffer Torture
by Morse because Morse is an art from, so can BDSM be art form and it
is is fun for those that like it, but none say they be forced to
endure it either
>
Sorry about having to use a obivously fake ID but
I would like to confine thethe flame to the Newsgroup
instead of my email box also being Involved
Mark Morgan
KB9RQZ
Illiopolis IL
Mark Morgan
>Mark,
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
>
> But I have to disagree on you adamantly that the Amateur examination
>process is not about self discipline and study. It is ALL about self discipline
Wrong it is about ensuring a minimum level a entry knowledge,
wether it takes work or not to achieve that, the system nor the FCC
cares
>and study! Regardless of wether you study the text from the basics or wether
>you study the Q&A books...it still requires those traits to make it work.
>
> To be sure, some can sit down and breeze through a study text and pass the
>exams "no sweat". Others have to put theit nose in a book and bust it hard if
>they are to get through it. It's all a matter of relativeity. But it can work
>and it does.
>
> Do people fail? Sure! But as a VE, I have seen some people return as
>much as four times before they got thier "ticket". I can assure you those
>people have a deep appreciation for the effort it took to pass that test!
Indded the curent does not reward displine it may or may
happen to get disipline out of a person, but neither Morse tests nor
written one will ever or have ever insured the taking was displined
>
> I would wholeheartedly agree on your comments vis-a-vis a surgeon going
>into the OR that hasn't been there in a while, but as a Nurse myself, I can
>tell you that doesn't happen, and there are pathways for persons "rusty" in
>certain skills from being put in a position that would risk another humans
>life. Morse proficiency will hardly meet that criteria! Your analogy is left
>wanting!
How does anyone benifit from using onced learned Morse Code
and forgetting it?
>
> If there are a sufficient number of persons out there that want HF
>priviledges without the testing criteria, I suggest they form a
>rec.radio.no.test group so they can plan thier strategy to get an expanded 11
>meter band and no license at all.
Again with trying to silence the oppsition a nice tactic if we
let you but we will not.
>
> When I first came here, I believe I did so with a fairly
>moderate/middle-of-the-road attitude towards the possible changes in the
No you did not. You were asserting YOUR RIGHT as VE to ignore
the requirement and impose your own personal standards on those who
came beofre for testing.
>iminent future. But the harder the "No Code Agenda" people try to sway me with
>their rhetoric on why they should get IMMEDIATE access to HF, the more sure I
>am that Morse proficiency should remain in the Amateur cirricula for a long
>time to come.
>
> In 26 years...and no releveance to my class of license...I have seen a
>great many number of people come and go with the "drop the test NOW" attitude,
>and go away sulking. Perhaps the greater "immediate return" on opinions here
>on the Internet will change those days, but the harder people try to get so
>much for so little in return, the incumbents will dig in deeper and become even
>more vehement.
>
> Read my "One Radio Service, One Voice"original thread. It went a whole 3
>comments before it went from a "can't we all get along" tone to "Gimme, gimme,
>gimme". To be sure, only one or two are responsible for these selfish,
>self-serving posts, but if I were in the "No Code" camp, I sure as hell
>wouldn't want friends like them on MY side!
You forget your insistance on a r personal right to make
people dance, as you wish, and to refuse to license those that meet
the requirements of the FCC. You are no barragin either
>
> And if you think my analogy to "partying" at college all year long only to
>be amazed at the "f" grade is, in your words, "weak", take a long listen to
>many of the creeps and charlatans on 75 meters and 2 meters. This is
>definitely NOT the same Amateur Radio Service that I had to bust my butt to get
>a license in!
75M? I thought it was 80 but no matter, those people are code
tested you know, or are you going to be the next person to say well
they all cheated or something
>
> I didn't have test pools and CD-ROM to study by. Mind you I am not
>decrying the use of the computer to help in the educational role, but the
>question pools should NOT be in the public domain! Can you imagine your
If the question are not public then how can we enage in
contrustive comment on them. Without the questions pools exists hams
can not fufill what they should be reading them commenting on them
and in general amking them better
>Algebra teacher being carted out on an Ambulance gurney from laughing so hard
>if you asked him/her to publish the question pool at the beginning of the
>semester?!?!?
Nobody is tlking about a degree but a license to learn stuff.
that is SUPPOSED to be what a Ham license is, a license to learn by
doing.
>
> Weak testing restrictions and poor enforcement by the FCC has resulted in
Well you are half right.
>this quagmire, and further diluting the pool isn't going to help it. Either by
>dropping the Morse proficiency or slacking the testing standards. Either way,
>we have it at our discretion to tighten the service up and weed out the chaff.
No we do not. The FCC decides these matters? W saying
elsewhere that No ham was keeping the code tests? Gee I guess the
ability to speak in contradictions is one of those things that must
come with a code tested license
>
> Tough Code and a reasonable theory test or a No Code test with a strict
>and tough test is needed to help this mess, along with the judicial teeth to
>back it up. If we don't do it on our own, it may be done for us, and I'd much
>rather be in control of my own destiny.
Gee I thought Friday you were not calling for Morse
requirements to reatined?
What we NEED is FCC enforce ment. No test at all is going to
affect the current bad operators since almost everybody opposes
retesting at renewal. without that NEW test of any kind will eleimate
the bad operators on the air now. Even the hardest tests is not
likely to do much about that even with retesting.
You are certainly free to control your own destiny, what we
don't like is trying to control OURS as well.
>
> As for the lack of Morse proficiency in the HF bands, that will be decided
>at WRC by a vote of the memeber nations and thier various representitives.
>Nothing we do here will matter except to rile each other up. Approriate
>filings with the appropriatte agencies is the answer.
Agian you fail to understand what we are doing here. the
comment of Ed D usa ret we are getting done what needs to be done.
spread though to those that are undediced and geting them to see what
both side are about.
>
> I imagine we will see a codeless Amateur examination by 2002, but all
>this rediculous in-fighting about it isn't helping a soul. There are so many
>other aspects of the service to discuss but almost every thread in this NG is
>about Morse proficiency. How foolish.
If we do as you suggest, be quiet and wait then we will not
see it by 2002, which seems to be your idea. Nice tactic, sorry but
we NoCoders are not going along with it.
About the threads in the NG gee it seems like about 1/3
roughly are about 80M filled with those perfect code tested people.
>
> 73 and thanks again for your post.
>
>Steve Robeson, K4YZ
>Chattanooga, TN
Mark Morgan
>Brian,
>
> You are quite correct: >Converting that thought into the mashings of a cw
>key is what takes time and patience.
>
> Something Lenny is incapable of.
If true so what. It seems that most all the ProCoders you have come
aroound to idea that the way to win is attack your opponent
>
>73
>
>Steve
Mark Morgan
>Cecil, Brian and Group,
>
> My commnets vis-a-vis CW refere to the facts that except for the
>occasional "DX COP" during pile-ups, I have yet to experience the foul mouthed,
>jamming and shennanigans that goes on in the phone bands.
That are DONE BY CODE TESTED operators. Proof that Morse does
not keep bad operators out
>
> When it takes time to be rude, ie: you have to spell it all out, ypou are
>less prone to being obnoxious in Morse. It is far easier to say "XYL CLG BT
>SRI MUST QRT BT 73 DE.......
>
>73
>
>Steve
>K4YZ
Sorry about having to use a obivously fake ID but
Michael P. Deignan
>Just the opposite. EEs and other technically qualified individuals would
>smarten-up the ARS but the Morse code requirement is keeping them out.
No, the Morse Requirement isn't keeping them out. They are keeping THEMSELVES
out.
Each of them could visit a local VE session today and, doubtlessly, with
some minor review of rules and regulations, pass their Codeless Tech
license examinations.
The fact that THEY choose not to is THEIR problem.
>As a result the ARS keeps getting dumber and dumber.
Welp folks, there you have it. Only Professional RF Engineer Phd EEs from
Intel are "intelligent".
Talk about pompous.
(Hey Ed: When can I expect to see you criticize Cecil here on his
"elitist" attitude?)
ERLPN K4YZ
>> My commnets vis-a-vis CW refere to the facts that except for the
occasional "DX COP" during pile-ups, I have yet to experience the foul mouthed,
jamming and shennanigans that goes on in the phone bands<<
True, Mark, but how many of them are PROFICIENT in Morse?...None, I expect.
Hence the more Gentlemanly, civil content of communications that occur in the
Morse-prevelant portions of the band! You should try it! It's quite fun
carrying on a conversation that isn't puctuated by one of the "Seven Dirty
Words" that comedian George Carlin used to parody so well!
73
Steve
ERLPN K4YZ
>If true so what. It seems that most all the ProCoders you have come
aroound to idea that the way to win is attack your opponent<<
eef yoo can unstedand thiees masssage, theen yoo apppreciate yoo cna that
you have
yorslf proomooted samme tacteecs, Huh Mark?
S-P-E-L-L-C-H-E-C-K-E-R!
73
Steve, K4YZ
ERLPN K4YZ
>>Wrong it is about ensuring a minimum level a entry knowledge, wether it
takes work or not to achieve that, the system nor the FCC
cares
No one said the FCC cares! But to get to that "entry knowledge", one must
apply self-discipline. Wether it is in the form of Q&A or traditional study,
the AVERAGE Ham has to spend SOME time in a book getting ready for the exam.
THAT is a form of self discipline.
(Except for Cecil, W6RCA who knows everything about everything and needs
to know nothing about anything.)
You, Cecil and No Calls, must be getting the idea that by applying the
word "discipline" I am refering to some sort of self-flagellation. I am not.
It simply implies, that the applicant had to put forth SOME effort. (Again,
except for Cecil....)
>>Indded the curent does not reward displine it may or may happen to
get disipline out of a person, but neither Morse tests nor
written one will ever or have ever insured the taking was displined<<
You said not one intelligent word in there Mark. Not one coherent
sentenence!
S-P-E-L-L-C-H-E-C-K-E-R
73
Steve
Mark Morgan
>Mark,
>
> >>Wrong it is about ensuring a minimum level a entry knowledge, wether it
>takes work or not to achieve that, the system nor the FCC
>cares
>
> No one said the FCC cares! But to get to that "entry knowledge", one must
>apply self-discipline. Wether it is in the form of Q&A or traditional study,
>the AVERAGE Ham has to spend SOME time in a book getting ready for the exam.
>THAT is a form of self discipline.
IT MIGHT be, it does not HAVE to be, any more than Morse Code
learning is a level arena. the requirement is the knowledge not the
means of getting it. If it includes discipline that is a welcome
BONUS, but you mistake the bonuses for puposes
>
> (Except for Cecil, W6RCA who knows everything about everything and needs
>to know nothing about anything.)
>
> You, Cecil and No Calls, must be getting the idea that by applying the
>word "discipline" I am refering to some sort of self-flagellation. I am not.
>It simply implies, that the applicant had to put forth SOME effort. (Again,
>except for Cecil....)
Then everybody has even those who get code waivers puts forth
some effort. but that clearly isn't enough for you.
>
> >>Indded the curent does not reward displine it may or may happen to
>get disipline out of a person, but neither Morse tests nor
>written one will ever or have ever insured the taking was displined<<
>
> You said not one intelligent word in there Mark. Not one coherent
>sentenence!
IYO maybe, it has a tpyo or two, but I have reading how Morse does
such wonders for ones ability to cominicate so why don't follow me,
Mind reading abilities offline today?
Mark Morgan
>Mark,
>
> >> My commnets vis-a-vis CW refere to the facts that except for the
>occasional "DX COP" during pile-ups, I have yet to experience the foul mouthed,
>jamming and shennanigans that goes on in the phone bands<<
>
> True, Mark, but how many of them are PROFICIENT in Morse?...None, I expect.
Obviously they were at one point, whic is ALL you require.
again another version of they "cheated.
> Hence the more Gentlemanly, civil content of communications that occur in the
>Morse-prevelant portions of the band! You should try it! It's quite fun
>carrying on a conversation that isn't puctuated by one of the "Seven Dirty
>Words" that comedian George Carlin used to parody so well!
Again with ProCoders advocating Law breaking? Voice can't be
USED in the Morse prevelant areas of HF, it is ilegal. You don't see
how reinforce the NoCode position with such Comments, even you agree
that 13 wpm does not make a better operator, because they all passed
at least that test.
>
>73
>
>Steve
Mark Morgan
>Mark,
>
> Dumb Mark comment #1:>> Not FORCING BUT PREVETING you bastard, and it is
>not going anywhere any time real soon. <<
>
> I said: Geez, Mark, and I just thought we were getting to get to be
>buddies. Guess the engagement's off, huh?
>
> Mark said: >That is your best shot. I notice that you don't disagree
>
> To which I will reply: ( 1. ) I wasn't there to verify the participants at
>the act of conception. If calling me a bastard makes you feel better, then have
gee why edit out my calling you bastard while accsuing me of
It I could I certainly may have done so, but why delete
>at it ( 2 ) I am a 9 time USMC Rifle Expert Mark. If I want something
>shot, even in Illinois, I will hit the target. One shot, one kill. I don't
>waste the govenments ammunition hitting targets that are not of consequence.
>YOU are not of ANY consequence that I am aware of, but situations ARE subject
>to change!
Realy threatening an Officer of the US Army is a Court Martial
offense Marine, wether you mean't or not, go read the UCMJ
>
> Now it is my turn to call names, Mark. YOU ARE A LIAR!!!!!>>Yes you have
>, you siad we Should all Have to suffer Torture by Morse because Morse is an
>art from, so can BDSM be art form and it is is fun for those that like it, but
>none say they be forced to endure it either<<
>
> I have never ONCE said anyone should be tortured by ANY means. The only
>comments I have made that you dug your gimmie gimmie gimmie claws into was that
>I said code was here for now BUT THAT IT WAS BEING CHANGED.
You have said I should be be subjected to that for access to
HF that is torture therefore you have called for me and others to
subject to Torture by Morse in order to recieve access to what is
ours. Indeed even if showed up with waqvier in hand you have said you
will do your duty and accept it without subjecting me to said
torture..
It may be changed it hasn't been done yet.
>
> Ever since, you have dug into anything I say making it a "procode" agenda,
>and there fore "Anit-Mark" What mularkey!
No when you say something ProCode I call it that.
>
> For the record, I now make the following statements that yopu MAY quote,
>and I hope you can get THESE correct!:
>
> 1. Mark Morgan is a clueless jerk with no life, therefore he must
>belittle and berate others, despite the fact he can neither spell his insults
>correctly, nor can he assemble more than two coherent sentences. He is a boil
>on the Gluteus Maximus of Life.
A guess you are an enlisted Marine? not an Officer, that if
true might be an explanation for your inistance that you know
everything about what everybody can do
>
> 2. Mark Morgan will probably die lonely, unfulfilled and desperate
Interesting how you clima such unfonded knowledge, Indeed the
fact that all you seem to do is spout old CW myths and engage in
Personal attacks.
>because he spent so much time whining about how "we" have so abused him without
>him trying to get past his front door to go out and find a life. I know so
>many people who are blind, deaf, missing an appendage, lost children in
>accidents, etc, and they get on with thier lives. My own daughter is
Frnakly I am supprised that any of the above can stand to be
in your presense, prehaps like many bigots you are politer in person
>terminally ill. but I don't cry "VICTIM" at every turn! You are a loser punk,
My condolences on your Daughter.
>Morgan, unworthy of squat.
Agian Attack Attcak Atack then call for silence so your veiws
can prevail
>
> I've tried to be nice, even confidential in some of my comments, but you
>are such an infuriating twerp that it makes my hair crawl
And you are a biligergent Basher of the Disabled, A bigot and
a lier, and you are unbable to accept that some of us will not acept
your trying to silence us in our quest. Confindential gee trying to
flood my email box with the SAME insulting dreck you posted is really
very confindential. Another of the Mystic abilities of the Morse
Tested.
"Tried to be nice" gee you can say that and mane it, perhaps
that is another symtom of what is worng with Ham radio. that you may
even belive it.
>
> You can't take ANYTHING without trying to make it a rallying point for
>the "Pro-Victim" crowd, even when it's in your defense! Are you stupid or do
You don't give anything in my defense. You claim false
knowledge and spout opinions like divine truth.
>you just do this for sport? If you are, you aren't getting any points on the
>board!
Mark Morgan
>What the hell?
>
> Again with ProCoders advocating Law breaking? Voice can't be USED in the
>Morse prevelant areas of HF, it is ilegal.<<
>
> No kidding, Mr. Brick-for-brains...I didn't say it was!
Form your own words
>True, Mark, but how many of them are PROFICIENT in Morse?...None, I expect.
> Hence the more Gentlemanly, civil content of communications that occur in the
>Morse-prevelant portions of the band! You should try it! It's quite fun
>carrying on a conversation that isn't puctuated by one of the "Seven Dirty
>Words" that comedian George Carlin used to parody so well!
You just asked for me to use (ilegaly for me) Voice ilegal for
the band segment in the US) Since surely YOU know by now I will never
use manual morse at any freq. I suppose you could just be stupid or
engaging in yet another strawman. That is troting out the claim, true
or not that Morse is used more politetely than voice. In which upon
further reflection perhaps I should have said RED HERRING instead,
since even IF Morse use is more polite it has nothing to do with
wether it produces a better Voice operators
>
> Where DO you come up with this stuff?
From your own text
Mark Morgan
>Cecil,
>
> That was my point:>>Just the opposite. EEs and other technically qualified
>individuals would smarten-up the ARS but the Morse code requirement is keeping
>them out.<<
>
> .N-O C-O-D-E T-E-C-H-N-I-C-I-A-N!
>
> The only thing keeping them out is laziness. The "hazing stuff is bull.
>They are what Lenny frequently refers to as "elitists" ...they think their
>"professional" stature rates them anything they want.
Well congrats you are Now a Mainstream ProCoders admiting at
last your true colors. Everuone that disagres with you is lazy. And
your insistance on a Hazing ritual shows that you have not left
school, since you are into that Frat house stuff
>
> There isn't a repeater within 30 miles of my home, either, but even on a
>ground mounted ringo I can hit 15 repeaters. And I am caring for a terminally
>ill daughter, but I still have time to be abused in here AND study for my RN! I
>also worked MIR twice with that system.
So what. I have offered my condolences, and will accept yours
on caring for my terminaly ill father. But what has either she (or
my dad) or the ringo (a brand I think) got to do with Code valid or
not? Or are you talijng about MCW?
>
> And no whining!
No reason for you to be unhappy about things in Ham radio You
have what you want. You just object to others wanting to and wanting
it under terms that meet the burdens of the Constitution that you and
I ( and other here) swore to uphold
>
> Go Figure!
Indeed
>
>Steve
Mark Morgan
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
>
> > Realy threatening an Officer of the US Army is a Court Martial
>>offense Marine, wether you mean't or not, go read the UCMJ
>
>YOU? An officer in ANY branch?
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Shows what you know. LTC USACC
Mark Morgan
>More Laughter...
>
> And you are a biligergent Basher of the Disabled, A bigot and a lier, and
>you are unbable to accept that some of us will not acept
>your trying to silence us in our quest.
>
> YOU are an OFFICER?!?!...In the UNITED STATES ARMY?!?!?
Given My commision by Stromin Norman himself.
>
> YOU CAN'T EVEN SPELL LIAR CORRECT, YOU JERK!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>No wonder the Marines had to bug out of Chosin Resivoir with Officer's like
>Mark at the helm of thier Army counterparts! He couldn't read the orders!
W6RCecilA
> No, the Morse Requirement isn't keeping them out. They are keeping THEMSELVES
> out.
Whatever - the result is the same. Qualified desirable technical people
are being kept out of the ARS by the Morse code requirement. Why can't they
substitute the derivation of Maxwell's equations from first principles
for the Morse code exam? They are not cub scouts, Michael, to be subjected
to your favorite hazing ritual. Some of these guys are superior to you
in every conceivable way except Morse code skill.
> Each of them could visit a local VE session today and, doubtlessly, with
> some minor review of rules and regulations, pass their Codeless Tech
> license examinations.
Many have done just that only to be pissed upon and chased out of the
service by deplorable rabid procoders like you. (Not saying that you
do that - just that I know a few people with *your attitudes* who have
done exactly that).
W6RCecilA
> They are what Lenny frequently refers to as "elitists" ...they think their
> "professional" stature rates them anything they want.
Nope, not anything they want - just a minute amount of human respect,
not the vicious attack of aggressive vehemence that they receive from
rabid procoders with views like yours.
Brian Kelly
> In article <35F3C4DB...@dvol.com>,
> Ke...@dvol.com wrote:
> > brian...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > > In article <199809060505...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> > > erlp...@aol.com (ERLPN K4YZ) wrote:
> > > >Perhaps some civil conversations by Morse might temper your tone...It
> > > > takes time and patience to formulate a thought by that mode.
> > >
> > > No, formulating a thought is natural, and for some, relatively effortless.
> > > Converting that thought into the mashings of a cw key is what takes time and
> > > patience.
> >
> > As one gains cw experience the sending side becomes very similar to the
> > receiving side, it's reflexive and you don't mull the matter of what to tap
> out
> > next any more than you mull what you are going to say next on phone.
>
> Thus, you negate the K4YZ argument. We'll assume that with such a spiffy
> call, he is a qualified codester.
No, we're just into some semantics here. Phone does not require any "think-ahead"
like cw does, I agree, you just say it and you can get more wpm out of phone. But
again, with any cw experience the differences between phone and cw wrt the time and
effort required to "formulate" the next series of beeps is miniscule, no different
than comunicating in the Internet chat rooms or with RTTY. Except that you don't
have to be keyboard-proficient. It's just a part of the reflexive cw skill-set. Thre
are HF cw ops out there who cheerfully yak along at high speed for hours on end,
they sure don't have any "stop and think" problems and I'm sure YZ would concur.
> The more
> I
> > read the posts of folks who don't operate cw the more I'm convinced they have
> > absolutely no idea what actually goes on in an average cw qso. But somehow
> they
> > seem eminently qualified to bash the mode.
>
> I have an idea because my comments are from my personal experience. Your
> experience may vary. Some people are good at it, some aren't.
I consider my own cw skills somewhere between mundane and average at best for an
Xtra. Particularly when compared with the likes of the "professional" NTS ops
slamming along at 40-50wpm. I'm not a cw ragchewer, I'm a dxer, normally in and out
of a qso fast in order to give the next guy his shot. I do 90% of my ragchewing on
phone, the other 10% is HF cw ragchewing. It is my opinion that anybody who gets
really intersted in and sees the advantges of cw can comfortably work his way up to
30wpm which is definitely a cw conversational speed. It may be true that beyond
30wpm there is some natural talent involved, but I'm not 100% convinced that's the
case. I might pont out that there are plenty of Xtras out there who can't copy cw to
save their butts, they worked at it just long enough to slide past the test and get
the Xtra phone segments and have never looked back.
> I'm lousy at
> it.
I'm a lousy HF phone op but I do have a phone dxcc. Being able to run both phone and
cw very much broadens my options.
> And I was not bashing the mode, just stating that having practiced speech
> since a youngster,
The attraction of cw in my case is the superiority of cw when band conditions are
either lousy because the bands are hot and loaded with qrm or when they're near dead
and ssb signals are unreadable. The 200Hz filter runs circles around any 2.1khz
filter with respect to keeping me on the air when the phone bands become unusable
for whatever reason. Then you can get into exotica like EME and phone simply isn't
on the menu. I do helluva lot better with my 100w of cw into a lousy antenna than
I'd ever do on ssb.For this I'll cheerfully give up simple yakking in a wink.
> I find it far more natural that trying to convey the same
> ideas using code.
Depends on how much you're willing to depart from what you were born with to
successfully operate on the bands. In my case it's the qso which counts and I do
what I gotta do, efficiency and ease of idea transfer is a minor point. I yak my
brains out on 2m where some local is far more interested in my "ideas" than some
dude a half continent away on 20m ssb would be.
Michael P. Deignan
Mark Morgan <Tired.of.em...@stay.in.NG.net> wrote:
>> My commnets vis-a-vis CW refere to the facts that except for the
>>occasional "DX COP" during pile-ups, I have yet to experience the foul
>>mouthed, jamming and shennanigans that goes on in the phone bands.
>
> That are DONE BY CODE TESTED operators. Proof that Morse does
>not keep bad operators out
Can you produce a single, solitary non-anonymously-forged posting by anyone
that claims morse code "keeps bad operators out"?
No?
Thought not.
Another No-Code Agenda fallacy slain.
Michael P. Deignan
Mark Morgan <Tired.of.em...@stay.in.NG.net> wrote:
> Yes you have , you siad we Should all Have to suffer Torture by Morse
Funny, but the last I knew torture was not a voluntary activity (well,
maybe to some S&M participants, but they certainly qualify outside the
'norm').
>but none say they be forced to endure it either
MARK: WAAAAA!!!! WAAA!!!!! I'M BEING TORTURED!!!! WAAAA! WAAAAA!
FCC: But Mark, you don't *have* to take a code test
MARK: Oh... Ummm.. WAAA!!! WAAAA!!! I'M DISABLED!!! WAAA!!! WAAA!!
FCC: But Mark, a disability waiver is available for the morsely-challenged
MARK: Oh... Ummm.. WAAA!!! WAAA!! IT'S MY RIGHT!!! ADA!! ADA!!! WAAAA!!!
Why must we be forced to endure your incessant whining? If you are really
disabled, and not faking it (like most of the 'disabled' who show up here)
go to a doctor, get him to sign off on a disability waiver.
Like the NIKE commercial sez: Just do it (and shut up.) My 4 year old whines
less than you do.
Mark Morgan
(Michael P. Deignan) wrote:
>In article <35f45a88...@news.concentric.net>,
> Mark Morgan <Tired.of.em...@stay.in.NG.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes you have , you siad we Should all Have to suffer Torture by Morse
>
>Funny, but the last I knew torture was not a voluntary activity (well,
>maybe to some S&M participants, but they certainly qualify outside the
>'norm').
>
>>but none say they be forced to endure it either
>
>MARK: WAAAAA!!!! WAAA!!!!! I'M BEING TORTURED!!!! WAAAA! WAAAAA!
>FCC: But Mark, you don't *have* to take a code test
>MARK: Oh... Ummm.. WAAA!!! WAAAA!!! I'M DISABLED!!! WAAA!!! WAAA!!
>FCC: But Mark, a disability waiver is available for the morsely-challenged
Lie, there is NO WAIVER avable for 6WPM Morse
>MARK: Oh... Ummm.. WAAA!!! WAAA!! IT'S MY RIGHT!!! ADA!! ADA!!! WAAAA!!!
>
>
>Why must we be forced to endure your incessant whining? If you are really
>disabled, and not faking it (like most of the 'disabled' who show up here)
>go to a doctor, get him to sign off on a disability waiver.
Because it doesn't work that way asshole you have to pass 5wpm
first and before you jump on accomdation you have tired to get those
either out a real VE team. I may mange this during a visit somehwere
else, but here I get hassled over asking to use a typewriter
>
>Like the NIKE commercial sez: Just do it (and shut up.) My 4 year old whines
>less than you do.
Well assuming that I know your mood I certainly would be quiet
if I had to endure your presense. the 4 yo merely sound senesible. I
thank the god don't have to live with you.
>
>MD
>--
>-- Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have
>-- with my guns.
>--
>-- If you don't like my opinions, that's just too damn bad.
Sorry about having to use a obivously fake ID but
Mark Morgan
(Michael P. Deignan) wrote:
>In article <35f459ce...@news.concentric.net>,
> Mark Morgan <Tired.of.em...@stay.in.NG.net> wrote:
>
>>> My commnets vis-a-vis CW refere to the facts that except for the
>>>occasional "DX COP" during pile-ups, I have yet to experience the foul
>>>mouthed, jamming and shennanigans that goes on in the phone bands.
>>
>> That are DONE BY CODE TESTED operators. Proof that Morse does
>>not keep bad operators out
>
>Can you produce a single, solitary non-anonymously-forged posting by anyone
>that claims morse code "keeps bad operators out"?
Yes can Jim has posted them N2EY, we had a Charles felow who
kept posting them. Steve has done so, in slightly different words,
you have siad it in different words. Carroll talkis about it being a
filter, which keeps out bad operators. I am told that in the book
DXing on the edge the ARRL says that
>No?
>
>Thought not.
>
>Another No-Code Agenda fallacy slain.
Not at all, just another try at ProCode lies
ERLPN K4YZ
Dumb Mark comment #1:>> Not FORCING BUT PREVETING you bastard, and it is
not going anywhere any time real soon. <<
I said: Geez, Mark, and I just thought we were getting to get to be
buddies. Guess the engagement's off, huh?
Mark said: >That is your best shot. I notice that you don't disagree
To which I will reply: ( 1. ) I wasn't there to verify the participants at
the act of conception. If calling me a bastard makes you feel better, then have
at it ( 2 ) I am a 9 time USMC Rifle Expert Mark. If I want something
shot, even in Illinois, I will hit the target. One shot, one kill. I don't
waste the govenments ammunition hitting targets that are not of consequence.
YOU are not of ANY consequence that I am aware of, but situations ARE subject
to change!
Now it is my turn to call names, Mark. YOU ARE A LIAR!!!!!>>Yes you have
, you siad we Should all Have to suffer Torture by Morse because Morse is an
art from, so can BDSM be art form and it is is fun for those that like it, but
none say they be forced to endure it either<<
I have never ONCE said anyone should be tortured by ANY means. The only
comments I have made that you dug your gimmie gimmie gimmie claws into was that
I said code was here for now BUT THAT IT WAS BEING CHANGED.
Ever since, you have dug into anything I say making it a "procode" agenda,
and there fore "Anit-Mark" What mularkey!
For the record, I now make the following statements that yopu MAY quote,
and I hope you can get THESE correct!:
1. Mark Morgan is a clueless jerk with no life, therefore he must
belittle and berate others, despite the fact he can neither spell his insults
correctly, nor can he assemble more than two coherent sentences. He is a boil
on the Gluteus Maximus of Life.
2. Mark Morgan will probably die lonely, unfulfilled and desperate
because he spent so much time whining about how "we" have so abused him without
him trying to get past his front door to go out and find a life. I know so
many people who are blind, deaf, missing an appendage, lost children in
accidents, etc, and they get on with thier lives. My own daughter is
terminally ill. but I don't cry "VICTIM" at every turn! You are a loser punk,
Morgan, unworthy of squat.
I've tried to be nice, even confidential in some of my comments, but you
are such an infuriating twerp that it makes my hair crawl
You can't take ANYTHING without trying to make it a rallying point for
the "Pro-Victim" crowd, even when it's in your defense! Are you stupid or do
ERLPN K4YZ
Again with ProCoders advocating Law breaking? Voice can't be USED in the
Morse prevelant areas of HF, it is ilegal.<<
No kidding, Mr. Brick-for-brains...I didn't say it was!
Where DO you come up with this stuff?
ERLPN K4YZ
That was my point:>>Just the opposite. EEs and other technically qualified
individuals would smarten-up the ARS but the Morse code requirement is keeping
them out.<<
.N-O C-O-D-E T-E-C-H-N-I-C-I-A-N!
The only thing keeping them out is laziness. The "hazing stuff is bull.
They are what Lenny frequently refers to as "elitists" ...they think their
"professional" stature rates them anything they want.
There isn't a repeater within 30 miles of my home, either, but even on a
ground mounted ringo I can hit 15 repeaters. And I am caring for a terminally
ill daughter, but I still have time to be abused in here AND study for my RN! I
also worked MIR twice with that system.
And no whining!
Go Figure!
Steve
ERLPN K4YZ
>(Hey Ed: When can I expect to see you criticize Cecil here on his
"elitist" attitude?)<
ROTFLMFAO!