Cw Contest, NCI members pse ignore.
shephed
going one right now.
If you are a retarded mouth breeding NCI member, then never mind, it's a Ham
Radio thing. You would not understand.
10-73's!
Jim Hampton
Morse. You wouldn't understand. It's a ham radio thing. :)
73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
"shephed" <smo...@twist1up.com> wrote in message
news:IuP8b.57189$3b2.7...@twister.neo.rr.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/03
Bert Craig
news:%rQ8b.4827$6E1....@news02.roc.ny...
> As a member of NCI
>
> 73 from Rochester, NY
> Jim AA2QA
Say it ain't so, Jim. ;-)
--
73 de Bert
WA2SI
Brian
Rev. Jim is going to chastise you for your dirty mouth. Oh, never
mind, it's a PCTA thing.
Clint
NCI isn't trying to stop or ban the use of morse
code on the airwaves, they simply understand that
the testing of morse code no longer falls within
the scope and original intent of ham radio.. which
is to keep the art of radio alive and expand it's use,
etc., and, well, logic there says that if morse code
is being abandoned left and right in the radio world
in favor of new means of communication, than you
you are no longer adhereing or supporting this
doctrine of ham radio.
Plus, the real reason the old buzzards want to keep
it around is simple but non well-founded.. "I did
it, so YOU should have to!"
Clint
KB5ZHT
--
--
If you sympathize with terrorists & middle eastern tyrants,
vote for liberals...
--
"Jim Hampton" <aa...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:%rQ8b.4827$6E1....@news02.roc.ny...
Clint
to drive an automobile, the never required me to
prove that I could hitch a horse team to a wagon.
The youngsters today, likewise, tell me that the
departments of motor vehicles around the country
do not ask them to prove they are proficient with
buggy whips.
Enough said.
Clint
--
--
If you sympathize with terrorists & middle eastern tyrants,
vote for liberals...
--
"Brian" <brian...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:f45722ac.03091...@posting.google.com...
Dee D. Flint
"Clint" <rattlehead@computronDOTnet> wrote in message
news:vm8ucql...@corp.supernews.com...
> When I took my drivers test years ago to get a license
> to drive an automobile, the never required me to
> prove that I could hitch a horse team to a wagon.
> The youngsters today, likewise, tell me that the
> departments of motor vehicles around the country
> do not ask them to prove they are proficient with
> buggy whips.
>
> Enough said.
>
> Clint
The youngsters today still tell me that they must learn to use a pencil and
learn to write script. Typing and word processing are taught AFTER they
have learned to write manually. Enough said.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
shephed
"Clint" <rattlehead@computronDOTnet> wrote in message
> He's trying to blanket the topic anyway....
> NCI isn't trying to stop or ban the use of morse
> code on the airwaves, they simply understand that
> the testing of morse code no longer falls within
> the scope and original intent of ham radio.. which
> is to keep the art of radio alive and expand it's use,
> etc., and, well, logic there says that if morse code
> is being abandoned left and right in the radio world
> in favor of new means of communication, than you
> you are no longer adhereing or supporting this
> doctrine of ham radio.
>
> Plus, the real reason the old buzzards want to keep
> it around is simple but non well-founded.. "I did
> it, so YOU should have to!"
>
> Clint
> KB5ZHT
>
You spoke the words exactly as written by Cpt. Carl. You would make a good
Liberal, you follow orders so well. You might want to call the DNC and see
if they could use your during the next election.
Good luck!
10-73's!
shephed
"Clint" <rattlehead@computronDOTnet> wrote in message
> When I took my drivers test years ago to get a license
> to drive an automobile, the never required me to
> prove that I could hitch a horse team to a wagon.
> The youngsters today, likewise, tell me that the
> departments of motor vehicles around the country
> do not ask them to prove they are proficient with
> buggy whips.
>
> Enough said.
>
> Clint
>
You must be Cpt. Carls right hand job man. You quote their Bible so well.
Don't look now, but Ted Kennedy likes the way you don't think for
yourself.....
10-73's!
N2EY
brian...@juno.com (Brian) writes:
Who are you talking about, Brian?
>Oh, never mind, it's a PCTA thing.
You mean like the way you never censure Len or Carl (or anybody else who
happens to oppose code tests), no matter what they say or how they say it?
Oh, never mind, it's an NCTA double standards thing.
Dick Carroll
Clint wrote:
> He's trying to blanket the topic anyway....
> NCI isn't trying to stop or ban the use of morse
> code on the airwaves, they simply understand that
> the testing of morse code no longer falls within
> the scope and original intent of ham radio.. which
> is to keep the art of radio alive and expand it's use,
The operative phrase here is "expand its use", not diminish
it by refusing to learn the Most Basic Radiocommunications Mode.
>
> etc., and, well, logic there says that if morse code
> is being abandoned left and right in the radio world
> in favor of new means of communication,
When you finally get around to getting a radio that will actually
work on HF, take a listen to the lower end of any band and report
back what you find. Then you might want to 'accurize' that statemtent.
> than you
> you are no longer adhereing or supporting this
> doctrine of ham radio.
And of course YOU and NCI are, to hear your story.
WRONG story, full of total inaccuracies which you have
no interest in correcting. Who do you suppose is involved
in 'advancing late digital modes'? CLUE: It's not Carl Stevenson,
Chief Executive of NCI, you see
he's too busy ratchetjawing on SSB now that he's finally found a
license that allows it!
>
>
> Plus, the real reason the old buzzards want to keep
> it around is simple but non well-founded.. "I did
> it, so YOU should have to!"
>
There is an unintended element of truth in what you say. WE had to
learn radio's most basic mode, and there exists no good reason why
you shouldn't have to learn it also if you aspire to a full-privileges
ham raduio license.
Othewise you may very well to find yourself
on your arse groping for a useless microphone.
Jim Hampton
The fighting isn't worth it. If I could justify the necessity of CW, I
would - but I can't. Hopefully, folks will gravitate towards groups and
modes that they enjoy and everyone can have fun (not unlike some of the
repeaters). Oh well ... :)
73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
"Bert Craig" <wa...@arrl.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:RIZ8b.192114$Ay2.48...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Steve Stone
coal fired steam locomotive
Clint
A good liberal? you have NO idea..... I'm as right wing
and conservative as they come... evidently you don't read
my other posts or in other NG's either, where i'm referred
to as the "jim birch devil"
Clint
KB5ZHT
--
--
UNR paragraph from UNR 678
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait,
unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in
paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necissary means to
uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant
resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
--
"shephed" <smo...@twist1up.com> wrote in message
news:H209b.60152$3b2.7...@twister.neo.rr.com...
Clint
--
--
UNR paragraph from UNR 678
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait,
unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in
paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necissary means to
uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant
resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
--
"Dick Carroll" <di...@townsqr.com> wrote in message
news:bk27i3$42t$0...@208.206.142.108...
>
> The operative phrase here is "expand its use", not diminish
> it by refusing to learn the Most Basic Radiocommunications Mode.
that's expanding the use and art of morse code, not expanding the
use and art of radio in general. For that matter, there aren't
profeciency tests in other modes of operation, either, in the
form of a seperate practical test such as there is with CW.
>
>
>
> >
> > etc., and, well, logic there says that if morse code
> > is being abandoned left and right in the radio world
> > in favor of new means of communication,
>
> When you finally get around to getting a radio that will actually
> work on HF, take a listen to the lower end of any band and report
> back what you find. Then you might want to 'accurize' that statemtent.
I also read the news and listen to it as well and hear all the time
about CW being dropped in favor of digital and other forms of
communication.
>
> WRONG story, full of total inaccuracies
well, no, full of details that you find personally distasteful,
but not inaccurate.
Who do you suppose is involved
> in 'advancing late digital modes'? CLUE: It's not Carl Stevenson,
> Chief Executive of NCI,
I never implied that he was. Nor was I aware that this was
an intended purpose and goal of NCI.....
>
> There is an unintended element of truth in what you say. WE had to
> learn radio's most basic mode, and there exists no good reason why
> you shouldn't have to learn it also if you aspire to a full-privileges
> ham raduio license.
and our forefathers all had to learn how to hitch horses to a buggy,
and had to be proficient in the use of reigns and a buggy whip.
Does it make sense for the various departments of motor vehicle
saftey to require a person to learn this before letting him drive
a modern automobile?
Clint
KB5ZHT
Clint
>
> The youngsters today still tell me that they must learn to use a pencil
and
> learn to write script. Typing and word processing are taught AFTER they
> have learned to write manually. Enough said.
>
> Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
>
yes, if we were talking about a degree in literature from a school or
college,
which we are not.
Clint
KB5ZHT
Clint
anology... I find liberalism and the left wing as
disgraceful as anybody.
that doesn't mean, though, I that I want to live
in the past and let the world pass me up by not
wanting to progress with the times.
Clint
KB5ZHT
--
--
UNR paragraph from UNR 678
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait,
unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in
paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necissary means to
uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant
resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
--
"shephed" <smo...@twist1up.com> wrote in message
news:J409b.60215$3b2.7...@twister.neo.rr.com...
Clint
they know how to cultivate land, raise and harvest thier own
crops before they can buy groceries at the store?
"well, sunny, that's the way we had to do it when I was
a young'n on the farm.... you have it just too easy today,
being able to buy that potatoe right off the shelf. It's just
plain wrong... EEK- my chest hurts........"
Clint
KB5ZHT
--
--
UNR paragraph from UNR 678
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait,
unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in
paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necissary means to
uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant
resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
--
"Steve Stone" <spf...@zzcitlinkzz.net> wrote in message
news:go49b.4882$Fj6...@news02.roc.ny...
Dee D. Flint
"Clint" <rattlehead@computronDOTnet> wrote in message
This is elementary school, middle school, and high school. Perhaps I should
have used the word cursive instead of script as you seem to have totally
misinterpreted my statement to mean something else.
Students must learn printing and writing in cursive before they are taught
typing and word processing.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
>
Bill Sohl
"Clint" <rattlehead@computronDOTnet> wrote in message
> LOL!
>
> A good liberal? you have NO idea..... I'm as right wing
> and conservative as they come... evidently you don't read
> my other posts or in other NG's either, where i'm referred
> to as the "jim birch devil"
>
> Clint
> KB5ZHT
They just don't get it (the PCTAs that is).
Ending morse testing should happen because there
is NO logical/rational reason for government to
continue mandating morse knowledge of all HF licensed
hams. Getting the government out of a "morse code affirmative
action program" by ending mandated morse is far more
a conservative concept than a liberal one.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Clint
an oppinion against testing morse code profeciency, he is
assailed with the PCTA crowd with accusations of hating
the code, wanting it taken off the bands, and even worse
things that reach the comical level.
I do not HATE CW; I actually have a key, and I actually
make code contacts from time to time. In fact, my first many
QSL cards were CW contacts on 15 meters; for a while,
until I upgraded to general, thats all I did was operate CW
on 15.
I just also realize that there is no need to continue requireing
a profeciency test in CW; the argument referring to advancing
the radio art no longer holds water as the radio art is slowly
phasing CW out in many sectors of SW use.... and the argument
that it makes a good "yahoo" filter is wrong, due to the fact
that most of the onair violations are made by very veteran hams
with advanced liscences... thus, they themselves passed a code
test. I have NEVER heard stronger advocates of the rules than
by new hams that pop on VHF repeaters, who will get
rather brutal with you if you so much as make an off-color joke.
Tune into 40 or 75 meters and you'd think you had tuned into
27.185 Mhz, good buddy.
Clint
KB5ZHT
--
--
UNR paragraph from UNR 678
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait,
unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in
paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necissary means to
uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant
resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
--
"Bill Sohl" <bill...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:2A69b.11353$NM1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Bill Sohl
>
> > He's trying to blanket the topic anyway....
> > NCI isn't trying to stop or ban the use of morse
> > code on the airwaves, they simply understand that
> > the testing of morse code no longer falls within
> > the scope and original intent of ham radio.. which
> > is to keep the art of radio alive and expand it's use,
>
> The operative phrase here is "expand its use", not diminish
> it by refusing to learn the Most Basic Radiocommunications Mode.
It is NOT refusing to learn...it is simply allowing the
choice to be made by each individual. There is no
reason for everyone on HF to know morse as was
well shown by the lack of any credible reasons given to the
FCC in 98-143.
> > etc., and, well, logic there says that if morse code
> > is being abandoned left and right in the radio world
> > in favor of new means of communication,
>
> When you finally get around to getting a radio that will actually
> work on HF, take a listen to the lower end of any band and report
> back what you find. Then you might want to 'accurize' that statemtent.
Let's see...a mix of morse and data. Your point?
The choice then, depending on what one wants to do,
is to learn and use morse IF they want to make those contacts.
If not, who cares? So what?
> > than you
> > you are no longer adhereing or supporting this
> > doctrine of ham radio.
>
> And of course YOU and NCI are, to hear your story.
How is he or NCI not adhereing to the doctrine of ham
radio?
> WRONG story, full of total inaccuracies which you have
> no interest in correcting. Who do you suppose is involved
> in 'advancing late digital modes'? CLUE: It's not Carl Stevenson,
> Chief Executive of NCI, you see
> he's too busy ratchetjawing on SSB now that he's finally found a
> license that allows it!
Even if true, so what?
> > Plus, the real reason the old buzzards want to keep
> > it around is simple but non well-founded.. "I did
> > it, so YOU should have to!"
>
> There is an unintended element of truth in what you say.
At least you admit it. that's some progress.
> WE had to
> learn radio's most basic mode, and there exists no good reason why
> you shouldn't have to learn it also if you aspire to a full-privileges
> ham raduio license.
BZZZT - WRONG!! The burden of proof was on you and other
PCTA's to justify exactly WHY hams should learn it. You failed
to do so during the 98-143 comment phase as is well
documented in the FCC's R&O for 98-143.
Even if I take your challenge at face value, the
simple answer is that the reason every HF shouldn't have to
learn morse is because there's no justifiable reason,
rational or need for it.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Bill Sohl
"Dee D. Flint" <dee...@qix.net> wrote in message
news:O6%8b.2868$nQ.11...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
Bad anology since morse isn't a foundation to any other
body of radio knowledge and/or language skills or
writing skills.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Clint
to anything else..... now, the electrical principals of what a CW
transmission is, and a knowledge test of that is a good idea, but
that's comparing apples and oranges. I think most of the PCTA
is being disingenuous when they come up with "good reasons"
to keep CW testing alive; I think the true deeper reason lies
somewhere in the "I had to do it so everybody should" relm,
as i've stated before.
Clint
KB5ZHT
--
--
UNR paragraph from UNR 678
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait,
unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in
paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necissary means to
uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant
resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
--
"Bill Sohl" <bill...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:gK69b.11421$NM1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Dick Carroll
Steve Stone wrote:
> I think anyone who is a train engineer should pass a test for operating a
> coal fired steam locomotive
Now that's odd! Why in the world would you think such a thing?
shephed
"Clint" <rattlehead@computronDOTnet> wrote in message
> LOL!
>
> A good liberal? you have NO idea..... I'm as right wing
> and conservative as they come... evidently you don't read
> my other posts or in other NG's either, where i'm referred
> to as the "jim birch devil"
>
> Clint
> KB5ZHT
>
having "things" given to you because you are to lazy to EARN them. Sound
familiar Liberal boy?
Conservative my ass!
10-73's!
Dick Carroll
Clint wrote:
> >
> > The operative phrase here is "expand its use", not diminish
> > it by refusing to learn the Most Basic Radiocommunications Mode.
>
> that's expanding the use and art of morse code, not expanding the
> use and art of radio in general.
If you don't believe that promoting and expanding the use of radiotelegraphy is
doing same to "radio in general" there is news you've not yet heard.
> For that matter, there aren't
> profeciency tests in other modes of operation, either, in the
> form of a seperate practical test such as there is with CW.
Ah, but Morse is the only mode which demands selftraining! Any mope can learn
any of the others by cracking a book and doing a little hookup wiring.
With manual radiotelegraphy, there is really no way to do it short of
selftraining. Thus the CW test.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > etc., and, well, logic there says that if morse code
> > > is being abandoned left and right in the radio world
> > > in favor of new means of communication,
> >
> > When you finally get around to getting a radio that will actually
> > work on HF, take a listen to the lower end of any band and report
> > back what you find. Then you might want to 'accurize' that statemtent.
>
> I also read the news and listen to it as well and hear all the time
> about CW being dropped in favor of digital and other forms of
> communication.
>
By commercials and military, yes, for both efficiency in transferring huge
amounts of data, and primarly in some services for monetary reasons. It's
cheaper to use modes that non-technical personnel can handle, thus saving
personnel costs. If they can add communications as a duty to personnel othewise
assigned, it is cost savings, nevermind that the newly assigned person may be
squeezed for time to perform all those added duties, thus causing safety and job
efficiency to suffer. Dollars are conserved, so it is done.
Ham radio has no such needs nor constraints, even for emergency comms. Maximum
throughput is the *last* thing you need when the desperate need is for *any*
communications. At that point what is needed is basic, reliable, ubiquitous
communications modes. In ham radio, Morse is second only to the voice modes, by
far. I can imagine that NCI strongly favors changing that, despite their
statements to the contrary - for obvious reasons.
>
> >
> > WRONG story, full of total inaccuracies
>
> well, no, full of details that you find personally distasteful,
> but not inaccurate.
As I said, QUITE inaccurate.
>
>
> Who do you suppose is involved
> > in 'advancing late digital modes'? CLUE: It's not Carl Stevenson,
> > Chief Executive of NCI,
>
> I never implied that he was. Nor was I aware that this was
> an intended purpose and goal of NCI.....
>
> >
> > There is an unintended element of truth in what you say. WE had to
> > learn radio's most basic mode, and there exists no good reason why
> > you shouldn't have to learn it also if you aspire to a full-privileges
> > ham raduio license.
>
> and our forefathers all had to learn how to hitch horses to a buggy,
> and had to be proficient in the use of reigns and a buggy whip.
> Does it make sense for the various departments of motor vehicle
> saftey to require a person to learn this before letting him drive
> a modern automobile?
Well, you old Hoop jumper, none of that has anything whatever to do with radio
communications, much less ham radio nor Morse code. It's just more NCI mumbo
jumbo drivel straight from the Carl Stevenson X files.
If you refuse to learn how to handle radio's most basic mode you can never be
able to regard yourself as fully qualified in ham radio communciations.
That's just the Way it Is. Live with it.
Brian
> In article <f45722ac.03091...@posting.google.com>,
> brian...@juno.com (Brian) writes:
>
> >"shephed" <smo...@twist1up.com> wrote in message
> >news:<IuP8b.57189$3b2.7...@twister.neo.rr.com>...
> >> If your not a retarded mouth breeding NCI member, there is a CW contest
> >> going one right now.
> >>
> >> If you are a retarded mouth breeding NCI member, then never mind, it's a
> Ham
> >> Radio thing. You would not understand.
> >>
> >> 10-73's!
> >
> >Rev. Jim is going to chastise you for your dirty mouth.
>
> Who are you talking about, Brian?
"Shephed"
> >Oh, never mind, it's a PCTA thing.
>
> You mean like the way you never censure Len or Carl (or anybody else who
> happens to oppose code tests), no matter what they say or how they say it?
Never? Rev. Jim, even little lies will get you turned away from the
gate.
> Oh, never mind, it's an NCTA double standards thing.
I guess as long as "shephed" is spouting the party line, its OK with
you that he calls people "retarded mouth-breeding NCI members."
Dick Carroll
Bill Sohl wrote:
Wrong, because radiotelegraphy IS the most basic radio communications mode,
the use of which is possible only if the operator has self-trained enough to
be able to make use of it.
Dee D. Flint
"Bill Sohl" <bill...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:gK69b.11421$NM1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
Manual printing and cursive aren't a foundation for any other skills either.
All notes can now be take by digital recorders or entered into a PDA. Bills
can be paid on line eliminating the need to sign checks. Debit cards can be
used in stores and you enter your PIN number. Credit cards could be
converted to that system too. Manual printing and cursive can be totally
eliminated as they are not needed as a foundation for any language skills
since one can learn to read without writing. Composition doesn't need
manual skills either. It can all be done on the typewriter or word
processor.
Let's have a go at "No Handwriting International".
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
Bill Sohl
Earning your way is fine...as long as the requirement(s)
is relevent...that's were you lose your argument.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Bill Sohl
IF morse (i.e. radiotelegraphy) had any basis as a foundation
for higher learning of radio concepts, principles or theory
then it would be a requirement of engineering students...which
it has never been to my knowledge anywhere.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Bill Sohl
Exaggeration to the ridiculous.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Dick Carroll
Bill Sohl wrote:
And that's where your argument falls flat on its face. The point is
operational, on the air *communications *. It's called OPERATING. Has nada to
do with anything beyond, although placing a radiotelegraph on the air on HF
happens to be, as well, the most simple of stations to get up and running.
It's the BASICS, Bill. When you can't appreciate the fact that radiotelegraphy
is radio at its most basic it's no wonder
you can't understand the concept.
The entire point is that radiotelegraphy using manually encoded Morse remains
as one of the most, effective, and COST EFFECTIVE means of radiocommunications,
even after all the years it has been in excistence. But only when operators
self-train to gain the skill to use it.
The FCC has every reason and more than ample justification to require EVERY
ham to be able to actually pass traffic in Morse on the air. It's easy to make
a case that the ability is a valid requirement for licensing. The fact that
they have not chosen to do so is far more related to the wants and desires of a
vocal few, and a whole lot of PC, than the actual operational traffic-handling
capacities of the ARS.
Now you'll come back with the same old saw about how it's "no longer sued" for
this or that. Just as though no such need will ever again present to the ARS,
ever, under any circumstances. Whatta crystal ball jock you are!
N2EY
<spf...@zzcitlinkzz.net> writes:
>I think anyone who is a train engineer should pass a test for operating a
>coal fired steam locomotive
The term usually used is "locomotive engineer"
If the railroad they intend to work for uses coal fired steam locomotives,
learning how to run them would be a good idea.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
<rattlehead@computronDOTnet> writes:
>sending and receiving CW isn't a building block
>to anything else.....
Yes, it is.
First, it's a building block to the use of the mode on the air. Although other
services have pretty much stopped using Morse Code, hams use it extensivley,
and an amateur license is permission to operate an amateur station, not a
station in another service. Note that the Morse Code tests are at a very basic
level. They're entry-level, nothing more.
Second, if someone wants to actually design and build radio equipment, having
skill in Morse Code permits them to use almost anything from very simple to
very sophisticated equipment to good advantage. Would you expect a newcomer to
radio to build an SSB transceiver as a first project?
>now, the electrical principals of what a CW
>transmission is, and a knowledge test of that is a good idea, but
>that's comparing apples and oranges.
Why should there be *any* written test on theory if all a person wants to do is
operate manufactured radios? If someone doesn't want to build a rig, why should
they have to memorize all those symbols, diagrams and formulas?
>I think most of the PCTA
>is being disingenuous when they come up with "good reasons"
>to keep CW testing alive;
Why?
> I think the true deeper reason lies
>somewhere in the "I had to do it so everybody should" relm,
>as i've stated before.
>
You can think what you want, but you're mistaken on that account.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
<dee...@qix.net> writes:
Yep. And they must learn to do basic arithmetic *by hand* even though
calculators and computers are inexpensive and widely available.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
>n2...@aol.com (N2EY) wrote in message
>news:<20030914121856...@mb-m23.aol.com>...
>> In article <f45722ac.03091...@posting.google.com>,
>> brian...@juno.com (Brian) writes:
>>
>> >"shephed" <smo...@twist1up.com> wrote in message
>> >news:<IuP8b.57189$3b2.7...@twister.neo.rr.com>...
>> >> If your not a retarded mouth breeding NCI member, there is a CW contest
>> >> going one right now.
>> >>
>> >> If you are a retarded mouth breeding NCI member, then never mind, it's a
>> Ham
>> >> Radio thing. You would not understand.
>> >>
>> >> 10-73's!
>> >
>> >Rev. Jim is going to chastise you for your dirty mouth.
>>
>> Who are you talking about, Brian?
>
>"Shephed"
Then you weren't talking about me at all. OK.
>
>> >Oh, never mind, it's a PCTA thing.
>>
>> You mean like the way you never censure Len or Carl (or anybody else who
>> happens to oppose code tests), no matter what they say or how they say it?
>
>Never?
I can't recall you ever censuring Len or Carl or anybody else who is against
code tests. Can you give us an example where you took them to task for their
behavior here?
>Rev. Jim, even little lies will get you turned away from the gate.
Who are you talking to?
>
>> Oh, never mind, it's an NCTA double standards thing.
>
>I guess as long as "shephed" is spouting the party line, its OK with
>you that he calls people "retarded mouth-breeding NCI members."
No, it's not OK.
Clint
>
> >
> You can't be a conservative, we believe in earning your way in life, not
> having "things" given to you because you are to lazy to EARN them. Sound
> familiar Liberal boy?
>
> Conservative my ass!
>
> 10-73's!
>
>
well, you're analogy is wrong. Last I heard, they are STILL testing people
to get thier ham licences... you STILL have to fill out the correct forms
after
passing the test and pay your fees to get your licence. They are not
GIVING anything away.
you are mad simply because something that you had to do that was very
difficult has been removed for the most part, and may be totally
removed finally due to it's archaic irrelavence.
The process that is required is still taking place, but just not to your
likeing.
That is life, sometimes.
Clint
KB5ZHT
american-loving conservative
--
United Nations Resolution 678 quote...
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait,
unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in
paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necissary means to
uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant
resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
anti-americans, just disregard "to use all necissary means"
--
Clint
"Dick Carroll" <di...@townsqr.com> wrote in message
news:bk327e$96s$0...@208.206.142.90...
>
>
>
> If you don't believe that promoting and expanding the use of
radiotelegraphy is
> doing same to "radio in general" there is news you've not yet heard.
well, then where do you draw the cut off point? if just the small subset of
radio
known as radiotelegraphy is so important to the expansion of radio, then by
comparison, what would you call ALL the other communication forms that
aren't equally represented? why is this small subset of the radio world so
important when it's use is being REDUCED in the non-ham world, replaced
by new communication modes?
>
>
> > For that matter, there aren't
> > profeciency tests in other modes of operation, either, in the
> > form of a seperate practical test such as there is with CW.
>
> Ah, but Morse is the only mode which demands selftraining!
ALL modes of communication require selftraining, just not as strong
as an emphasis on listening-hand coordination to say the least. You
STILL have to train yourself on the rules, codes of conduct, procedures,
information regarding electrical principals and fundamentals (feedlines,
antenna lenght, RF fields, etc.)
once again, it's just that YOU had to do it. That's all.
>Any mope can learn
> any of the others by cracking a book and doing a little hookup wiring.
> With manual radiotelegraphy, there is really no way to do it short of
> selftraining. Thus the CW test.
well, I guess if everybody else is wrong and YOU are right, then it's
just going to such a terrible thing when the CW practical test is
finally, totally phased out.
> > >
> > > When you finally get around to getting a radio that will actually
> > > work on HF, take a listen to the lower end of any band and report
> > > back what you find. Then you might want to 'accurize' that statemtent.
I own a kenwood 850, a 10-15 meter vertical and a 40-80-160 meter
sloper. I transmit and recieve all up and down previously mentioned bands.
Therefore, your statement was unfounded.
>If you refuse to learn how to handle radio's most basic mode you can never
be
>able to regard yourself as fully qualified in ham radio communciations.
> That's just the Way it Is. Live with it.
>
I'm sorry but that is YOUR oppinion. What counts is the decision of those in
authority, namely the FCC. And YOU will have to live with the decisions THEY
make.
Clint
KB5ZHT
Clint
> >sending and receiving CW isn't a building block
> >to anything else.....
>
> Yes, it is.
okay, time to fish or cut bait... in what way is CW
a building block to the operation of a ham radio
that you can't say about so many other more
modern, up to date and applicable modes?
I mean, ORIGINALLY, the first communication that
was EVER sent was a spark with a spark generator.
The do not require you to show profeciency in building
a spark generator and using it; if you say "well, we just
SKIP that step and go to CW", then you can say that
about EVERY step along the way of learning
ham radio.
Clint
KB5ZHT
Clint
> > IF morse (i.e. radiotelegraphy) had any basis as a foundation
> > for higher learning of radio concepts, principles or theory
> > then it would be a requirement of engineering students...which
> > it has never been to my knowledge anywhere.
>
> And that's where your argument falls flat on its face. The point is
> operational, on the air *communications *. It's called OPERATING.
<snip>
you just employed the "diversion" tactic. he was totally correct; if
the basic fundamentals of radio, which you have been totally parroting
until now, required it, then it would be a necissary requirement for
all basic electrical engineering, and it is not.
> It's the BASICS, Bill.
As YOU see it.
Why aren't new hams required to show they now how to forge/smelt
copper wire, produce polyethelene insulation, make aluminum out
of scratch for antennas, etc., if BASICS were the name of
everything?
you're mad because YOU had to do it.
Clint
spouting "basics", and draws an anology to either handwriting...
and I say this; does this mean you could NEVER write cursive
if you were never taught print? could you NOT be taught
cursive directly without first being taught print? No.
However, it's simply another skill that can be taught, and they
do, and that's fine. However, they do not look at CW the
same way; it's pass/fail, not merely a percentage of test
that needs to be passed.
Do you think they would support a system where you had
to be tested on CW, if an only if you wanted to use CW
on the CW part of the bands? Heh, of COURSE not.
That is where thier anology fails. The art of CW needs
to be tested with a practical test if you are to use and
learn CW, but not necissarily ham radio. I would have
supported a system like that, where if you wanted to
operate CW on the lower half of the band you had to
be tested on if first, but of course, that was out of the
question.
They do not, however, likewise, first test people
on knowing how to build a double sideband carrier
transmission if they want to operate AM; they do
not require you to show how to get a microphone,
talk on it, and recieve the response on a speaker
if you want to use frequency modulated radiotelephone,
or single sideband carrier suppressed radiotelephone.
But they DO want to force CW on people that don't
necissarily have any interest in operating it. "basics"
arguments fail; "selftrained skill" fails because everything
is a selftrained skill, why put the emphasis on an outdated
mode instead of testing selftrained skills on new, modern
modes of communication?
Clint
KB5ZHT
Clint
> > Let's have a go at "No Handwriting International".
> > Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
>
> Exaggeration to the ridiculous.
>
spurious analogies are in the PCTA handbook, bill.
Clint
KB5ZHT
Clint
>
> If the railroad they intend to work for uses coal fired steam locomotives,
> learning how to run them would be a good idea.
yes, exactly.
I guess it's too bad that there aren't that many coal fired steam
locomotives
being used anymore.
Clint
KB5ZHT
Dick Carroll
Clint wrote:
>
> >If you refuse to learn how to handle radio's most basic mode you can never
> be
> >able to regard yourself as fully qualified in ham radio communciations.
> > That's just the Way it Is. Live with it.
> >
>
> I'm sorry but that is YOUR oppinion. What counts is the decision of those in
> authority, namely the FCC.
Son, you might want to learn somewhere along the way that opinion is sometimes
congruent with fact, sometimes not.
No matter what the FCC says or does, it can't alter facts. And nowhere have
they ever said that a no-code license is a fully qualified ham. In fact, the
retired Chief of the Amateur and Citizen's Division of FCC (now called something
else) stated in his comments on the NCVEC pettion
(which BTW he helped write) that it was an oxymoron to expect an Extra class
ham to be a expert on ham radio if he doesn't know Morse code. Thus he supports
a code test for Extras.
And it should be obvious, to anyone who actually owns and uses a thought process
- when Morse code is a widely-used mode within ham radio, *anyone* who can't use
it simply and factually *cannot* be a fully qualified ham - No matter what
license or privileges the FCC gives them.
> And YOU will have to live with the decisions THEY
> make.
>
Which can't change facts. Facts are immutable. Live with it. Any ham not able
to operate CW is simply and factually not fully qualified.
Dick Carroll
Clint wrote:
Aw Clint, surely you're better informed than that...arent you?
NOTHING has changed about the USE of Morse code, from spark to today's
rigs-which aren't simple CW generators, BTW, since you seem to have
missed that (at least in the case of most modern rigs).
It's the MODE, the requirement to selftrain to learn to use it, that
remains just as valid today as ever.
Of course technical improvements in equipement have enhanced the use of
Morse as they have other modes, but the simple requirement to learn to
use it remains, as always. FACT!
Dick Carroll
Clint wrote:
Clint your ignorance is showing again. Ham radio isn't about engineering,
its about operating ham radio. Sure, one CAN use engineering if one
wishes, and someone surely had to do some engineering to produce the gear
we all use. But if Bill's comment holds any water at all then the tests
would have been becoming harder instead of becominig giveaways.
Ham radio isn't about metalurgy pr plastics technology, Clint, it's about
OPERATING . But you amd Bill already knew that, it's jsut your NCI/CB
attitudes showing through, again.
Dick Carroll
Clint wrote:
On the othe hand, there IS very MUCH Morse code being used on ham radio!
Bert Craig
Well Bill, I'm on the bottom of 40 right now listening to a band FULL of
irrelevance. <hihi>
--
73 de Bert
WA2SI
Clint
MORE activity.... boy, we need a practical test to
see if anybody can send and recieve ssb quickly for 10-10
contests or something.. DAMN! how has ham radio survived
without it???
Clint
KB5ZHT
--
--
United Nations Resolution 678 quote...
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait,
unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in
paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions,
------> TO USE ALL NECISSARY MEANS <--------
to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant
resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
anti-americans, just disregard "to use all necissary means"
--
"Bert Craig" <wa...@arrl.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:svl9b.206446$Ay2.54...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Clint
> Clint wrote:
> > I'm sorry but that is YOUR oppinion. What counts is the decision of
those in
> > authority, namely the FCC.
>
> Son, you might want to learn somewhere along the way that opinion is
sometimes
> congruent with fact, sometimes not.
I. you're not my father, do not call me son.
II. the second part of your remark has not the slightest shred of relavance
to anything.
>
> No matter what the FCC says or does, it can't alter facts.
You are so correct. However, what it DOES is make rules and laws. Therefore,
if they make a rule that code practical tests are no longer valid nor
necissary
to aquire a ham radio license, then the bottom line is that there will not
be
any further code tests. It is YOUR oppinion that somebody is not a fully
qualified ham without code testing. It is FACT that they are a fully
qualified
ham in the eyes of the FCC if they meet all the requirements the FCC sets
forth; now, THAT is a fact.
And nowhere have
> they ever said that a no-code license is a fully qualified ham.
excuse me? then what is the little piece of paper your issued with a
callsign
when you meet all the requirements set forth by the FCC to acquire one?
In fact, the
> retired Chief of the Amateur and Citizen's Division of FCC (now called
something
> else) stated in his comments on the NCVEC pettion
> (which BTW he helped write) that it was an oxymoron to expect an Extra
class
> ham to be a expert on ham radio if he doesn't know Morse code.
and that is the RETIRED chief's oppinion.
the oppinions of the current members of the FCC are what counts. Not his.
Thus he supports
> a code test for Extras.
and he's retired, and no longer a voting member of the FCC.
> >
>
> Which can't change facts. Facts are immutable.
yes, like it is a fact that the FCC makes the laws regarding the
use of ham radio bands and the requirements to do so. NOT
retired members.
Live with it. Any ham not able
> to operate CW is simply and factually not fully qualified.
>
that is your oppinion.
I tell you what; next time you're operating a motor vehicle, drive
as fast as you can... I mean pedal to the medal; do over 100mph
if you can. when a policeman pulls you over and hands you
a ticket, then tell him "I am driving at a perfectly safe speed for my
skills. Your oppinion and that of the judge that I am about to have
to go in front of are not relavant. It is an immutable fact that
a driver is not a good driver unless he can do 100 without wrecking,
which I did. That's a fact, and you can't do anything about it."
and just see what happens.
Clint
KB5ZHT
a code-tested ham who, regardless of the fact, does not believe
in code testing.
Clint
>
> NOTHING has changed about the USE of Morse code, from spark to today's
> rigs-which aren't simple CW generators, BTW,
then why not test the use of spark generators, thier constructions, etc?
it's a "basic", right?
since you seem to have
> missed that (at least in the case of most modern rigs).
> It's the MODE, the requirement to selftrain to learn to use it, that
> remains just as valid today as ever.
just what century do you live in? haven't you heard that even in
the military they are pulling away from morse code use?
>
> Of course technical improvements in equipement have enhanced the use of
> Morse as they have other modes, but the simple requirement to learn to
> use it remains, as always. FACT!
Nope. your oppinion. MAN you need to learn the difference between
a fact of life and your oppinion on a topic. Nobody will buy your
circular thinking of "I said it, so it MUST be so!" thinking.
Clint
KB5ZHT
>
Clint
Ham radio isn't about engineering,
then why is there a knowledge test on circuits?
>
> Ham radio isn't about metalurgy pr plastics technology, Clint, it's about
> OPERATING .
and if you choose NOT to operate CW, then why test it if it's soley
about OPERATING????
you're mad because YOU had to do it, bottom line.
Clint
> >
> > I guess it's too bad that there aren't that many coal fired steam
> > locomotives
> > being used anymore.
>
> On the othe hand, there IS very MUCH Morse code being used on ham radio!
>
Clint
KB5ZHT
N2EY
> many people that are in or supports the doctrines of PCTA keeps
> spouting "basics", and draws an anology to either handwriting...
> and I say this; does this mean you could NEVER write cursive
> if you were never taught print? could you NOT be taught
> cursive directly without first being taught print? No.
OK, fine.
But why should any sort of manual writing skill be mandatory in a
world full of keyboards?
>
> However, it's simply another skill that can be taught, and they
> do, and that's fine.
Why?
Why not teach keyboarding from Day One? Our children will spend far
more time at keyboards than writing.
> However, they do not look at CW the
> same way; it's pass/fail, not merely a percentage of test
> that needs to be passed.
>
If it were up to me, there would be several written tests (or the
written would be split up into separately-graded parts) as well as a
code test.
> Do you think they would support a system where you had
> to be tested on CW, if an only if you wanted to use CW
> on the CW part of the bands? Heh, of COURSE not.
There are no CW-only parts of the HF/MF bands. None at all.
> That is where thier anology fails. The art of CW needs
> to be tested with a practical test if you are to use and
> learn CW, but not necissarily ham radio. I would have
> supported a system like that, where if you wanted to
> operate CW on the lower half of the band you had to
> be tested on if first, but of course, that was out of the
> question.
Your opinion noted. Others have a different opinion.
>
> They do not, however, likewise, first test people
> on knowing how to build a double sideband carrier
> transmission if they want to operate AM; they do
> not require you to show how to get a microphone,
> talk on it, and recieve the response on a speaker
> if you want to use frequency modulated radiotelephone,
> or single sideband carrier suppressed radiotelephone.
Perhaps they should.
>
> But they DO want to force CW on people that don't
> necissarily have any interest in operating it. "basics"
> arguments fail; "selftrained skill" fails because everything
> is a selftrained skill, why put the emphasis on an outdated
> mode instead of testing selftrained skills on new, modern
> modes of communication?
Then answer this question: Why should people who are not interested in
building or fixing their radios have to learn all that theory stuff
for the written tests? Why are all hams tested on all sorts of stuff
they are not interested in?
When I first started out in ham radio, all I wanted to do was join the
folks I heard on 75 meter AM. Yet in order to get the license, I had
to learn not only Morse Code, but all sorts of theory and regulatory
stuff that had absolutely nothing to do with 75 meter AM.
Why was I forced to learn all that?
73 de Jim, N2EY
Brian
Now, now, Rev. Jim, I'm not going to do your google searches for you.
But there's a couple of them in there for Len, and a reversal - Carl
censured me. He asked me to go easy on one of your bunions.
> >Rev. Jim, even little lies will get you turned away from the gate.
>
> Who are you talking to?
You.
> >> Oh, never mind, it's an NCTA double standards thing.
> >
> >I guess as long as "shephed" is spouting the party line, its OK with
> >you that he calls people "retarded mouth-breeding NCI members."
>
> No, it's not OK.
I'm suprised. It's not OK, yet you didn't edit out "retarded
mouth-breeding NCI members."
Clint
>
> There are no CW-only parts of the HF/MF bands. None at all.
>
You'd better check your frequency priviledge/allocation charts.
The lower half of the HF bands except for 160 meters is
"cw/fsk only"....
>
> Your opinion noted. Others have a different opinion.
yes, agreed.
However, it would seem that MOST oppinions worldwide
are on the side of removing code tests.
> >
> > They do not, however, likewise, first test people
> > on knowing how to build a double sideband carrier
> > transmission if they want to operate AM; they do
> > not require you to show how to get a microphone,
> > talk on it, and recieve the response on a speaker
> > if you want to use frequency modulated radiotelephone,
> > or single sideband carrier suppressed radiotelephone.
>
> Perhaps they should.
but they don't.
>
> When I first started out in ham radio, all I wanted to do was join the
> folks I heard on 75 meter AM. Yet in order to get the license, I had
> to learn not only Morse Code, but all sorts of theory and regulatory
> stuff that had absolutely nothing to do with 75 meter AM.
>
> Why was I forced to learn all that?
I really don't know. Thank heaven they've gone a long way to fix
the problem, and may make the final move here soon to remove the
scourge of CW tests all together.
Clint
KB5ZHT
Bill Sohl
"Bert Craig" <wa...@arrl.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:svl9b.206446$Ay2.54...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Wonderfl, then you'll learn code if you want to participate there.
If not, nothing lost. More to the point, is there any minimum code
speed that should be banned from the CW/data segments at the
bottom of the bands?
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Bill Sohl
>
>
> Clint wrote:
>
> >
> > >If you refuse to learn how to handle radio's most basic mode you can
never
> > be
> > >able to regard yourself as fully qualified in ham radio communciations.
> > > That's just the Way it Is. Live with it.
> > >
> >
> > I'm sorry but that is YOUR oppinion. What counts is the decision of
those in
> > authority, namely the FCC.
>
> Son, you might want to learn somewhere along the way that opinion is
sometimes
> congruent with fact, sometimes not.
>
> No matter what the FCC says or does, it can't alter facts. And nowhere
have
> they ever said that a no-code license is a fully qualified ham.
So far the UK, Netherlands and several other countries have done
exactly that. Once all code testing is ended by the FCC will you
accept that action as supporting the FCC position that
morse isn't needed to be a "fully qualified ham?"
Additionally, I don't recall anywhere seeing any FCC reference
to the concept of a "fully qualified ham". Is that a new license
class?
> In fact, the
> retired Chief of the Amateur and Citizen's Division of FCC (now called
something
> else) stated in his comments on the NCVEC pettion
> (which BTW he helped write) that it was an oxymoron to expect an Extra
class
> ham to be a expert on ham radio if he doesn't know Morse code. Thus he
supports
> a code test for Extras.
Does he speak for the FCC today?
> And it should be obvious, to anyone who actually owns and uses a thought
process
> - when Morse code is a widely-used mode within ham radio, *anyone* who
can't use
> it simply and factually *cannot* be a fully qualified ham - No matter
what
> license or privileges the FCC gives them.
What a crock. On that basis, if you can't speak Spanish, Chineese, and
several
other languages commonly used by hams around the globe, then you
shouldn't be considered "qualified" either.
> > And YOU will have to live with the decisions THEY
> > make.
> >
>
> Which can't change facts. Facts are immutable. Live with it. Any ham not
able
> to operate CW is simply and factually not fully qualified.
Your Opinion yes, a fact? Not at all. And that's an opinion
I'm entitled to.
Cheers as always,
Bill K2UNK
Bill Sohl
"N2EY" <n2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030915021846...@mb-m05.aol.com...
> In article <vm9usff...@corp.supernews.com>, "Clint"
> <rattlehead@computronDOTnet> writes:
>
> >sending and receiving CW isn't a building block
> >to anything else.....
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> First, it's a building block to the use of the mode on the air.
Come on Jim. that's a self fullfilling argument. My point, and I know
you know this, is that morse knowledge is not needed in any manner as
a foundation, stepping stone, or whatever to any body or radio knowledge
or concepts.
> Although other
> services have pretty much stopped using Morse Code, hams use it
extensivley,
> and an amateur license is permission to operate an amateur station, not a
> station in another service. Note that the Morse Code tests are at a very
basic
> level. They're entry-level, nothing more.
Are you afraid that without a code test, people will "pollute the HF
airwaves"
with bad morse?
> Second, if someone wants to actually design and build radio equipment,
having
> skill in Morse Code permits them to use almost anything from very simple
to
> very sophisticated equipment to good advantage. Would you expect a
newcomer to
> radio to build an SSB transceiver as a first project?
They can build whatever they want. If they want to start with a simple
morse
Xmitter then they will learn at least enough morse to be able to use it.
If they don't self train themselves, the rig will be useless to them. As
another
point of reference, when I was going for my AAS in electricl technology we
built a 10 watt CW rig as part of the lab work. We tested it using a dummy
load and no one had to know even one character of morse to do the lab work.
> >now, the electrical principals of what a CW
> >transmission is, and a knowledge test of that is a good idea, but
> >that's comparing apples and oranges.
>
> Why should there be *any* written test on theory if all a person wants to
do is
> operate manufactured radios? If someone doesn't want to build a rig, why
should
> they have to memorize all those symbols, diagrams and formulas?
IF that's what you believe then go start NTI (No Theory Int'l).
> >I think most of the PCTA
> >is being disingenuous when they come up with "good reasons"
> >to keep CW testing alive;
>
> Why?
Actually, they haven't scored even a single point in the arguments
made to the FCC now or in the past.
> > I think the true deeper reason lies
> >somewhere in the "I had to do it so everybody should" relm,
> >as i've stated before.
> >
> You can think what you want, but you're mistaken on that account.
Exactly what is it that the PCTAs fear if there is NO morse test
at all?
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Bill Sohl
> > >
> > > Bill Sohl wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Dee D. Flint" <dee...@qix.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:O6%8b.2868$nQ.11...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Clint" <rattlehead@computronDOTnet> wrote in message
> > > > > > When I took my drivers test years ago to get a license
> > > > > > to drive an automobile, the never required me to
> > > > > > prove that I could hitch a horse team to a wagon.
> > > > > > The youngsters today, likewise, tell me that the
> > > > > > departments of motor vehicles around the country
> > > > > > do not ask them to prove they are proficient with
> > > > > > buggy whips.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Enough said.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Clint
> > > > >
> > > > > The youngsters today still tell me that they must learn to use a
> > > > pencil and
> > > > > learn to write script. Typing and word processing are taught
AFTER
> > > > > they have learned to write manually. Enough said.
> > > >
> > > > body of radio knowledge and/or language skills or
> > > > writing skills.
> > >
> > > Wrong, because radiotelegraphy IS the most basic radio communications
> > mode,
> > > the use of which is possible only if the operator has self-trained
enough
> > to
> > > be able to make use of it.
> >
> > IF morse (i.e. radiotelegraphy) had any basis as a foundation
> > for higher learning of radio concepts, principles or theory
> > then it would be a requirement of engineering students...which
> > it has never been to my knowledge anywhere.
>
> And that's where your argument falls flat on its face. The point is
to
> do with anything beyond, although placing a radiotelegraph on the air on
HF
> happens to be, as well, the most simple of stations to get up and running.
Tat is ONLY if one wants to operate telegraphy....which is NOT
an FCC requirement at all (i.e. there's no FCC requirement that
any ham be operating proficient in any mode).
> It's the BASICS, Bill. When you can't appreciate the fact that
radiotelegraphy
> is radio at its most basic it's no wonder
> you can't understand the concept.
When you can't accept the fact that there's no mandate for anyone to ever
use morse code or any other mode, then you'll never get it.
> The entire point is that radiotelegraphy using manually encoded Morse
remains
> as one of the most, effective, and COST EFFECTIVE means of
radiocommunications,
> even after all the years it has been in excistence. But only when
operators
> self-train to gain the skill to use it.
Which any ham will be free to do (i.e. self train in morse) after code
testing is ended. Those that want to use morse will learn it. Those that
don't, won't. That is the same for every mode and/or language
(both written or spoken) used by hams anywhere.
> The FCC has every reason and more than ample justification to require
EVERY
> ham to be able to actually pass traffic in Morse on the air.
Guess I must have missed the FCC report that acknowledges that.
> It's easy to make
> a case that the ability is a valid requirement for licensing.
So far your success with the FCC has been zilch in doing so.
> The fact that
> they have not chosen to do so is far more related to the wants and desires
of a
> vocal few, and a whole lot of PC, than the actual operational
traffic-handling
> capacities of the ARS.
Now who is crying in their beer?
> Now you'll come back with the same old saw about how it's "no longer
sued" for
> this or that.
It isn't a matter of use...those that want to will learn. It's
that freakin simple.
> Just as though no such need will ever again present to the ARS,
> ever, under any circumstances. Whatta crystal ball jock you are!
Yes, let's mandate morse for all just in case the Aliens invade as
in Independance day.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Brian Kelly
> In article <go49b.4882$Fj6...@news02.roc.ny>, "Steve Stone"
> <spf...@zzcitlinkzz.net> writes:
>
> >I think anyone who is a train engineer should pass a test for operating a
> >coal fired steam locomotive
>
> The term usually used is "locomotive engineer"
>
> If the railroad they intend to work for uses coal fired steam locomotives,
> learning how to run them would be a good idea.
Ya can't operate any locomotive if yer not certified "in type" per
(+/-) the FAA regs for being licensed in type of A/C. I forget who
issues the certifications, the states or the feds. Plus the ASME also
gets into the act in the case of steamers because of requirments on
certification of boiler operators. Which is not the case with diesels
and full-scale Lionels.
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
w3rv
Bill Sohl
You can always tell when Dick runs out of arguments...resort
to cheap namecalling.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
N2EY
<rattlehead@computronDOTnet> writes:
>> If the railroad they intend to work for uses coal fired steam locomotives,
>> learning how to run them would be a good idea.
>
>yes, exactly.
Then you agree that the skills tested for should be those actually used.
>
>I guess it's too bad that there aren't that many coal fired steam
>locomotives being used anymore.
They had their good and bad features.
The main reason most US railroads stopped using them in the 1950s was simple
economics, nothing more. The total operating cost of diesel electric
locomotives, in terms of ton-miles per locomotive operating dollar, was simply
better. The diesels themselves were more expensive to buy, and so was their
fuel. Parts were also more expensive. But the diesel-electrics did not require
water, did not generate ashes or cinders, and could be left idling in cold
weather without much attention.
US railroads then were (and most still are) private companies whose purpose is
to make a profit.
Ham radio is completely different.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Bill Sohl
"N2EY" <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:c2356669.03091...@posting.google.com...
> "Clint" <rattlehead@computronDOTnet> wrote in message
news:<vmbdhfc...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > many people that are in or supports the doctrines of PCTA keeps
> > spouting "basics", and draws an anology to either handwriting...
> > and I say this; does this mean you could NEVER write cursive
> > if you were never taught print? could you NOT be taught
> > cursive directly without first being taught print? No.
>
> OK, fine.
>
> But why should any sort of manual writing skill be mandatory in a
> world full of keyboards?
It may well come to that. For now, since keyboards are not
everywhere 100% of the time, educators require some
sort of manual writing ability. For the record, I never had a
decent handwriting and I print everything on those rare
occasions when I have to manually apply pen to paper.
> > However, it's simply another skill that can be taught, and they
> > do, and that's fine.
>
> Why?
>
> Why not teach keyboarding from Day One? Our children will spend far
> more time at keyboards than writing.
But their need to write at some occasions hasn't
been ended. Maybe someday it will...but not now.
> > However, they do not look at CW the
> > same way; it's pass/fail, not merely a percentage of test
> > that needs to be passed.
> >
> If it were up to me, there would be several written tests (or the
> written would be split up into separately-graded parts) as well as a
> code test.
You know I agree in principal with that...except for needing
any code test at all.
> > Do you think they would support a system where you had
> > to be tested on CW, if an only if you wanted to use CW
> > on the CW part of the bands? Heh, of COURSE not.
>
> There are no CW-only parts of the HF/MF bands. None at all.
Perhaps he should have asked:
Do you think they would support a system where you had
to be tested on CW, if an only if you wanted to use CW
on the parts of the bands where CW can be used?
But, as pointed out before...ONLY morse has its own stand alone
test. No other body of ham knowledge on that is tested is
given that exclusivity.
> When I first started out in ham radio, all I wanted to do was join the
> folks I heard on 75 meter AM. Yet in order to get the license, I had
> to learn not only Morse Code, but all sorts of theory and regulatory
> stuff that had absolutely nothing to do with 75 meter AM.
> Why was I forced to learn all that?
Cause its the rules...if you want it changed, petition the FCC.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Clint
>
> Wonderfl, then you'll learn code if you want to participate there.
> If not, nothing lost. More to the point, is there any minimum code
> speed that should be banned from the CW/data segments at the
> bottom of the bands?
>
> Cheers,
> Bill K2UNK
>
Excellent point.... yet another reason why specific code speed testing
is irrelavent. AND, for that matter, it leads to the next argument...
what of those people that have true disabilities and cannot pass a
CW test, and have a physician's written excuse, when they had faster
than 5 wmp testing? they were NOT required to take a 13 or 20 wpm
test... yet, somehow, they were accepted into the world of ham radio
as legal operators. How is it POSSIBLE that they did this without
having ever passed a profeciency test @ high speed CW?
Oh, that's right. Because it's not really that necessary in the first place.
Clint
KB5ZHT
--
--
Top nations that fund UN treasury,
in descending order...
United States: 22%
Japan: 19.6%
Germany: 9.8%
France: 6.5%
UK: 5.6%
Italy 5.1%
Canada: 2.6%
Spain: 2.5%
Russia isn't even in this top 8 list.
France, Russia and Germany, COMBINED,
do not contribute as much to the UN as
does the United States......
--
Clint
>
> So far the UK, Netherlands and several other countries have done
> exactly that. Once all code testing is ended by the FCC will you
> accept that action as supporting the FCC position that
> morse isn't needed to be a "fully qualified ham?"
I hear belgium just got rid of it's last CW testing, in another
newsgroup.
> Additionally, I don't recall anywhere seeing any FCC reference
> to the concept of a "fully qualified ham". Is that a new license
> class?
Neither have I... I already posted a remark to that effect, too...
...that is, has the FCC been "lieing" when it passed out many
test certificates giving an operator his licence class and thus
frequency priviledges? have they been saying "um, you can
talk on the radio, but you're really not qualified to do it"?
>
> > In fact, the
> > retired Chief of the Amateur and Citizen's Division of FCC (now called
> something
> > else) stated in his comments on the NCVEC pettion
<snip PCTA dribble>
>
> Does he speak for the FCC today?
BINGO!
>
> > And it should be obvious, to anyone who actually owns and uses a thought
> process
> > - when Morse code is a widely-used mode within ham radio, *anyone* who
> can't use
> > it simply and factually *cannot* be a fully qualified ham - No matter
> what
> > license or privileges the FCC gives them.
>
> What a crock.
EXACTLY.... he's inserting his "oppinion" for "fact".
>
> > > And YOU will have to live with the decisions THEY
> > > make.
> > >
> >
> > Which can't change facts. Facts are immutable. Live with it. Any ham
not
> able
> > to operate CW is simply and factually not fully qualified.
>
> Your Opinion yes, a fact? Not at all. And that's an opinion
> I'm entitled to.
>
> Cheers as always,
> Bill K2UNK
>
>
Yet another voice of reason. And there are more of them out there
on this side of the argument than the PCTA's.
Clint
KB5ZHT
Clint
>
> You can always tell when Dick runs out of arguments...resort
> to cheap namecalling.
>
> Cheers,
> Bill K2UNK
>
>
I'm use to it.... it's the same thing I run into in other newsgroups
during political debates. As soon as "the other side" runs out
of arguments, I start getting the following remarks, and in
no certain order...
s__thead
hatemonger
shut the f__k up
fascist
moron
why don't you take a _____ and shove it _____ until you _____....
...plus a few other directives instructing me to take objects and do
things with them with certain parts of my body, most of which
aren't physically possible but are quite colorful.
Clint
KB5ZHT
Clint
>
> Which any ham will be free to do (i.e. self train in morse) after code
> testing is ended. Those that want to use morse will learn it. Those that
> don't, won't. That is the same for every mode and/or language
> (both written or spoken) used by hams anywhere.
exactly. I will continue to use CW from time to time, even after all
code testing is gone. I like it. I enjoy it. However, I still see no further
logical reasoning for forcing everybody to become profecient at some
given "x" speed.
it's just more "I had to do it, so waaaa waaaa waaaa, YOU should have
to!"
>
> > The FCC has every reason and more than ample justification to require
> EVERY
> > ham to be able to actually pass traffic in Morse on the air.
>
> Guess I must have missed the FCC report that acknowledges that.'
it's because it's just his oppinion.
>
>
> It isn't a matter of use...those that want to will learn. It's
> that freakin simple.
like I said countless times before... when they are posed
with the question, "well, how about only code-testing for
people who want to go on the lower (code) end of the
bands and operate CW?" (since, in fact, you WILL have
to learn CW to operate it anyway) boy do they run, play
duck & cover, and dodge the issue. Nah, they want it
imposed on EVERYBODY.
Now's what was he saying about legislation by "a vocal
few"?
> Yes, let's mandate morse for all just in case the Aliens invade as
> in Independance day.
>
> Cheers,
> Bill K2UNK
>
how about that fabricated story a while back involving the russian
submarine..... there were lots of PCTA types taking a little artistic
license with the news and saying that the russian crew was tapping
on the wall of the sub, and those messages were getting through.
(the story of the sub sinking wasn't fabricated, only that there
were supposedly CW signals comeing from it by way of tapping)
seriously. I can't remember if it was this newsgroup or another,
but I remembered saying to myself, "now they've gone to a very
SHAMEFUL level...."
Clint
KB5ZHT
Clint
>
> > > However, it's simply another skill that can be taught, and they
> > > do, and that's fine.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Why not teach keyboarding from Day One? Our children will spend far
> > more time at keyboards than writing.
>
> But their need to write at some occasions hasn't
> been ended. Maybe someday it will...but not now.
>
exactly; changing to adapt with the times. It's called progress.
>
> But, as pointed out before...ONLY morse has its own stand alone
> test. No other body of ham knowledge on that is tested is
> given that exclusivity.
yep... "I had to do it, so everybody should have to! it's not fair
otherwise!" ... only, they won't actually admit that.
Dick Carroll
Bill Sohl wrote:
>
> > Ham radio isn't about metalurgy pr plastics technology, Clint, it's about
> > OPERATING . But you amd Bill already knew that, it's jsut your NCI/CB
> > attitudes showing through, again.
>
> You can always tell when Dick runs out of arguments...resort
> to cheap namecalling.
>
Ah, so NCI is cheap! For once we agree!
Mike Coslo
>
> Clint wrote:
<some snippage>
>>
>>I mean, ORIGINALLY, the first communication that
>>was EVER sent was a spark with a spark generator.
>>The do not require you to show profeciency in building
>>a spark generator and using it; if you say "well, we just
>>SKIP that step and go to CW", then you can say that
>>about EVERY step along the way of learning
>>ham radio.
>
>
> Aw Clint, surely you're better informed than that...arent you?
And Clint says Dee was spurious?
- Mike KB3EIA -
Bert Craig
>
> "Bert Craig" <wa...@arrl.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:svl9b.206446$Ay2.54...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> > "Bill Sohl" <bill...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:3Wa9b.12918$Aq2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "shephed" <smo...@twist1up.com> wrote in message
> > > news:r489b.61835$3b2.8...@twister.neo.rr.com...
> > > is relevent...that's were you lose your argument.
> >
> > Well Bill, I'm on the bottom of 40 right now listening to a band FULL of
> > irrelevance. <hihi>
>
> Wonderfl, then you'll learn code if you want to participate there.
> If not, nothing lost.
Nice concept on paper, but in the real world... Quite frankly, what example
has NCI given to the prospective ham? It sure doesn't exemplify the values
of a "self-starter."
> More to the point, is there any minimum code
> speed that should be banned from the CW/data segments at the
> bottom of the bands?
Couldn't care how slow...as long as said CW/Data sub-bands remain intact.
> Cheers,
> Bill K2UNK
Mike Coslo
> "N2EY" <n2...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030915021846...@mb-m05.aol.com...
>
>>In article <vm9usff...@corp.supernews.com>, "Clint"
>><rattlehead@computronDOTnet> writes:
>>
>>
>>>sending and receiving CW isn't a building block
>>>to anything else.....
>>
>>Yes, it is.
>>
>>First, it's a building block to the use of the mode on the air.
>
>
> Come on Jim. that's a self fullfilling argument. My point, and I know
> you know this, is that morse knowledge is not needed in any manner as
> a foundation, stepping stone, or whatever to any body or radio knowledge
> or concepts.
Come on Bill! NO knowledge of much of anything is needed as a
foundation. Thousands of CB ops say otherwise!
- Mike KB3EIA -
Brian
> I tell you what; next time you're operating a motor vehicle, drive
> as fast as you can... I mean pedal to the medal; do over 100mph
> if you can. when a policeman pulls you over and hands you
> a ticket, then tell him "I am driving at a perfectly safe speed for my
> skills. Your oppinion and that of the judge that I am about to have
> to go in front of are not relavant. It is an immutable fact that
> a driver is not a good driver unless he can do 100 without wrecking,
> which I did. That's a fact, and you can't do anything about it."
>
> and just see what happens.
>
> Clint
> KB5ZHT
> a code-tested ham who, regardless of the fact, does not believe
> in code testing.
Clint, first, DICK is in Missouri. Second, he used to drill 7/8"
holes in the rooftops of police cars. He probably can drive 100+
miles an hour, yet never even have to see a judge. That's just the
way things are in Missouri.
And don't try to tell him anything about the FCC. He used to know a
guy that used to work at the FCC, so he knows all about it. Past,
present, and future.
Not to worry. The actuarial tables will solve all. They may be
painfully slow, but huge corporations have lots of faith and money
riding on the fact that they are immutable.
Brian
Yep, in a nutshell. When the gubmn't said, "Jump!" DICK replied, "How High?"
Now he feels foolish.
Dick Carroll
Brian wrote:
Babble, babble, babble & rave on! Brainiac, the Village Idiot at his finest!
BTW how would YOU know what size hole goes in the roof of cars?
You beern there and done that, hey??? And since you DON'T know, not a single one of our cars used
the rooftop for antennas. Beyond that, all the installations were done at a central radio shop, not
by field engineers.
You sure are a fart smeller!
Hey... you really want to watch that rush hour trafic, now. Those tables you're so sure of might
catch up with you a bit early, you know.....Happens every day. *I* made it through those days
intact......
Dick Carroll
Brian wrote:
You and Clint are the pair in a nutshell with no clue as to how to get out.
You ARE foolish. Your past history proves it.
Dick Carroll
Well, Brainiac, here it is, straight from the horses a....er. .....mouth-
Keith sed...
On 16 Sep 2003 02:46:25 GMT,
Alun Palmer in <Xns93F7E7865C43...@130.133.1.4> wrote:
> EI is the 7th country to abolish code testing by my reckoning
>> Don't fret Alun, by the time the USA approves of no
>>more morse code testing the bands will be destroyed
>>by BPL. You can quote me on that.
So I guess you guys will get your code free bands just in time.
Gee, things have a way of evening out.......for decades you "wouldn't",
now you "couldn't"...Poor baby!
Len Over 21
writes:
>>I guess as long as "shephed" is spouting the party line, its OK with
>>you that he calls people "retarded mouth-breeding NCI members."
>
>No, it's not OK.
Wow, you REALLY "censured" those name-callers! :-)
LHA
Len Over 21
<bill...@mindspring.com> writes:
>"shephed" <smo...@twist1up.com> wrote in message
>news:r489b.61835$3b2.8...@twister.neo.rr.com...
>>
>> "Clint" <rattlehead@computronDOTnet> wrote in message
>> news:vm9ptb2...@corp.supernews.com...
>> > LOL!
>> >
>> > A good liberal? you have NO idea..... I'm as right wing
>> > and conservative as they come... evidently you don't read
>> > my other posts or in other NG's either, where i'm referred
>> > to as the "jim birch devil"
>> >
>> > Clint
>> > KB5ZHT
>> >
>> You can't be a conservative, we believe in earning your way in life, not
>> having "things" given to you because you are to lazy to EARN them. Sound
>> familiar Liberal boy?
>>
>> Conservative my ass!
>
>Earning your way is fine...as long as the requirement(s)
>is relevent...that's were you lose your argument.
"Shepherd" LOST his argument when he started tawkin tuff with a pseudonym
refusing to identify herself.
Must have "caught" something from one of the sheep... :-)
LHA
Len Over 21
writes:
>Bill Sohl wrote:
>
>> "Dee D. Flint" <dee...@qix.net> wrote in message
>> news:O6%8b.2868$nQ.11...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
>> >
>> > "Clint" <rattlehead@computronDOTnet> wrote in message
>> > news:vm8ucql...@corp.supernews.com...
>> > > When I took my drivers test years ago to get a license
>> > > to drive an automobile, the never required me to
>> > > prove that I could hitch a horse team to a wagon.
>> > > The youngsters today, likewise, tell me that the
>> > > departments of motor vehicles around the country
>> > > do not ask them to prove they are proficient with
>> > > buggy whips.
>> > >
>> > > Enough said.
>> > >
>> > > Clint
>> >
>> > The youngsters today still tell me that they must learn to use a pencil
>> and
>> > learn to write script. Typing and word processing are taught AFTER they
>> > have learned to write manually. Enough said.
>>
>> Bad anology since morse isn't a foundation to any other
>> body of radio knowledge and/or language skills or
>> writing skills.
>
>Wrong, because radiotelegraphy IS the most basic radio communications mode,
>the use of which is possible only if the operator has self-trained enough to
>be able to make use of it.
Tsk, tsk. A push-to-talk voice transmitter and an ordinary receiver is all
the
BASICS to effect communications by radio.
No need for "self-trained" morsemen...or even those trained by the military.
Morsemen are needed at BOTH ends of the radio circuit. Very specialized
and NOT at all "basic."
Bad logic, senior.
Len Over 21
brian...@juno.com (Brian) writes:
>n2...@aol.com (N2EY) wrote in message
>news:<20030914121856...@mb-m23.aol.com>...
>> In article <f45722ac.03091...@posting.google.com>,
>> brian...@juno.com (Brian) writes:
>>
>> >"shephed" <smo...@twist1up.com> wrote in message
>> >news:<IuP8b.57189$3b2.7...@twister.neo.rr.com>...
>> >> If your not a retarded mouth breeding NCI member, there is a CW contest
>> >> going one right now.
>> >>
>> >> If you are a retarded mouth breeding NCI member, then never mind, it's a
>> Ham
>> >> Radio thing. You would not understand.
>> >>
>> >> 10-73's!
>> >
>> >Rev. Jim is going to chastise you for your dirty mouth.
>>
>> Who are you talking about, Brian?
>
>"Shephed"
...everyone knows what shepherds do with sheep... :-)
>> >Oh, never mind, it's a PCTA thing.
>>
>> You mean like the way you never censure Len or Carl (or anybody else who
>> happens to oppose code tests), no matter what they say or how they say it?
>
>Never? Rev. Jim, even little lies will get you turned away from the
>gate.
Reverend Jim thinks the radio world revolves around his ideas.
Too bad that all that morse addiction robbed his reasoning faculties.
:-(
>> Oh, never mind, it's an NCTA double standards thing.
>
>I guess as long as "shephed" is spouting the party line, its OK with
>you that he calls people "retarded mouth-breeding NCI members."
Poor gutless "shepherd" unable to give his name, callsign, or any other
ID.
Very little courage on his part. Tsk, tsk.
Or maybe one of his sheep didn't put out? Who knows.
LHA
Len Over 21
<rattlehead@computronDOTnet> writes:
>> > Let's have a go at "No Handwriting International".
>> > Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
>>
>> Exaggeration to the ridiculous.
>>
>
>spurious analogies are in the PCTA handbook, bill.
>
>Clint
>KB5ZHT
Heh heh heh...too bad that "spark" is outlawed.
PCTA types would demand that ALL hams know "spark" theory and
operating skills if it was still legal... :-)
LHA
Len Over 21
writes:
>Clint wrote:
>
>> > > IF morse (i.e. radiotelegraphy) had any basis as a foundation
>> > > for higher learning of radio concepts, principles or theory
>> > > then it would be a requirement of engineering students...which
>> > > it has never been to my knowledge anywhere.
>> >
>> > And that's where your argument falls flat on its face. The point is
>> > operational, on the air *communications *. It's called OPERATING.
>>
>> <snip>
>> you just employed the "diversion" tactic. he was totally correct; if
>> the basic fundamentals of radio, which you have been totally parroting
>> until now, required it, then it would be a necissary requirement for
>> all basic electrical engineering, and it is not.
>>
>> > It's the BASICS, Bill.
>>
>> As YOU see it.
>> Why aren't new hams required to show they now how to forge/smelt
>> copper wire, produce polyethelene insulation, make aluminum out
>> of scratch for antennas, etc., if BASICS were the name of
>> everything?
>>
>
>Clint your ignorance is showing again. Ham radio isn't about engineering,
>its about operating ham radio. Sure, one CAN use engineering if one
>wishes, and someone surely had to do some engineering to produce the gear
>we all use. But if Bill's comment holds any water at all then the tests
>would have been becoming harder instead of becominig giveaways.
>
>Ham radio isn't about metalurgy pr plastics technology, Clint, it's about
>OPERATING . But you amd Bill already knew that, it's jsut your NCI/CB
>attitudes showing through, again.
CB radio is all about OPERATING, senior.
No morsemanship needed in CB radio...
>> you're mad because YOU had to do it.
Tattoo is just mad. He can't get many to pop-to and salute his mighty
macho morsemanship skills which were very useful in the 1930s.
Poor guy. :-)
LHA
Len Over 21
writes:
>In article <vm9usff...@corp.supernews.com>, "Clint"
><rattlehead@computronDOTnet> writes:
>
>>sending and receiving CW isn't a building block
>>to anything else.....
>
>Yes, it is.
>
>First, it's a building block to the use of the mode on the air. Although other
>services have pretty much stopped using Morse Code, hams use it extensivley,
>and an amateur license is permission to operate an amateur station, not a
>station in another service.
Roger that, Reverend Jim...IN the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service...
>Note that the Morse Code tests are at a very
>basic level. They're entry-level, nothing more.
Well, "there ya go."
>Second, if someone wants to actually design and build radio equipment, having
>skill in Morse Code permits them to use almost anything from very simple to
>very sophisticated equipment to good advantage. Would you expect a newcomer
>to radio to build an SSB transceiver as a first project?
I built a simple battery powered voice transmitter back in 1948. Single
tube,
very low power, worked fine for a whole block. Was 14 then. :-)
>>now, the electrical principals of what a CW
>>transmission is, and a knowledge test of that is a good idea, but
>>that's comparing apples and oranges.
Comparing apples and oranges is fine for the produce market, Rev. Jim.
>Why should there be *any* written test on theory if all a person wants to do
is
>operate manufactured radios? If someone doesn't want to build a rig, why
should
>they have to memorize all those symbols, diagrams and formulas?
Well then, you WANT type-accepted radios in amateur radio?!?
Why would you WANT such a thing?
>>I think most of the PCTA
>>is being disingenuous when they come up with "good reasons"
>>to keep CW testing alive;
>
>Why?
You've been GIVEN all the "whys" you can possibly handle.
Maybe you are suffering from "information overload" and can't accept
all those valid reasons?
>> I think the true deeper reason lies
>>somewhere in the "I had to do it so everybody should" relm,
>>as i've stated before.
>>
>You can think what you want, but you're mistaken on that account.
Nope. NO ONE is "mistaken" on that account.
You WANT an exclusive Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service.
You ought to petition for an RM with the FCC. Start a movement to make
the ARS all-code, no voice, no data, nothing else but on-off-keying morse.
That would make you happy, right, Reverend Jim?
LHA
Len Over 21
writes:
>Clint wrote:
>
>> >If you refuse to learn how to handle radio's most basic mode you can never
be
>> >able to regard yourself as fully qualified in ham radio communciations.
>> > That's just the Way it Is. Live with it.
>>
>> I'm sorry but that is YOUR oppinion. What counts is the decision of those in
>> authority, namely the FCC.
>
>Son, you might want to learn somewhere along the way that opinion is
>sometimes congruent with fact, sometimes not.
"Congruent?" :-)
> No matter what the FCC says or does, it can't alter facts. And nowhere have
>they ever said that a no-code license is a fully qualified ham.
The FDA qualifies ham, senior.
The FCC does NOT use the term "ham" in Part 97. That's the LAW.
For NEW amateur radio licensees, the FCC "qualifies" radio amateurs in
three license classes. One of those is the "no-code-test" Technician.
>In fact, the
>retired Chief of the Amateur and Citizen's Division of FCC (now called
something
>else) stated in his comments on the NCVEC pettion
> (which BTW he helped write) that it was an oxymoron to expect an Extra class
>ham to be a expert on ham radio if he doesn't know Morse code. Thus he
supports
>a code test for Extras.
That is a RETIREE's OPINION, senior.
>And it should be obvious, to anyone who actually owns and uses a thought
process
>- when Morse code is a widely-used mode within ham radio, *anyone* who can't
>use it simply and factually *cannot* be a fully qualified ham - No matter
what
>license or privileges the FCC gives them.
The FCC does NOT agree with you, senior.
ANYONE granted a US amateur radio license, ANY CLASS, is a licensed
radio amateur.
That's just the way it is. Live with it.
>> And YOU will have to live with the decisions THEY
>> make.
>
> Which can't change facts. Facts are immutable. Live with it. Any ham not able
>to operate CW is simply and factually not fully qualified.
For the 1930s or on Fantasy Island where you seem to live... ?
LHA
Len Over 21
writes:
>Bill Sohl wrote:
>
>> "Dick Carroll" <di...@townsqr.com> wrote in message
>> news:bk36jc$mmq$0...@208.207.71.169...
>> >
>> >
>> > Bill Sohl wrote:
>> >
>> > > "Dee D. Flint" <dee...@qix.net> wrote in message
>> > > news:O6%8b.2868$nQ.11...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
>> > > >
>> > > > "Clint" <rattlehead@computronDOTnet> wrote in message
>> > > > news:vm8ucql...@corp.supernews.com...
>> IF morse (i.e. radiotelegraphy) had any basis as a foundation
>> for higher learning of radio concepts, principles or theory
>> then it would be a requirement of engineering students...which
>> it has never been to my knowledge anywhere.
>
>And that's where your argument falls flat on its face. The point is
>operational, on the air *communications *. It's called OPERATING.
The SAME is true for Citizens Band Radio Service.
OPERATING.
Take a close look at ALL of Part 97, Title 47 CFR, senior. It requires
each and every licensed radio amateur to be responsible for their
radios' technical standards. It's the LAW, senior.
>Has nada to
>do with anything beyond, although placing a radiotelegraph on the air on HF
>happens to be, as well, the most simple of stations to get up and running.
Tsk, tsk, that was wayyyyy back in time when SPARK was still lawful,
senior.
> It's the BASICS, Bill. When you can't appreciate the fact that
radiotelegraphy
>is radio at its most basic it's no wonder
>you can't understand the concept.
Sorry, senior, that's YOUR Fantasy Island thing.
Radio at its most BASIC is voice transmission. Push to talk, then listen
for the voice from the other end. No specialized morsemanship needed at
either end.
> The entire point is that radiotelegraphy using manually encoded Morse remains
>as one of the most, effective, and COST EFFECTIVE means of
>radiocommunications,
>even after all the years it has been in excistence. But only when operators
>self-train to gain the skill to use it.
"Cost effective" for WHO?
All that time spent on "self-training?" All that time spent in a government
classroom drilling in code? Taking five times longer on a radio to convey
things not covered in Q codes, compared to the slowest of other modes?
> The FCC has every reason and more than ample justification to require EVERY
>ham to be able to actually pass traffic in Morse on the air.
They do?!?!?
Haven't seen that in Part 97, senior, and it certainly isn't in the Radio
Communications Act of 1934.
You must be reading things that aren't there...or are there only in your
Fantasy Island existance. The rest of us don't live on that Island.
>It's easy to make
>a case that the ability is a valid requirement for licensing. The fact that
>they have not chosen to do so is far more related to the wants and desires of
a
>vocal few, and a whole lot of PC, than the actual operational
traffic-handling
>capacities of the ARS.
Oh? The Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service is now ALL ABOUT "traffic
handling?!?!?"
A 100 WPM electromechanical teleprinter has a throughput FIVE times
greater than a 20 WPM morseman and can sustain that as long as paper
and ink last (over a half day at continuous output). Not only that, both
ends can be operated by anyone with minimal training. Bandwidth is less
than 350 Hz, too.
Who GETS all that "traffic" that is "handled," senior?
> Now you'll come back with the same old saw about how it's "no longer sued"
for
>this or that.
Phil will have to chime in on "no longer sued." A legal thing, right? :-)
>Just as though no such need will ever again present to the ARS,
>ever, under any circumstances. Whatta crystal ball jock you are!
Well, since it is illegal for you to use SPARK, old-timer, from your words
I'll bet you are still using your CRYSTAL SET receiver, right? :-)
LHA
Len Over 21
writes:
>Clint wrote:
>
>> > The operative phrase here is "expand its use", not diminish
>> > it by refusing to learn the Most Basic Radiocommunications Mode.
>>
>> that's expanding the use and art of morse code, not expanding the
>> use and art of radio in general.
>
> If you don't believe that promoting and expanding the use of radiotelegraphy
>is doing same to "radio in general" there is news you've not yet heard.
What's to "promote," senior? Morse code was first used commercially
in 1844. In 159 years of existance it has been "promoted" some time
ago, back before radio began.
"Expansion" is ridiculous. Back from 1896 to sometime just after WW
One, on-off keying was the only way to use radio for communications in
general...and Morse Codes were used because of their familiarity to
old telegraphers. That indicates that such code had PEAKED in the
"expansion" long, long ago.
>> For that matter, there aren't
>> profeciency tests in other modes of operation, either, in the
>> form of a seperate practical test such as there is with CW.
>
>Ah, but Morse is the only mode which demands selftraining! Any mope can learn
>any of the others by cracking a book and doing a little hookup wiring.
>With manual radiotelegraphy, there is really no way to do it short of
>selftraining. Thus the CW test.
"Thus the CW test?!?!?"
The "CW test" was required in ALL of early radio by governments simply
because it was the ONLY means to effect communications in early radio.
It had NOTHING at all to do with "training," either "self" or formal.
NONE of the U.S. radio regulatory agencies were ever chartered as
academic or "training" organizations.
>> I also read the news and listen to it as well and hear all the time
>> about CW being dropped in favor of digital and other forms of
>> communication.
>
> By commercials and military, yes, for both efficiency in transferring huge
>amounts of data, and primarly in some services for monetary reasons. It's
>cheaper to use modes that non-technical personnel can handle, thus saving
>personnel costs. If they can add communications as a duty to personnel
>othewise
>assigned, it is cost savings, nevermind that the newly assigned person may be
>squeezed for time to perform all those added duties, thus causing safety and
>job efficiency to suffer. Dollars are conserved, so it is done.
TIME is conserved more than anything, senior.
Are you saying that morse CANNOT get through as good as all other modes?
That WAS your flag-waving paeon to morsemanship before. Now you've
finally realized that on-off keying just can't hack it...marvelous!
> Ham radio has no such needs nor constraints, even for emergency comms.
For some, ham radio has become a living museum of radiotelegraphy. :-)
>Maximum
>throughput is the *last* thing you need when the desperate need is for *any*
>communications.
Of course...and the human voice "cannot" be as effective as on-off keying?
>At that point what is needed is basic, reliable, ubiquitous
>communications modes.
Like push-to-talk voice transmitters, useable by anyone, hearable by
anyone with an ordinary receiver. Basic, reliable, easy to use.
Ubiquitous certainly, far more so than needing specialized training in
morse code at both ends of a communications link.
>In ham radio, Morse is second only to the voice modes,
>by far.
SECOND, senior, a distant SECOND...and then only on HF ham
bands. Note: The vast majority of EM spectrum allocated to radio
amateurs is ABOVE HF.
>I can imagine that NCI strongly favors changing that, despite their
>statements to the contrary - for obvious reasons.
No Code International has ALWAYS been about eliminating the morse
code TEST. They have NEVER been against morse code USE.
The TEST. Only the TEST.
Anyone can USE morse code without the federal TEST...and that includes
licensed Technicians in the only two ham band sections allocated to "CW"
only.
>> > WRONG story, full of total inaccuracies
>>
>> well, no, full of details that you find personally distasteful,
>> but not inaccurate.
>
>As I said, QUITE inaccurate.
On the contrary, it was QUITE ACCURATE.
>> and our forefathers all had to learn how to hitch horses to a buggy,
>> and had to be proficient in the use of reigns and a buggy whip.
>> Does it make sense for the various departments of motor vehicle
>> saftey to require a person to learn this before letting him drive
>> a modern automobile?
>
> Well, you old Hoop jumper, none of that has anything whatever to do with
radio
>communications, much less ham radio nor Morse code. It's just more NCI mumbo
>jumbo drivel straight from the Carl Stevenson X files.
Tsk, tsk, tsk...all that name calling! :-)
Almost 50 1/2 years ago I was doing regular primary communications on HF
trans-Pacific without needing to use morse code or having to be trained in
same. That was true of all personnel in my signal battalion working at Army
station ADA.
Tested morse code skills are NOT NECESSARY in modern radio
communications, whether government, commercial OR amateur radio.
> If you refuse to learn how to handle radio's most basic mode you can never be
>able to regard yourself as fully qualified in ham radio communciations.
Yes he can...and also anyone else who isn't living in some fantasy
world stuck in the standards and practices of 1930s radio.
> That's just the Way it Is. Live with it.
That's the "way it is" in the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service, senior.
Too bad that "spark" is outlawed in radio communications. You no doubt
would have required everyone in 2003 to know basics of "spark" transmitters
to be "fully qualified as ham radio operators" today. :-)
Go back to Fantasy Island, Tattoo, de blane is landing...
LHA
Len Over 21
writes:
>> Yep, in a nutshell. When the gubmn't said, "Jump!" DICK replied, "How
>High?"
>>
>> Now he feels foolish.
>
>You and Clint are the pair in a nutshell with no clue as to how to get out.
> You ARE foolish. Your past history proves it.
Just how high DID you jump, senior?
LHA
Len Over 21
writes:
>Brian wrote:
Judging by your mental prowess in here, I don't think you "MADE IT"
unscathed. :-)
LHA
N2EY
<rattlehead@computronDOTnet> writes:
>> There are no CW-only parts of the HF/MF bands. None at all.
>You'd better check your frequency priviledge/allocation charts.
>The lower half of the HF bands except for 160 meters is
>"cw/fsk only"....
Incorrect! NONE of those segments are "CW-only". They're all shared with data
modes.
Those data modes can be FSK, PSK, OOK or combination modes (PSK-31 is part PSK
and part AM, for example). In fact, FCC allows an enormous variety of modes in
those segments.
And it's not "the lower half" on bands like 17, 15, 12 and particularly 10
meters.
>
>> Your opinion noted. Others have a different opinion.
>
>yes, agreed.
>However, it would seem that MOST oppinions worldwide
>are on the side of removing code tests.
How do you figure that?
Most non-US administrations don't have the elaborate comment/proposal/NPRM
structure that we have. They just do what they think is best, regardless of
what their hams think. Look at Germany, for an example.
>
>> > They do not, however, likewise, first test people
>> > on knowing how to build a double sideband carrier
>> > transmission if they want to operate AM; they do
>> > not require you to show how to get a microphone,
>> > talk on it, and recieve the response on a speaker
>> > if you want to use frequency modulated radiotelephone,
>> > or single sideband carrier suppressed radiotelephone.
>>
>> Perhaps they should.
>
>but they don't.
So if the test is deficient in one area, you use that as justification for
making it deficient in other areas too.
>> When I first started out in ham radio, all I wanted to do was join the
>> folks I heard on 75 meter AM. Yet in order to get the license, I had
>> to learn not only Morse Code, but all sorts of theory and regulatory
>> stuff that had absolutely nothing to do with 75 meter AM.
>>
>> Why was I forced to learn all that?
>
>I really don't know.
It was because the FCC thought it was a good idea.
>Thank heaven they've gone a long way to fix
>the problem, and may make the final move here soon to remove the
>scourge of CW tests all together.
>
Hard to see how a 5 wpm code test is a "scourge".
73 de Jim, N2EY
Ryan, KC8PMX
--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
.. --. .... - . .-. ...
Ryan, KC8PMX
--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
.. --. .... - . .-. ...
> Earning your way is fine...as long as the requirement(s)
> is relevent...that's were you lose your argument.
>
> Cheers,
> Bill K2UNK
>
>
>
Dick Carroll
N2EY wrote:
>
> >Thank heaven they've gone a long way to fix
> >the problem, and may make the final move here soon to remove the
> >scourge of CW tests all together.
> >
> Hard to see how a 5 wpm code test is a "scourge".
>
What does that say about the "scourgee"?
Brian
You woulda if you coulda figured out how to deal with the headliner.
You shoulda found someone with a little finesse.
> Beyond that, all the installations were done at a central radio shop, not
> by field engineers.
Probably was a pain in the buttocks and got shipped to the field.
Happens all the time.
> You sure are a fart smeller!
>
> Hey... you really want to watch that rush hour trafic, now. Those tables you're so sure of might
> catch up with you a bit early, you know.....Happens every day. *I* made it through those days
> intact......
DICK, don't know exactly what happened, but you are NOT intact.
Brian
So high that he's still bouncing off the walls. Good thing they're padded.
Len Over 21
writes:
>Hard to see how a 5 wpm code test is a "scourge".
Rev. Jim, fire up your time machine and go back to 1896 when you were
an engineering advisor to Marconi. You are at home in the past. [Was
that in Italy or in hoagietown?]
Keep on with antiquity in radio amateurism. Retrograde fire on...
LHA
Len Over 21
(N2EY) writes:
>When I first started out in ham radio, all I wanted to do was join the
>folks I heard on 75 meter AM. Yet in order to get the license, I had
>to learn not only Morse Code, but all sorts of theory and regulatory
>stuff that had absolutely nothing to do with 75 meter AM.
>
>Why was I forced to learn all that?
Simple...a bunch of (then) old farts were convinced that all amateurs
HAD to know morse code in order to BE an amateur.
So you have now joined their ranks and are an old fart (before your time).
Aren't you proud?
Let's all hear it for ALL the old farts who DEMAND that ALL amateurs
test for morse code to "prove themselves" to all the other old farts in
amateurism. Keep 1896 alive and well in the hearts of all amateurs.
Meanwhile, all us long-time pros will just keep on ignoring morse codes
as anything "basic" or whatever since it went obsolete in radio long ago.
US amateur radio seems to be a living museum for morse code, kept
there by the fierce and unrelenting self-promotional morsemen who
claim to know all about radio amateurism.
Keep up the wonderful world of antiquity.
LHA