RadioBanter - View Single Post

July 22nd 03, 08:29 AM

On 22 Jul 2003 05:47:25 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

I was a non-ham for 14 years after I first became aware of the
hobby at about age 14, mainly because I didn't want to be bothered to
learn the code! Then, at age 28, I finally grew up and decided I wanted
to be a ham more than I wanted to whine about the code test requirement.

In my case, it was non-ham for 34 years. Then, at age 42, I finally
let someone talk me into getting my no-code Tech license for reasons
that had little to do with actual ham radio activities. A little over
a year later, after the code speed was lowered to 5 WPM, I upgraded to
General, which is where I am now.

Once I got started, I progressed with code very rapidly, and found myself
eating a lot of my words about Morse/CW when I got hooked on CW as
an operational mode.

How does eating those words compare to eating that hypothetical
elephant dung?

I first started trying to learn code when I was in high school.
Problem was I was trying to copy it in my head instead of writing it
down as I copied, and it wasn't until the winter of 2001 that someone
(namely Jim, KC2ALA) found out and corrected my approach, which led to
my pasing Element 1 a few months and a couple of borrowed code
practice tapes later.

What kind of a ham a
licensee becomes is a subjective evaluation made by other hams -- preferably
by those who are, indeed, qualified to make that judgment -- like I am.
I had this concept drilled into me by my "Elmers" in my early days as
a ham radio operator, and I strove to meet, and ultimately exceed, all of
their expectations. Now it is my turn to make the judgments, and I do
not shirk from that responsibility.

Even the worst of us possesses a document upon which is printed the
words "Amateur Radio License" which makes the person named thereon a
"real ham" as far as FCC is concerned (unless it's our guy from
another thread who spelled his name wrong on the application, in which
case he possesses prime paper-airplane construction materials).
Stating that someone is not a "real ham" based on that person's choice
of operating modes is in my opinion offensive, elistist, and not in
the best interests of the hobby. If the same determination is made on
other considerations - failure to operate his station in accordance
with FCC rules and good amateur practice for example - then I have no
problem with that. I do have a problem with bigotry based on license
class or choice of operating modes.

2. Any *prospective* US ham who learns the code and gets their Extra
(as opposed to getting their General) will be villified and condemned
by you, as well as others in this NG, as a product of the (supposedly)
dumbed down written exams, even if they operate CW 100% of their total
operating time, and

Not by me, they won't! Please don't go Kim on me, John!

Don't blame me or Kim, OM, you're the one who keeps mentioning the
(supposed) dumbing down of the ARS and pointing to the written exams
amidst much crying and gnashing of teeth (figuratively, as far as I
know anyway). You're not the only one who does it by any means, but
you are a frequent flyer on the "dumbed down" claim.

I don't think that passing ANY current amateur radio test element
is a particularly challenging endeavor these days. With open question
pools, VE testing that allows taking the test multiple times per session,
and a 70% passing score, anyone who can't go into a test session and
walk out with an Extra just isn't trying.

Sure, if all they're interested in learning is how to pass the exam. I
could have my Extra right now if that's the approach I chose to take.
I'm still a General because I won't go that route. I'm going to do it
by learning the material, or not at all.

The current technical
requirements in the written exams are strictly amateur level, as they
should be, and prove little about a prospective ham's technical
competence. This he will have to prove to his/her fellow hams by
actual participation, which is subject to evaluation by his/her peers.
I have never made a connection between code or theory testing and
"technical competence" in the ARS. It is mainly the NCTA doing
that.

I haven't seen that in this NG. What I have seen is the claim that the
code test prevents otherwise qualified individuals from getting any
meaningful privileges on HF, which is true. I myself am proof of that.
When I took (and passed) Element 1, it was my intention to walk out of
that VE session with my CSCE for Element 1 and a year to study for
Element 3. The ham coordinating the VE team that morning pointed out
that since it was going to cost me $10 that day whether I took the
written test or not, I had nothing to lose by taking the written test.
I did so, and passed, walking out as a temporary AG instead of as a
Tech+ as I had intended. I had not studied at all for the General
written, I knew the material from my years as an SWL and scanner
listener and TV repair tech. I could have passed that exam the day I
got my no-code Tech. The code test alone kept me from having any
meaningful HF privileges in the interim.

That code test proved what? Nothing, really. It has nothing to do with
my technical proficiency, and CW is but one of many modes we're
permitted to use, and one I haven't chosen to pursue thus far (and at
this point I'd be starting over almost from scratch if I decided to
suddenly operate in that mode).

You're entitled to your opinion. The problem is, the NCTA's don't think
I'm entitled to mine! If I don't follow the rest of the flock of lemmings,

I thought the term was "sheeple" but...

put on my tie-dyed tee shirt, faded jeans and Birkenstock sandals, and
hold hands with them and sing "Kumbuya" as they chant their liberal,
politically-correct mantra of "inclusiveness" while celebrating the end
of the requirement to be tested for a useful communications skill,

....sort of like Hands Across America, where three million morons
connected New York to Los Angeles and showed the terrorists our first
sign of a weakness?

I may
as well take that .50AE and use my radio gear for target practice, as far as
they're concerned! The NCTA are classic liberals, and like all liberals,
they can "tolerate" anything except a difference of opinion.

Actually, I don't see either side of the argument as being very
tolerant of the difference of opinion that obviously exists. Or
perhaps there isn't a problem with testing for a useful communications
skill, but rather with the selection of CW as the *only* such skill
for which one can be tested.

Another
thing that characterizes liberals is a lack of a sense of humor, which may
explain why you apparently missed the tongue-in-cheek nature of my
"deal."

I happen to be a conservative. Like you, I own guns. Just because I
live in a state where the voters were dumb enough to elect Chuck
Shumer and Hillary Clinton to the U.S. Senate doesn't mean that I
agree with the politics of those two leftist...well, let's just say I
haven't forgotten who wrote the Brady Bill when he was in the House,
okay? And I'd just as soon Hillary pack up Bill and his cigars and
move back to Arkansas where they belong. Like all conservatives, I
favor a minimum of governmental interference in people's lives. And
despite some people's assertions to the contrary, this is still a
hobby, which means that while the natural resource that the RF
spectrum represents needs to be protected against misuse, the code
test leaves the same bad taste in my mouth as the waiting period for
me to buy another gun to go with the ones I already have - which is to
say, it strikes me as silly.

If indeed your "deal" was posted tongue-in-cheek, my failure to detect
this was not due to any lack of a sense of humor, but rather to having
gotten used to your militant pro-codetest stance to the point where I
took your comments at face value.

Let's return to the original quote, shall we?

I'll provide them some incentive: As of now, 20 July 2003 at 0321 hrs UTC,
any prospective US ham who learns the code at the gruelling speed of 5
WPM, passes the test, and gets their Extra will be considered by me to
be a full-fledged ham as long as they regularly use at least one non-voice
mode on-the-air at least 40 percent of their total operating time.

This implies that if one does *not* regularly use at least one
non-voice mode on-the-air at least 40 percent of their total operating
time, they will *not* be considered by you to be a full-fledged ham.
The problem I have with that is that I operate almost exclusively from
a mobile station, which makes operating non-voice modes 40% of the
time a difficult percentage to obtain without either using CW (which I
still suspect is your real agenda) or running the risk of getting
killed in a car accident while typing away on PSK31 or some other
soundcard mode while driving my van - or both, for that matter, since
trying to drive and send Morse would distract me just as much.

I could of course leave my 2m rig on while I'm at work for 8-9 hours a
day beaconing its position on APRS, or set up a 100mW CW beacon or a
PBBS, thus adding time to my non-voice activities while I'm away from
my equipment and artificially skewing the percentage, but it just
seems to me that in order to be a full-fledged ham, one's choice of
preferred operating modes must agree with yours 40% of the time, and
so somehow I doubt that you'd consider this valid.

So the question I have for you is this: Do you have any qualifications
for attaining this mythical, tongue-in-cheek K3LT Certificate Of
Full-Fledged Hamdom that are not related to one's choice of operating
modes? Something related to technical proficiency perhaps, or
something that recognizes other contributions to the ARS such as
participation in public service and/or emergency communications, or
being active in the local ham radio club(s), or maybe holding an
appointment in the ARRL Field Organization from one's SM? Or is it
really all about operating mode to you, regardless of what else one
chooses to do in the hobby?

73 DE John, KC2HMZ