"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

I just saw another accusation of Pro-Coders as technically backwards.

Yet some of the most progressive RF Engineers and Technicians I know
(who are Hams) are really enamored of Morse CW.

That would be those engineers who understood the real value of simple,
effective, easily implemented baseline communications which can be used
from almost anywhere with the least amount of simple equipment imaginable.
Carl never did understand any of this, and of course it doesn't match
his agenda, so it has no validity to him.

Then I guess the many other services which, at one time, did use morse
(i.e. military, marine, etc); but ended its use some time ago didn't
have the engineering folks that "understood the real value...."

The issue is one of personal choice, not need, as to ever using morse
anymore. At best, there is but a handful of anecdotal references to
morse being claimed as being "the only mode usable" under some
actual emergencies. Those that claim morse is needed for emergencies
fail to show any reliance on the mode in the vast (probably 90+ percent)
domain of those organizations (RACES, ARES, etc) that actually
put in place teams of operators, stations and portable equipment.

In over 32 years as an RF engineer, I have not had the same experience.

This would be no surprise, given your OBVIOUS hatred of radiotelegraphy.

Dick would have us believe he can read people's minds as
to their likes/dislikes.

The most technical folks have seemed more interested in the technical
side of ham radio and there have been MANY who I could not recruit
into ham radio because they had no interest in and were unwilling to
waste
their valuable time learing Morse to a level that would get them decent
HF privs. (some have capitulated and jumped through the 5 wpm hoop
since "restructuring" and are now extras, but many have refused, on
principal, to jump through the hoop, saying they'll wait until they
don't
have to waste their time on Morse)

Mygawd man, no one in his right mind, having once endured that diatribe,
would be eager to have to go through it all over again. You have it
programmed into your psyche, if not in a keyboard macro. Naturally they
avoided any act or word which would have keyed your internal macro. Who
wouldn't?

I would challenge the NCTA's to show some proof that those who believe
that the morse code test should be retained are in a technical
backwater.

That *might* be a bit difficult given that even Carl, their vaunted
leader, is a SSB ratchjaw, not given to even putting a digital HF
station on the air, much less doing any "amsteur digital design".

Dick appears to question the technical competency and contribution(s)
Carl has made.

Most of the avid CW ragchewers/contesters I've known over the years
(remember, I'm a long-time ham)

Ah, it MUST be pointed out here that your tenure as a longtime ham did
not include close connection to *anyone* who was seriously involved in
radiotelegraphy in any way. And I know that how? By your actions here!
It's completely safe to say that no one would tolarate your attitude as
a friend, not likely as even a casual acquaintance, given the lever of
vituperation you have always shown toward CW. So what would anyone
expect your experience to be??

So how do you explain my comradeship with hams that are avid
CW users yet are fuly aware of my role in NCI to end code tetsing?

have been more interested in the operating
activity (ragchewing, contesting, paper-chasing) than the technical
side.
My experience has been that they have been less technically inclined
than
a lot of the no-code techs I've met, less inclined to participate in
public
service/emergency communications, and more inclined to just being
"users"
rather than tinkerers ...

Same old, same old... Make the CW supporters appear to be Luddites-an
accusation you have repeated many times here on rrap=-Go googling for
the facts if anyone doubts it.

The FACTS are that the CW suppoorters are far most often the users of
advanced digital modes. I'd wager that Carl has never been on the air
using CLOVER II. I have.

So are you saying only "CW suppoorters" (sic) or a majority of same
are likly to be users of advanced digital modes?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK