Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#181
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Cross-posting removed...
Steveo wrote in message ... Because most topics that are cross posted to this many groups end up being worthless tripe. I disagree... most topics cross posted to many groups START off as a load of worthless tripe. Happy new year. Peter. |
#182
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Brainbuster" wrote:
Cross-posting removed... Steveo wrote in message ... Because most topics that are cross posted to this many groups end up being worthless tripe. I disagree... most topics cross posted to many groups START off as a load of worthless tripe. Happy new year. Peter. Good point. |
#183
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
nk.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message om... Lets's save some bandwidth, snip! I'm not talking about "knowing" the code, Bill. Very few people actually "know" the code from preparing for and passing Element 1. I'm addressing the self-discipline required to accept the challenge and meet the requirements to upgrade one's privileges rather than complain about how one never plans on using it. Translation, I did it, so should everyone else. Using your philosophy, the FCC should never change requirements... even when a specific requirement no longer has justification. That's not it at all. The fact is that Morse code IS the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. IMHO, that in itself is sufficient justification. Remember, we're talking about the 5-wpm test, NOT 13 0r 20. I'm not much into the newer digital modes nor am I particularly interested in Satellite assisted communications, however, if the path to upgrading my license/privies leads through some learning and testing re. said subjects.no problem. (Psst, it's a character issue.) No problem there and I don't oppose "knowledge" questions about CW the mode. The issue is the stand alone skill test for morse which is a separate pass fail element. NO other mode is set on that pedestal. Is this really an issue at 5-wpm, Bill? Answer the question asked...The question is, for those that need clarity: IF someone became a General or Extra with NO code skills, and then decided to learn code on-the-air, what's the harm, danger, etc? None. But I suspect you are deliberately missing my point. The code skills themselves are irrelevant. You could substitute any actual challenging aspect of upgrading one's ticket in it's place and the same folks would likely bemoan it. In this "I want it now" culture, many don't want to have to actually put forth much effort to earn their ticket. I'd be all for dropping Element 1 altogether AND doing away with the published Q&A pools. How about just a study guide? Oh yeah, let's make Element 2 50 questions while we're at it. You are free to propose any changes you wish. Others already have done so. The changes I find acceptable are already in a RM proposal. I've sent multiple letters and/or e-mails to my elected representatives, the entire ARRL leadership, and the FCC. That'll suffice for now, thanks. Sorry, Bill. That may be the point you'd like to key on, (No pun intended) but that's not the point I'm stressing. I agree 100% with the sentence above. It's the slacker-mentality (Sorry, time to shoot from the hip.) that I deplore. If we really want to get young folks involved in AR, this is not a principle I'd like to see them learn. You'd rather we continue mandating a skill test for a mode that is all but totally gone from the world of radio communications except within amateur use? Again, per my comment above, NO other mode has its own unique test. That's the point. YEAH BABY!!! You are THE BEST, Bill...thank you, thank you, thank you! Yes, I would very much "like to continue mandating a skill test for a mode that is all but gone from the world of radio communications EXCEPT WITHIN AMATEUR USE." Thats because it's a skill test for upgrading within, not entry into, the ARS and the mode is the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. Too easy, Bill. If you complain enough, the bar will be lowered for you. As a youth, the concept of achievement (As well as a well-rounded education.) was constantly stressed and I thank God I had folks (Parents, teachers, guidance counselors, etc.) that cared enough to strongly encourage us to achieve rather complain. I feel so sorry for the kids that are recently got that curve on their Regents exam rather than enroll in a summer program to increase their knowledge to the appropriate level. Some will perform poorly in college and if enough of them complain that their college curriculum is unfairly difficult, perhaps that bar will be lowered as well. Interestingly enough, I now tend to seek out those Elmers who will push me to become a better operator. IMHO, they have my best interests at heart. My my, I guess the end of all amateur upgrading and new learning will be tied to the end of code testing. You must have really been disappointed when states stopped testing drivers on manual gearboxes. For me it was no problem. When my kids wanted to drive they learned or they had no car to drive as all our vehicles had been standard shift. Those that want to learn will. Trying to claim some great philosophical tie of ending code testing being the start of an end to new/old hams continuing to learn is just bunk. We both know the manual gearshift analogy really doesn't work, so I'll skip that part. However, on the subject of you kids, weren't you the least bit concerned that some other impatient jackass might choose to jump in his college roomates car and just "wing it" down to the store for a pack of cigarettes? I've seen this at Wagner College in Staten Island. The "down" part refers to "down the hill" to Targee Ave. as cigarette machines were not allowed on campus. This is the jerk who'll say he's sorry over and over for hitting your kid's car. I guess that's why defensive driving is so important. Still...I'd sure be concerned. There is ZERO element of safety involved with CW knowledge/testing. Agreed. It's the mindset I find kinda alarming. Folks that have no problem with putting forth the effort to advance in their endeavors are more likely to exercise that same "work ethic" wrt conscientiously ensuring the safe operation of their station. Conversely, folks that would rather complain about having to put forth some effort (Let's be honest, the effort is rather minimal re. Element 1.) to advance themselves are perceived to be "corner-cutters." (Some might even call them."slackers.") The "effort" has nothing to do with code testing. The goal of ending code testing is based solely on the lack of any continued need for code skills to be mandated for any HF access. I disagree, I truly believe that it's almost all about the required effort. So let me get this straight. You wantis some undefined, unmeasurable amount of effort that the FCC should be trying to have in place for any license level? No Bill, I want a very defined (Element 1) very measurable (5-wpm) effort for two (Not any.) license levels. Again, drop those published Q&A pools and watch the squirming commence. It will never happen and I don't care if it did. The old ARRL and AMECO learners guides were just as easy to memorize sufficiently to pass. I did the General test in the late 50s exactly that way. I have the Ameco Novice guide and I kinda like it. Folks just don't want to be made to have to sit down for 20 mins., twice daily, for a month or two and memorize 43 Morse code characters. Irrelavent. The point is NOT the effort, and the FCC has already chimed in on the. The test must exist or go based on a clear and understood need for the knowledge. EFFORT is not now and never has been recognized as a valid test requirement determinator. You mean the second most popular mode in use today doesn't rate as a valid test requirement determinator. Gee, we could have one for the first most popular, SSB, but we already know how to talk. That's way the stand-alone, Bill. It's a learned skill that's an unknown coming in. (Unlike speech.) There was, in the past, a rational reason or set of reasons for code knowledge. Those days are gone. It is that simple. There still is. It's the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. Yet that failed to convince the FCC and, more recently the ITU. The point is that those bodies recognize that no one needs to know morse just to be issued a license. Those that wish to engage in morse contacts are free to learn morse and use it. The issue is solely the test requirement and has no link to actual morse use by anyone. The FCC's goal is less work. (Something in common?) BIG BIG DISCLAIMER: I am quite aware that this is not true for all no-code Technicians and/or NCI members, HOWEVER, all it takes is one poor soul getting a cranial soaking from some dunderhead who wants to bombard that repeater to validate the concern. Lest the repeater folks feel offended, there is a club here on LI devoted to simplex operation who support VHF/UHF operation with a tad more than the few hundred Watts mentioned above. Again, this dialog isn't about the validity or not of current writtens. My point(s) here are focused only on code testing. PERIOD! Again, my dialogue is addressing the character issue involved re. squeaking vs. achieving. That's just the old tripe argument that has convinced no one. The rony of your claim is that most of us that are the nucleus of NCI activity had already done the morse test at 5, 13 and/or 20 wpm. Nothing to gain now if code testing goes altogether. Sometimes, the prospect of less work can be a powerful motivator. Do you really want to focus on the code test, Bill. Quite frankly, Element 1 is NOT much of a code test to focus on and very rarely leaves anybody with any level of OTA proficiency. So you see, it's not the actual code knowledge or lack thereof that makes for the dangerous scenario.it's the associated mentality of those who'd rather squeak than achieve that can possibly lead to harm. Yawn. Sorry 'bout that. Had there been any relevant safety aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it. You slay me, Bill. Is this the same FCC that's ready to administer the BPL suppository to AR? "Who's yer daddy now?!" Sorry to burst your bubble, but its the only FCC we have. Indeed, had the FCC seriously errored in their past decion(s) regarding need or non-need for code skills testing, then I'm amazed you and others haven't filed court action to stop the FCC. Quite frankly, Bill.I'm no big fan of the FCC. You are, however, correct.they're the only game in town. Do I think they make mistakes? Sure, but I'm not sufficiently motivated to file a court action against them. A few letters to my elected representatives and some recreational debate on R.R.A.P suffices. What, no motivation? :-) :-) Lol. :-) Trust me, my bubble is very much intact. I came into AR approx. three years ago pretty much oblivious to the code vs. no-code debate. All I knew was that I wanted to be an ARO and operate HF. Like I've said before, remove the whing and passion from both sides of the debate and the obvious remains like a purple elephant in the living room. The FCC removed the winning/passion when they issued the R&O for 98-143. If you haven't read that yet, I suggest you do. Will do. 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added privileges have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained. Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?! So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW on the only two all-CW only bands. That nice slow-code practice you speak of below. Learn to drive in a safe environment before venturing onto the highway. If new ham goes OnTheAir to learn code, does that trouble you? Not at all. I consider myself a relatively new ham and I continue to increase my code proficiency OTA. After all, the license is really just a ticket to learn. Exactly. So then why the need for code skill testing...oh, I remember, the FCC must impose a mystical quantity of effort for all ham licensing. 1. Second most populat mode in use in the ARS today. 2. Unlike speech, this is a new skill that must be acquired. 3. Because an awfully large portion of licensed ARO's want it. What part of amateur spectrum is considered highway vs non-highway? Thanks for makin' it easy, Bill. How about the CW only portion of 2-meters? I think that sounds like a groovy place to practice some seriously slow code with a code-buddy. Then, if I like it, perhaps I'd pass Element 1 and hop on the Novice/Tech "+" sub-bands to increase my proficiency. Thos are some examples of "rural routes." The highway, hmm. Would you really encourage a brand newbie to hop on 7026 kHz and mix it up w/the 35-wpm+ crowd, Bill? Think they'd feel encouraged? IF they did so, so what? They'd either make a QSO or not. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. If they felt out of place they'd shift to calmer waters. Not very nice, Bill. I've had a couple of ops QRS from 20-wpm down to 19-wpm for me and lemme tell ya, it wasn't fun. Conversely, I have had guys switch to some really nice Farnsworth style 25-wpm character speed spaced apart to about 8-wpm and an hour and a half ragchew QSO just breezed on by with very little effort or tension. To each his own. What ever floats your boat. I see no problem with newbie hams doing morse at slow speeds anywhere morse is allowed as long as they do so within the rules. It's like pairing up Tennis partners. A beginning recreational player is usually not paired up with the club pro unless it's for lessons. (Elmer) BTW, I have a confession. My very first AR CW QSO was on 7031 kHz, but it was wuth my Elmer. ;-) Cheers, Bill K2UNK 73 de Bert WA2SI |
#184
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#185
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bert Craig" wrote in message et... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message nk.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message om... Lets's save some bandwidth, snip! I'm not talking about "knowing" the code, Bill. Very few people actually "know" the code from preparing for and passing Element 1. I'm addressing the self-discipline required to accept the challenge and meet the requirements to upgrade one's privileges rather than complain about how one never plans on using it. Translation, I did it, so should everyone else. Using your philosophy, the FCC should never change requirements... even when a specific requirement no longer has justification. That's not it at all. The fact is that Morse code IS the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. IMHO, that in itself is sufficient justification. Remember, we're talking about the 5-wpm test, NOT 13 0r 20. We don't require knowledge of second languages just because one or more languages other than English are used by vast numbers of non-USA hams. Why does mode popularity mandate a separate skill test just because others use it? NO other mode has that special treatment...and, it appears, the FCC understands that. I'm not much into the newer digital modes nor am I particularly interested in Satellite assisted communications, however, if the path to upgrading my license/privies leads through some learning and testing re. said subjects.no problem. (Psst, it's a character issue.) No problem there and I don't oppose "knowledge" questions about CW the mode. The issue is the stand alone skill test for morse which is a separate pass fail element. NO other mode is set on that pedestal. Is this really an issue at 5-wpm, Bill? Of course it is an issue. Any test requirement that can't be justified has no reason to exist...regardless of how much or how little effort may be required. Answer the question asked...The question is, for those that need clarity: IF someone became a General or Extra with NO code skills, and then decided to learn code on-the-air, what's the harm, danger, etc? None. But I suspect you are deliberately missing my point. The code skills themselves are irrelevant. You could substitute any actual challenging aspect of upgrading one's ticket in it's place and the same folks would likely bemoan it. In this "I want it now" culture, many don't want to have to actually put forth much effort to earn their ticket. I'd be all for dropping Element 1 altogether AND doing away with the published Q&A pools. How about just a study guide? Oh yeah, let's make Element 2 50 questions while we're at it. You are free to propose any changes you wish. Others already have done so. The changes I find acceptable are already in a RM proposal. I've sent multiple letters and/or e-mails to my elected representatives, the entire ARRL leadership, and the FCC. That'll suffice for now, thanks. Your elected representatives? Is that ARRL reps? If not, who else as an elected representative would you expect cares? Sorry, Bill. That may be the point you'd like to key on, (No pun intended) but that's not the point I'm stressing. I agree 100% with the sentence above. It's the slacker-mentality (Sorry, time to shoot from the hip.) that I deplore. If we really want to get young folks involved in AR, this is not a principle I'd like to see them learn. You'd rather we continue mandating a skill test for a mode that is all but totally gone from the world of radio communications except within amateur use? Again, per my comment above, NO other mode has its own unique test. That's the point. YEAH BABY!!! You are THE BEST, Bill...thank you, thank you, thank you! Yes, I would very much "like to continue mandating a skill test for a mode that is all but gone from the world of radio communications EXCEPT WITHIN AMATEUR USE." Thats because it's a skill test for upgrading within, not entry into, the ARS and the mode is the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. Too easy, Bill. Too bad your argument doesn't hold sway with the FCC. Additionally, a dozen or so other countries have already abandoned morse testing completely. The dominos are falling...it is just a matter of time. The USA fully endorsed the end of mandatory code testing in the treaty. Do you expect a reversal of mindset on the internal (USA only) position by the FCC? If you complain enough, the bar will be lowered for you. As a youth, the concept of achievement (As well as a well-rounded education.) was constantly stressed and I thank God I had folks (Parents, teachers, guidance counselors, etc.) that cared enough to strongly encourage us to achieve rather complain. I feel so sorry for the kids that are recently got that curve on their Regents exam rather than enroll in a summer program to increase their knowledge to the appropriate level. Some will perform poorly in college and if enough of them complain that their college curriculum is unfairly difficult, perhaps that bar will be lowered as well. Interestingly enough, I now tend to seek out those Elmers who will push me to become a better operator. IMHO, they have my best interests at heart. My my, I guess the end of all amateur upgrading and new learning will be tied to the end of code testing. You must have really been disappointed when states stopped testing drivers on manual gearboxes. For me it was no problem. When my kids wanted to drive they learned or they had no car to drive as all our vehicles had been standard shift. Those that want to learn will. Trying to claim some great philosophical tie of ending code testing being the start of an end to new/old hams continuing to learn is just bunk. We both know the manual gearshift analogy really doesn't work, so I'll skip that part. However, on the subject of you kids, weren't you the least bit concerned that some other impatient jackass might choose to jump in his college roomates car and just "wing it" down to the store for a pack of cigarettes? I've seen this at Wagner College in Staten Island. The "down" part refers to "down the hill" to Targee Ave. as cigarette machines were not allowed on campus. This is the jerk who'll say he's sorry over and over for hitting your kid's car. I guess that's why defensive driving is so important. Still...I'd sure be concerned. Other than a rather funny tale of an auto thief wo didn't drive a manual but hijacked a car that was and the bozo lurched the car a couple of times and then stalled it...I have never heard of anyone being a threat to me or my kids because they didn't know how to drive a manual gearbox. Frankly, if you are worried about that happening, you must lead a very paranoid life. Far greater danger exists from the general driving public who can't handle their vehicles in anything that resembles non-perfect driving conditions. There is ZERO element of safety involved with CW knowledge/testing. Agreed. It's the mindset I find kinda alarming. Folks that have no problem with putting forth the effort to advance in their endeavors are more likely to exercise that same "work ethic" wrt conscientiously ensuring the safe operation of their station. Conversely, folks that would rather complain about having to put forth some effort (Let's be honest, the effort is rather minimal re. Element 1.) to advance themselves are perceived to be "corner-cutters." (Some might even call them."slackers.") The "effort" has nothing to do with code testing. The goal of ending code testing is based solely on the lack of any continued need for code skills to be mandated for any HF access. I disagree, I truly believe that it's almost all about the required effort. So let me get this straight. You wantis some undefined, unmeasurable amount of effort that the FCC should be trying to have in place for any license level? No Bill, I want a very defined (Element 1) very measurable (5-wpm) effort for two (Not any.) license levels. And when the FCC ends that requirement, what is your desire for additional "work effort" requirements? Again, drop those published Q&A pools and watch the squirming commence. It will never happen and I don't care if it did. The old ARRL and AMECO learners guides were just as easy to memorize sufficiently to pass. I did the General test in the late 50s exactly that way. I have the Ameco Novice guide and I kinda like it. Folks just don't want to be made to have to sit down for 20 mins., twice daily, for a month or two and memorize 43 Morse code characters. Irrelavent. The point is NOT the effort, and the FCC has already chimed in on the. The test must exist or go based on a clear and understood need for the knowledge. EFFORT is not now and never has been recognized as a valid test requirement determinator. You mean the second most popular mode in use today doesn't rate as a valid test requirement determinator. Gee, we could have one for the first most popular, SSB, but we already know how to talk. That's way the stand-alone, Bill. It's a learned skill that's an unknown coming in. (Unlike speech.) Sorry, not everyone talks as you well know. Based on your claim, everyone should at least be able to have a "voice" QSO, because voice IS the most popular mode...yet there is NO requiremnt that anyone be conversant or have voice skills at all. Yes a significant portion of hams have natural speaking ability, BUT that is NOT true of 100% of hams...yet there is NO requirement at all for speaking ability. There was, in the past, a rational reason or set of reasons for code knowledge. Those days are gone. It is that simple. There still is. It's the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. Yet that failed to convince the FCC and, more recently the ITU. The point is that those bodies recognize that no one needs to know morse just to be issued a license. Those that wish to engage in morse contacts are free to learn morse and use it. The issue is solely the test requirement and has no link to actual morse use by anyone. The FCC's goal is less work. (Something in common?) Gross oversimplification and very uninformed viewpoint. The FCC's goal is to have rules and regulations that make sense. If FCC work were the ONLY driving force, they'd probably end amateur radio completely. BIG BIG DISCLAIMER: I am quite aware that this is not true for all no-code Technicians and/or NCI members, HOWEVER, all it takes is one poor soul getting a cranial soaking from some dunderhead who wants to bombard that repeater to validate the concern. Lest the repeater folks feel offended, there is a club here on LI devoted to simplex operation who support VHF/UHF operation with a tad more than the few hundred Watts mentioned above. Again, this dialog isn't about the validity or not of current writtens. My point(s) here are focused only on code testing. PERIOD! Again, my dialogue is addressing the character issue involved re. squeaking vs. achieving. That's just the old tripe argument that has convinced no one. The rony of your claim is that most of us that are the nucleus of NCI activity had already done the morse test at 5, 13 and/or 20 wpm. Nothing to gain now if code testing goes altogether. Sometimes, the prospect of less work can be a powerful motivator. What or how would ending morse result in less work for me and/or other NCI folks that previosuly passed any code test? We gain nothing. Do you really want to focus on the code test, Bill. Quite frankly, Element 1 is NOT much of a code test to focus on and very rarely leaves anybody with any level of OTA proficiency. So you see, it's not the actual code knowledge or lack thereof that makes for the dangerous scenario.it's the associated mentality of those who'd rather squeak than achieve that can possibly lead to harm. Yawn. Sorry 'bout that. Had there been any relevant safety aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it. You slay me, Bill. Is this the same FCC that's ready to administer the BPL suppository to AR? "Who's yer daddy now?!" Sorry to burst your bubble, but its the only FCC we have. Indeed, had the FCC seriously errored in their past decion(s) regarding need or non-need for code skills testing, then I'm amazed you and others haven't filed court action to stop the FCC. Quite frankly, Bill.I'm no big fan of the FCC. You are, however, correct.they're the only game in town. Do I think they make mistakes? Sure, but I'm not sufficiently motivated to file a court action against them. A few letters to my elected representatives and some recreational debate on R.R.A.P suffices. What, no motivation? :-) :-) Lol. :-) Trust me, my bubble is very much intact. I came into AR approx. three years ago pretty much oblivious to the code vs. no-code debate. All I knew was that I wanted to be an ARO and operate HF. Like I've said before, remove the whing and passion from both sides of the debate and the obvious remains like a purple elephant in the living room. The FCC removed the winning/passion when they issued the R&O for 98-143. If you haven't read that yet, I suggest you do. Will do. If you can't find a copy, let me know. I'm pretty sure its on the FCC web pages. It may also be on or have a link to it from the www.nci.org web site. 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added privileges have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained. Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?! So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW on the only two all-CW only bands. That nice slow-code practice you speak of below. Learn to drive in a safe environment before venturing onto the highway. If new ham goes OnTheAir to learn code, does that trouble you? Not at all. I consider myself a relatively new ham and I continue to increase my code proficiency OTA. After all, the license is really just a ticket to learn. Exactly. So then why the need for code skill testing...oh, I remember, the FCC must impose a mystical quantity of effort for all ham licensing. 1. Second most populat mode in use in the ARS today. Failed to convince the FCC...see R&O for 98-143 2. Unlike speech, this is a new skill that must be acquired. Also Failed to convince the FCC...see R&O for 98-143 PLUS, there is no known harm, danger or threat if a ham does NOT know te code and/or if a ham decided to learn and practice on the air even though s/he never took a code test. 3. Because an awfully large portion of licensed ARO's want it. Totally failed to convince the FCC...see R&O for 98-143 The rules and regs of amaeur radio are NOT decided by popular vote of already licensed hams. Even as to a position of actually what percent of already licensed hams might want code testing retained, there is no good data that provides an accurate picture. The last "survey" of any type was done by the ARRL almost 10 years ago. NCI did an analysis of comments filed pro/con when 98-143 was open for comment and which showed the continued drift from support of code testing. That too is now over 5 years ago. The bottom line, (you can agree or not) is that ever since the concept of no code testing began, the amateur community has not been universally opposed to ending code testing. From my perspective, the percent of hams that absolutly want code testing to stay is an ever decreasing percentage. Exactly what that percentage isn't known...but, if a survey was held again, I'm sure it is less today than it was a 5 years ago and will be even less again a year from now since newcomers are 'generally' not proponents of code testing and as older hams which constitute the bulk of code testing support die off. That may seem crass, but that's the truth as I see it. In the end, again, the FCC isn't going to make any determination to keep code testing because X perecnt of hams want to keep a code test. That is, again, very clear in the 98-143 R&O. What part of amateur spectrum is considered highway vs non-highway? Thanks for makin' it easy, Bill. How about the CW only portion of 2-meters? I think that sounds like a groovy place to practice some seriously slow code with a code-buddy. Then, if I like it, perhaps I'd pass Element 1 and hop on the Novice/Tech "+" sub-bands to increase my proficiency. Thos are some examples of "rural routes." The highway, hmm. Would you really encourage a brand newbie to hop on 7026 kHz and mix it up w/the 35-wpm+ crowd, Bill? Think they'd feel encouraged? IF they did so, so what? They'd either make a QSO or not. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. If they felt out of place they'd shift to calmer waters. Not very nice, Bill. Life's a bitch and then we die. Those that are uncomfortable as new drivers at highway speeds stay off the highway. Most highways have minimum speeds to maintain that mindset. If segments of amateur spectrum became known as high speed CW segments, then what;s the problem? I've had a couple of ops QRS from 20-wpm down to 19-wpm for me and lemme tell ya, it wasn't fun. Conversely, I have had guys switch to some really nice Farnsworth style 25-wpm character speed spaced apart to about 8-wpm and an hour and a half ragchew QSO just breezed on by with very little effort or tension. To each his own. What ever floats your boat. I see no problem with newbie hams doing morse at slow speeds anywhere morse is allowed as long as they do so within the rules. It's like pairing up Tennis partners. A beginning recreational player is usually not paired up with the club pro unless it's for lessons. (Elmer) BTW, I have a confession. My very first AR CW QSO was on 7031 kHz, but it was wuth my Elmer. ;-) I repeat, if a new ham ventures into a band segment that is known or expected to have high speed CW as the norm...and that ham doesn't get anyone to respond at his/her slow code speed, that's just the way it goes. That's part of learning for any new ham. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
#186
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Answer the question asked...The question is, for those that need
clarity: IF someone became a General or Extra with NO code skills, and then decided to learn code on-the-air, what's the harm, danger, etc? So lets see here. If the new jet airliners will fly and land themselves, the persons that occupy the cockpit don't really need to learn to fly. Makes perfect sense. They don't need to learn to fly because the computer does it for them. |
#187
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#188
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
SNIP___SNIP
Those should be drummed out of the corps, banished to the nether world of VHF and higher. All must show commitment and dedication to the amateur community by maintaining a pool of trained morsemen ready and waiting to save the world from alien invasion. Everything good in US amateur radio is about morse code skill. Self-discipline, dedication, committing to the olde-tyme hamme traditions. Showing all one's hard work and efforts. Words to live by in the amateur lifestyle, the belief system that is the bastion of amateurism. Amen. LHA Very true. You have hit the nail on the head this time. Everything that was good about amateur radio was morse code and the trained pool of not only morsemen as you like to put it but also technically trained people too. Amateur Radio as a service is gone. It is only self serving now. Not a service but a high priced hobby. After all, it is called the Amateur Radio Service. We do not have a right to our allocated frequencies. We only use them by the grace of the FCC. So LHA, your tounge in cheek comments ring very true indeed. JEP |
#189
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net...
"JEP" wrote: (snip) Amateur Radio as a service is gone. It is only self serving now. Not a service but a high priced hobby. After all, it is called the Amateur Radio Service. First, you're obviously confused about the word "service." In FCC terminology, "service" refers to a group of frequencies meant to serve a particular purpose for the users of those frequencies, not anything done by the users of those frequencies. As a result, we have the Amateur Radio Service, Radio Broadcast Services, Cable TV Relay Service, Maritime Service, Personal Radio Services, Citizens Band Radio Service, Fixed Microwave Services, and so on through a long list of other radio services. In other words, the word "service" in Amateur Radio Service does not refer to any "service" we might provide to others. Second, you're completely wrong about "service" being gone within the Amateur Radio community. Based on what I've seen, I'd estimate as much as 75% of the current operators are involved in some form of public service related activity in any given year. Of course, the need for our help is high, meaning even more should become involved, but that hardly suggests the idea of service is gone today. The newsgroups "rec.radio.shortwave" and "rec.radio.cb" were deleted from this reply (off-topic in those newsgroups). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Service means just that. Broadcasters have to do public service to keep broadcastings. Why do you think they do PSA's. No money involved, they do it free. Amateur operators operate uder the same subset of rules. If they don't provide a public service when called they have no reason for being. You also would have to prove that 75% of the amareurs provide a public service. Lets see, chasing DX, rag chewing with Barny down the road and checking the weather outside. Yep, thats sure public service-----NOT! |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
ARRL Propose New License Class & Code-Free HF Access | Antenna | |||
ARRL and the local scene | Policy | |||
NEWS: N2DUP announces for ARRL section manager in Minnesota | General | |||
ARRL's Incoming QSL Burro Screwing NON ARRL members! | Policy | |||
ARRL Dilemmas (Representative KC8LDO a problem-operator) | CB |