wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message

Already tried it.

And dismissed it.

esp dimissing the abilty of the human operator of the machine to fill
in the problems and correct the process

As I said while it is the best that is available, it
is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator.

Correction. ...a few human operators.

indeed the PC alone far exceeds the abilties of many licensed ham
operators but hat doesn't count

I've tried it
under a
wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good
signal to
function.

Dee, N8UZE

Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary
of
Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through).

Unrelated to my comments.

You would like to think that, but without efforts from folks like Carl,
Bill, Len, hans, myself and others, you would still be repeating such
myths, and would never make statements such as "Not all CW signals are
good."

You can thank us, but that's probably not very likely.

No one has said all CW signals are good.

And they aren't.

If they were always good, CWGet
would always work, which it doesn't. The ones who tout the software
solution are those who wish that it would always work.

And those who dismiss the software solution think all amateur operators
are superb morsemen.

In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has
its
advantages and disadvantages.

If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is
likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode.

The extremists on each side don't want to
hear that.

Dee, N8UZE

Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the
years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good
without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk.

well it is a thankless job

Dees coming around in her own way, but the brainwashing that she's
undergone is strong. Perhaps in another decade... if there's still an
amateur radio. If only she had been able to think spontaneously and
resist, the brainwashing wouldn't have been so well received.

You are mistaken. I've always been one to think spontaneously. Since I have
personally experienced conditions where it had to be CW or turn off the
radio, I advocate all hams knowing code at a basic level. To insure that
they do learn it at a basic level, testing at some point in the licensing is
appropriate. Before entering these news I'd never heard much discussion
either way on code. My opinions on its usefulness and desireability were
formed based entirely on actual operating experience. I was surprised to
learn that there was a big discussion on it in the amateur community.

Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations
equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW
Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total
the scores...

I think you get the point.

What point?

Try thinking about it just a wee little bit.

I did. It's not clear.

Spell it out for us, please.

I'll spell it out for you, Jim.

Thank you, Brian!

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.

You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.

40% is more like it.

Probably most of the coded licensees never looked back when
they learned the code to get past a licensing hurdle, don't use code,
and couldn't if their lives depended on it.

That's not a given at all.

Remember the ARRL survey that was debated so much here? It showed that
less than 40% of those hams who were asked never used Morse Code. And
it included licensees from all license classes, not just those who had
passed code tests.

Sure there are those who learned just enough to pass the Morse Code
test and then never used it - just as there are those who just enough
to pass the *written* tests and then never used it

Heck, your buddy Len couldn't even get the length of a 73 MHz
quarter-wave whip antenna right, and he's a "PROFESSIONAL"!

So put all USA licensed amateurs in fron of a station equipped with a
morse code key and with CWGet and total their scores.

I presume you mean "contest scores"

Why?

Who is going to set up and pay for all those stations? What sort of
stations would they be - HF, VHF, UHF? What sort of antennas, rigs,
computers?

Any ham who wants to operate Morse Code using CWGet or some other
software can do so right now - if they have a station that includes
rig, antenna, and computer.

Yet I don't know of any amateur radio contesters who operate that way.
Do you?

Your "thought experiment" doesn't seem to be thought out very well.

Now here's a *real* challenge:

The ARRL November CW Sweepstakes is this coming weekend. I'm going to
operate in it, using my homebrew 100 watt station and antenna. No CWGet
here.

How about we compare your score with mine a week from now?

Or how about this one:

Field Day 2007
Entry class 1B-1 (one transmitter, one operator).

The challenge is to assemble, transport, set up, operate, and take down
a complete FD station - singlehanded, no outside help - and make the
highest score.

Field Day location must not be owned by the participant and must not be
a licensed amateur station location. Field Day location must be located
in a place under FCC jurisdiction.

All equipment used must be legitimately owned by the operator.

All FCC regulations and ARRL rules that apply to Field Day must be
complied
with by all involved. Results report must be submitted to ARRL before
the deadline.

Highest official score wins.

I've done better than 3000 points under such conditions. Can you?

The requirements for US amateur radio license have been slowly but
steadily reduced for more than 25 years now.

Just 25 years?

I wrote "more than 25 years".

I guess you forgot about the "Conditional" license
where hams get an upgrade from their buddy.

What does that mean?

Besides, the Conditional stopped being issued about 30 years ago.

Yep, but nobody ever claimed that amateur radio was being dumbed down.
The USA amateur service has a proud history of it.

How was it "dumbing down" to eliminate the Conditional?

Not just the code tests
but also the writtens. That's not the fault of those taking the tests.

No, of course not. It's not anyones fault except the FCC that they put
offices so far away from ham's residences.

??

The reason FCC stopped doing testing was to save money.

It doesn't cost the FCC anything for an amateur to show up for testing,
unless you want to claim that the examinees got to file a voucher for
their travel.

Actually it cost FCC a lot of money to do testing.

First off, they had to have offices with test facilities. The office
they had in Philadelphia back when I took my exams was on the 10th
floor of the Custom House at 2nd and Chestnut. Lots of square feet of
prime real estate just for the exam room.

Then there was the time of the examiners, all of whom worked for FCC.
Pay and benefits. At least two people per office, three days a week.
Times the number of offices all over the country.

Then add the FCC folks who revised the exams, duplicated them, and
distributed them to the various offices all over the country. And the
cost of doing all that.

The VE system eliminated all that expense. All FCC has to do now wrt
amateur license testing is to look over the QPC submissions and approve
them. And occasionally retest somebody.

Eliminating Element 1 will not save the FCC any expense. Keeping it
will not cost them anything, either. Maybe that's why it's taking them
so long.

They replaced
their paid examiners with unpaid volunteers.

Good thing there wasn't a union.

Why?

It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't use
any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set. I've
used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been licensed.
I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used smith
charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I can
choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory
end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it..

Brian, do you think that using a false sexist claim is somehow going to
cause you to win the debate?

No false sexist claim.

It's a sexist claim to assume that Dee's husband takes care of the
Ohm's Law and Theory
end of her station

Why? She said she hardly, if ever, used it. Somebody's got to be
doing it?

You're presuming she's not doing what needs to be done, and is
dependent on someone else to deal with the theory. I don't think that's
the case at all.

W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him
these days.

Where do you get that idea?

Hmmm?

I've put up antennas with W3RV. Or rather, I helped out a little, since
he had it all worked out on his own. No sisters involved.

He does know quite a lot about antennas, particularly the practical
side. He even knows that a quarter wave at 73 MHz is a lot longer than
three and one quarter inches....

Fair is fair, yes?

You're not fair at all.

Since you have a corner on the fairness market, do you plan to be the
RRAP Moderator?

Wait and see.

ARRL November CW Sweepstakes starts Saturday afternoon and ends Sunday
night. I'll be there - will you?

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:

The ONLY separate pass-fail TEST is for manual telegraphy.
Wow! I guess CW is more valued than ALL OF THE OTHER MODES COMBINED!
Not so. However, all the digital and image modes are merely a matter of
connecting the radio to the computer and running the appropriate software.

Then why do the military service have technical schools to do somehting
so very simple?

I guess it is because of the raw material they have to work with.

Always a kind word for our armed forced...

Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?

They can be. That's how I did it. I never set foot in an Air Force
technical school. Of course I'd already been a radio amateur for seven
years when I joined the military. I was awarded my 3-level right out of
basic training. I went directed duty to Barksdale AFB after ten days of
leave after Amarillo.

Lackland. San Antonio.

Did you catch what Robesin's got?

Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.

Oracle uses a lot of code.

Dave K8MN

Is Oracle an Extra? What's his call?

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message

Already tried it.

And dismissed it.

esp dimissing the abilty of the human operator of the machine to fill
in the problems and correct the process

As I said while it is the best that is available, it
is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator.

Correction. ...a few human operators.

indeed the PC alone far exceeds the abilties of many licensed ham
operators but hat doesn't count

I've tried it
under a
wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good
signal to
function.

Dee, N8UZE

Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary
of
Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through).

Unrelated to my comments.

You would like to think that, but without efforts from folks like Carl,
Bill, Len, hans, myself and others, you would still be repeating such
myths, and would never make statements such as "Not all CW signals are
good."

You can thank us, but that's probably not very likely.

No one has said all CW signals are good.

And they aren't.

If they were always good, CWGet
would always work, which it doesn't. The ones who tout the software
solution are those who wish that it would always work.

And those who dismiss the software solution think all amateur operators
are superb morsemen.

In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has
its
advantages and disadvantages.

If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is
likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode.

The extremists on each side don't want to
hear that.

Dee, N8UZE

Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the
years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good
without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk.

well it is a thankless job

Dees coming around in her own way, but the brainwashing that she's
undergone is strong. Perhaps in another decade... if there's still an
amateur radio. If only she had been able to think spontaneously and
resist, the brainwashing wouldn't have been so well received.

You are mistaken. I've always been one to think spontaneously. Since I have
personally experienced conditions where it had to be CW or turn off the
radio, I advocate all hams knowing code at a basic level. To insure that
they do learn it at a basic level, testing at some point in the licensing is
appropriate. Before entering these news I'd never heard much discussion
either way on code. My opinions on its usefulness and desireability were
formed based entirely on actual operating experience. I was surprised to
learn that there was a big discussion on it in the amateur community.

Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations
equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW
Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total
the scores...

I think you get the point.

What point?

Try thinking about it just a wee little bit.

I did. It's not clear.

Spell it out for us, please.

I'll spell it out for you, Jim.

Thank you, Brian!

Any time.

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.

You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.

40% is more like it.

49.5% according to your very own postings.

Probably most of the coded licensees never looked back when
they learned the code to get past a licensing hurdle, don't use code,
and couldn't if their lives depended on it.

That's not a given at all.

I would expect you to say something like that.

Remember the ARRL survey that was debated so much here?

The one where as a member, I did not receive a ballot?

The one that Mike Deignan characterized as "substantive?"

Yes, I recall the survey. Looked as if it had been developed by a
bunch of dems hoping to influence the outcome of an election.

It showed that
less than 40% of those hams who were asked never used Morse Code. And
it included licensees from all license classes, not just those who had
passed code tests.

Add to that those who rarely used code.

Sure there are those who learned just enough to pass the Morse Code
test and then never used it - just as there are those who just enough
to pass the *written* tests and then never used it

Heck, your buddy Len couldn't even get the length of a 73 MHz
quarter-wave whip antenna right, and he's a "PROFESSIONAL"!

And you couldn't even get the distance to the moon, and you're a
"professional."

So put all USA licensed amateurs in fron of a station equipped with a
morse code key and with CWGet and total their scores.

I presume you mean "contest scores"

Why?

Why not? They're operating in a CW Contest. Why wouldn't you total
their scores?

Who is going to set up and pay for all those stations? What sort of
stations would they be - HF, VHF, UHF? What sort of antennas, rigs,
computers?

Think about it.

The Morsemen can bandy about the CQ WW and Field Day CW vs SSB contest
scores all they want without having to standardize station equipment.
I bring up a scenario and NOW station equipment must be standardized.

There's some bias in your approach.

Any ham who wants to operate Morse Code using CWGet or some other
software can do so right now - if they have a station that includes
rig, antenna, and computer.

Yep. I can finally agree with something you said.

Yet I don't know of any amateur radio contesters who operate that way.
Do you?

Nobody knew of anyone who operated amateur radio as in Larry Rolls
"Only CW can save the situation" but I NEVER ONCE saw your objection to
it.

I bring up a scenario and NOW you have a problems with how contestors
operate.

There's some bias in your approach.

Your "thought experiment" doesn't seem to be thought out very well.

Sure it was.

Alternative scenario snipped.


The requirements for US amateur radio license have been slowly but
steadily reduced for more than 25 years now.

Just 25 years?

I wrote "more than 25 years".

I guess you forgot about the "Conditional" license
where hams get an upgrade from their buddy.

What does that mean?

Besides, the Conditional stopped being issued about 30 years ago.

Yep, but nobody ever claimed that amateur radio was being dumbed down.
The USA amateur service has a proud history of it.

How was it "dumbing down" to eliminate the Conditional?

Jeez you're thick. It was dumbing down to create such a license class.

Not just the code tests
but also the writtens. That's not the fault of those taking the tests.

No, of course not. It's not anyones fault except the FCC that they put
offices so far away from ham's residences.

??

The reason FCC stopped doing testing was to save money.

It doesn't cost the FCC anything for an amateur to show up for testing,
unless you want to claim that the examinees got to file a voucher for
their travel.

Actually it cost FCC a lot of money to do testing.

It was the travel distance that was key in the creation of the
Conditional license, not the desire for the FCC to save money. Try to
stay on the subject.

First off, they had to have offices with test facilities. The office
they had in Philadelphia back when I took my exams was on the 10th
floor of the Custom House at 2nd and Chestnut. Lots of square feet of
prime real estate just for the exam room.

Then there was the time of the examiners, all of whom worked for FCC.
Pay and benefits. At least two people per office, three days a week.
Times the number of offices all over the country.

Then add the FCC folks who revised the exams, duplicated them, and
distributed them to the various offices all over the country. And the
cost of doing all that.

The VE system eliminated all that expense. All FCC has to do now wrt
amateur license testing is to look over the QPC submissions and approve
them. And occasionally retest somebody.

That's all wunnerful, but you vectored off of the subject. Maybe next
time you'll be able to cut and paste something germane to the subject.

Eliminating Element 1 will not save the FCC any expense. Keeping it
will not cost them anything, either. Maybe that's why it's taking them
so long.

Maybe. But they didn't even make the effort to define Morse Code in
the rules for the last 3 R&Os. Yet they tell you that the exam myst be
5WPM, and you've got all these VEs getting to define what that means.

They replaced
their paid examiners with unpaid volunteers.

Good thing there wasn't a union.

Why?

Are you anti-union? Do you favor scabs?

It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't use
any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set. I've
used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been licensed.
I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used smith
charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I can
choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory
end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it..

Brian, do you think that using a false sexist claim is somehow going to
cause you to win the debate?

No false sexist claim.

It's a sexist claim to assume that Dee's husband takes care of the
Ohm's Law and Theory
end of her station

Why? She said she hardly, if ever, used it. Somebody's got to be
doing it?

You're presuming she's not doing what needs to be done, and is
dependent on someone else to deal with the theory. I don't think that's
the case at all.

If I considered your opinion to be wrong, do I get to call you a liar?

W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him
these days.

Where do you get that idea?

Hmmm?

I've put up antennas with W3RV. Or rather, I helped out a little, since
he had it all worked out on his own. No sisters involved.

He does know quite a lot about antennas, particularly the practical
side. He even knows that a quarter wave at 73 MHz is a lot longer than
three and one quarter inches....

Prolly for illegal operation. He has no authorization in that area.

Fair is fair, yes?

You're not fair at all.

Since you have a corner on the fairness market, do you plan to be the
RRAP Moderator?

Wait and see.

ARRL November CW Sweepstakes starts Saturday afternoon and ends Sunday
night. I'll be there - will you?

Nope, but knock yourself out.

wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Sat, Oct 28 2006 10:27pm

wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message

If you go a bit north of Rocketdyne in Canoga Park, CA, you
would reach Hughes Aircraft Missle Division.

"Missile", Len.

prove postive of 2 thing DX is running poorly tonight and Heil has
nothing worthwhile to say

Heil hasn't said anything worthwhile in this newsgroup for years. But
he wants to run for ARRL office. Perhaps he's found his calling?
indeed but normal even he finds more to say than repeatly correcting
one word

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:

Then why do the military service have technical schools to do somehting
so very simple?

I guess it is because of the raw material they have to work with.

Always a kind word for our armed forced...

Armed forced?

Our military isn't perfect. Many of those who enlist aren't all that
sharp. Most are shoved into a career field in which they have no
interest. Most aren't going to make the military a career. Some are
lucky enough to have skills obtained prior to military service. Some of
those are fortunate enough to serve in a field in which they have some
expertise or interest.

Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?

They can be. That's how I did it. I never set foot in an Air Force
technical school. Of course I'd already been a radio amateur for seven
years when I joined the military. I was awarded my 3-level right out of
basic training. I went directed duty to Barksdale AFB after ten days of
leave after Amarillo.

Lackland. San Antonio.

Yes, Lackland AFB is in San Antonio. Amarillo AFB was in Amarillo.
That's where I went through basic training. Amarillo. Amarillo.

Did you catch what Robesin's got?

I have no idea of what you mean, Brian.

Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.
Oracle uses a lot of code.


Is Oracle an Extra? What's his call?

Oracle is a business which didn't give up on code.

Dave K8MN

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:

[snip]

Depends on how bad you want the privileges. Just don't ask for something
for nothing. Originally I had no interest in ham radio but my husband at
the time dragged me to a class as something we could do together. As I
got
involved, I found it interesting. I deduced very early on that what I
wanted to get out of ham radio would best be served by going all the way
to
Extra. Since I wanted the privileges, I met the requirements including
the
20 wpm.

So if he dragged you to a class, how did you end up presiding over the
class that took him to Extra?


Different husband. My previous husband dragged me to the Tech class. We
split up a few years later. Then after that I met the man who was to become
my current husband. It is my current husband who took the Extra class that
I was teaching. Sorry for the confusion there.

No problem.

Although it would have been possible for me to have taught my previous
husband since I reached Extra a couple of months before he did.

Anyone can teach a class licensed or not, but an Extra (actually 3
Extras) must proctor the Extra exam.

Not everyone wants those privileges. Kim is a case in point. She is a
Tech
Plus and could have gotten her General with just a written test and no
further code testing as of April 2000. She chose not to because she did
not
really like HF operations. The typical background static of HF bothers
her.
Her interests lie in VHF and up. Since she has full privileges there,
the
General does not serve her goals.

Yep. Technician is a whole lot of priveleges.

That's the beauty of anon postings, they don't have to follow their own
"style."

Very true. But it takes a lot of discipline to consistently write in a
different style and not make tell tale slips. When Len Anderson was
posting
as Avery Fineman, it was quite obvious they were the same person.

When I post as Hot-Ham, there's no intent to deceive. There is an
intent to have a throw-away email address that I've checked the mailbox
content about twice. It can fill up with all that spam that the
spammers desire.

I Am What I Am. That a famous quote of Popeye.

And I don't criticize some one who does that. It is only when there is the
apparent intent to deceive (Len Anderson) or the appaerent intent to violate
their ISPs TOS (Mark Morgan), that it is unreasonable.

Welp, good breeding keeps me from doing what Robesin does. And Robesin
wasn't stopped until someone out-assholed him. All Mark asked for was
an apology for being called a rapist. Robesin couldn't do that.

I began posting as hot-ham when I gave up Billy Beeper at Hans request.
I'd prefer to not post with my name and/or call as I used to, as I
seem to get lots and lots of spam when I do.

Meanwhile, Robesin has posted my name, call and address much more than
I have.

That's so swell of him.

I guess when Mark posts Robesin's address and phone number, it's just
tit for tat. No?

Doesn't really matter as with the internet this information is findable
one
way or another if one cares to go after it. Posting it here only shows
that
you have the internet search skills of any average user and get some kind
of
juvenile thrill out of posting it.

Dee, N8UZE

The intent is to intimidate.

Such an attempt is foolish. Anyone who is intimidated by that must not be
aware how easy that information is to find these days.

Dee, N8UZE

Information coupled with action is called stalking.

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message

Already tried it.

And dismissed it.

esp dimissing the abilty of the human operator of the machine to fill
in the problems and correct the process

As I said while it is the best that is available, it
is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator.

Correction. ...a few human operators.

indeed the PC alone far exceeds the abilties of many licensed ham
operators but hat doesn't count

I've tried it
under a
wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good
signal to
function.

Dee, N8UZE

Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary
of
Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through).

Unrelated to my comments.

You would like to think that, but without efforts from folks like Carl,
Bill, Len, hans, myself and others, you would still be repeating such
myths, and would never make statements such as "Not all CW signals are
good."

You can thank us, but that's probably not very likely.

No one has said all CW signals are good.

And they aren't.

If they were always good, CWGet
would always work, which it doesn't. The ones who tout the software
solution are those who wish that it would always work.

And those who dismiss the software solution think all amateur operators
are superb morsemen.

In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has
its
advantages and disadvantages.

If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is
likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode.

The extremists on each side don't want to
hear that.

Dee, N8UZE

Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the
years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good
without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk.

well it is a thankless job

Dees coming around in her own way, but the brainwashing that she's
undergone is strong. Perhaps in another decade... if there's still an
amateur radio. If only she had been able to think spontaneously and
resist, the brainwashing wouldn't have been so well received.

You are mistaken. I've always been one to think spontaneously. Since I have
personally experienced conditions where it had to be CW or turn off the
radio, I advocate all hams knowing code at a basic level. To insure that
they do learn it at a basic level, testing at some point in the licensing is
appropriate. Before entering these news I'd never heard much discussion
either way on code. My opinions on its usefulness and desireability were
formed based entirely on actual operating experience. I was surprised to
learn that there was a big discussion on it in the amateur community.

Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations
equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW
Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total
the scores...

I think you get the point.

What point?

Try thinking about it just a wee little bit.

I did. It's not clear.

Spell it out for us, please.

I'll spell it out for you, Jim.

Thank you, Brian!

Any time.

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.

You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.

40% is more like it.

49.5% according to your very own postings.

You are mistaken, Brian.

The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of
Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All
Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested).

In addition, many hams whose licenses say "Technician" are code tested
and have some HF privileges. These include:

- all Tech Pluses who have renewed since April 15, 2000
- all Novices who have upgraded to Technician
- all Technicians who have passed Element 1, but not the written exam
for General

btw, no US amateur radio license is "code-free". All of them can use
Morse Code.

Probably most of the coded licensees never looked back when
they learned the code to get past a licensing hurdle, don't use code,
and couldn't if their lives depended on it.

That's not a given at all.

I would expect you to say something like that.

Remember the ARRL survey that was debated so much here?

The one where as a member, I did not receive a ballot?

The one that Mike Deignan characterized as "substantive?"

Yes, I recall the survey. Looked as if it had been developed by a
bunch of dems hoping to influence the outcome of an election.

You mean like this:

http://www.rawstory.com/showoutartic...s/15869924.htm

btw, next Tuesday I get to choose between Curt Weldon and Joe Sestak.
Which do you think I should vote for?

It showed that
less than 40% of those hams who were asked never used Morse Code. And
it included licensees from all license classes, not just those who had
passed code tests.

Add to that those who rarely used code.

Why?

Even if someone rarely uses it, that means they still remember it and
can use it at some level.

Sure there are those who learned just enough to pass the Morse Code
test and then never used it - just as there are those who just enough
to pass the *written* tests and then never used it

Heck, your buddy Len couldn't even get the length of a 73 MHz
quarter-wave whip antenna right, and he's a "PROFESSIONAL"!

And you couldn't even get the distance to the moon,

You are mistaken.

You've repeatedly claimed that I mis-stated the distance from Earth to
the moon on rrap.
Show us where I did that - if you can.

I don't think you can, because it did not happen. If I did it, show us.

Otherwise you're just making things up.

and you're a "professional."

I've never claimed to be a professional astronomer.

Len claims to be a "PROFESSIONAL in radio-electronics" (whatever that
is) but he messes up on the length of an antenna for a radio service he
has claimed to use.

So put all USA licensed amateurs in fron of a station equipped with a
morse code key and with CWGet and total their scores.

I presume you mean "contest scores"

Why?

Why not? They're operating in a CW Contest. Why wouldn't you total
their scores?

What's the point?

Who is going to set up and pay for all those stations? What sort of
stations would they be - HF, VHF, UHF? What sort of antennas, rigs,
computers?

Think about it.

I did. That's why I'm asking the question.

Do you think the taxpayers should subsidize amateur radio stations?

The Morsemen

Who are they?

can bandy about the CQ WW and Field Day CW vs SSB contest
scores all they want without having to standardize station equipment.
I bring up a scenario and NOW station equipment must be standardized.

Who said anything about standardizing station equipment? Not me.

I simply want to know where all those stations are supposed to come
from.

There's some bias in your approach.

None at all.

Any ham who wants to operate Morse Code using CWGet or some other
software can do so right now - if they have a station that includes
rig, antenna, and computer.

Yep. I can finally agree with something you said.

So a version of the experiment you describe can happen in every
contest. But it doesn't.

Yet I don't know of any amateur radio contesters who operate that way.
Do you?

Nobody knew of anyone who operated amateur radio as in Larry Rolls
"Only CW can save the situation" but I NEVER ONCE saw your objection to
it.

So what? I don't read everything written to rrap. Larry hasn't posted
here in *years*.

I bring up a scenario and NOW you have a problems with how contestors
operate.

Not at all.

I just don't see anyone using CWGet to operate a contest - even though
they could. Heck *you* could. Why don't you?

There's some bias in your approach.

None at all.

Your "thought experiment" doesn't seem to be thought out very well.

Sure it was.

Alternative scenario snipped.

Why? Aren't you up to such a simple challenge? Here it is again:

Field Day 2007.

Entry class 1B-1 (one transmitter, one operator).

The challenge is to assemble, transport, set up, operate, and take down
a complete FD station - singlehanded, no outside help - and make the
highest score.

Field Day location must not be owned by the participant and must not be
a licensed amateur station location. Station location must be under FCC
jurisdiction.

All equipment used must be legitimately owned by the operator.

All FCC regulations and ARRL rules that apply to Field Day must be
complied with by all involved.

Results report must be submitted to ARRL before the deadline. Highest
official score wins.

A simple, real-world challenge. What's the problem?

The requirements for US amateur radio license have been slowly but
steadily reduced for more than 25 years now.

Just 25 years?

I wrote "more than 25 years".

I guess you forgot about the "Conditional" license
where hams get an upgrade from their buddy.

What does that mean?

Besides, the Conditional stopped being issued about 30 years ago.

Yep, but nobody ever claimed that amateur radio was being dumbed down.
The USA amateur service has a proud history of it.

How was it "dumbing down" to eliminate the Conditional?

Jeez you're thick.

No, Brian, I'm not "thick". You just did a poor job of explaining.

It was dumbing down to create such a license class.

Why? The Conditional and its predecessor Class C go back to before the
FCC.

Not just the code tests
but also the writtens. That's not the fault of those taking the tests.

No, of course not. It's not anyones fault except the FCC that they put
offices so far away from ham's residences.

??

The reason FCC stopped doing testing was to save money.

It doesn't cost the FCC anything for an amateur to show up for testing,
unless you want to claim that the examinees got to file a voucher for
their travel.

Actually it cost FCC a lot of money to do testing.

It was the travel distance that was key in the creation of the
Conditional license, not the desire for the FCC to save money.

I was writing about the reason the FCC stopped doing license testing
for *all* license classes. That's part of the reduction in
requirements.

Try to stay on the subject.

I am on the subject. You're trying to change it.

First off, they had to have offices with test facilities. The office
they had in Philadelphia back when I took my exams was on the 10th
floor of the Custom House at 2nd and Chestnut. Lots of square feet of
prime real estate just for the exam room.

Then there was the time of the examiners, all of whom worked for FCC.
Pay and benefits. At least two people per office, three days a week.
Times the number of offices all over the country.

Then add the FCC folks who revised the exams, duplicated them, and
distributed them to the various offices all over the country. And the
cost of doing all that.

The VE system eliminated all that expense. All FCC has to do now wrt
amateur license testing is to look over the QPC submissions and approve
them. And occasionally retest somebody.

That's all wunnerful, but you vectored off of the subject.

Nope.

Maybe next
time you'll be able to cut and paste something germane to the subject.

The subject was the reduction in license requirements by FCC giving
over the testing to VEs.

Eliminating Element 1 will not save the FCC any expense. Keeping it
will not cost them anything, either. Maybe that's why it's taking them
so long.

Maybe. But they didn't even make the effort to define Morse Code in
the rules for the last 3 R&Os.

Why should they? Is there any doubt?

Yet they tell you that the exam myst be
5WPM, and you've got all these VEs getting to define what that means.

It's not a problem to anyone with common sense.

They replaced
their paid examiners with unpaid volunteers.

Good thing there wasn't a union.

Why?

Are you anti-union?

No. Are you?

Do you favor scabs?

Bandages are better.

It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't use
any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set. I've
used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been licensed.
I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used smith
charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I can
choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory
end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it..

Brian, do you think that using a false sexist claim is somehow going to
cause you to win the debate?

No false sexist claim.

It's a sexist claim to assume that Dee's husband takes care of the
Ohm's Law and Theory
end of her station

Why? She said she hardly, if ever, used it. Somebody's got to be
doing it?

You're presuming she's not doing what needs to be done, and is
dependent on someone else to deal with the theory. I don't think that's
the case at all.

If I considered your opinion to be wrong, do I get to call you a liar?

Why would you do that?

Have I ever called *anyone* here a liar?

W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him
these days.

Where do you get that idea?

Hmmm?

I've put up antennas with W3RV. Or rather, I helped out a little, since
he had it all worked out on his own. No sisters involved.

He does know quite a lot about antennas, particularly the practical
side. He even knows that a quarter wave at 73 MHz is a lot longer than
three and one quarter inches....

Prolly for illegal operation. He has no authorization in that area.

Actually, he does. Part 95 remote control, same as your buddy Len. And
everybody else.

Fair is fair, yes?

You're not fair at all.

Since you have a corner on the fairness market, do you plan to be the
RRAP Moderator?

Wait and see.

ARRL November CW Sweepstakes starts Saturday afternoon and ends Sunday
night. I'll be there - will you?

Nope, but knock yourself out.

I'll be awake and operating. CWGet won't be part of it.

Such an attempt is foolish. Anyone who is intimidated by that must not
be
aware how easy that information is to find these days.

Dee, N8UZE

Information coupled with action is called stalking.
yea when it also includes using the Usmail to harras and false call to
law enforencement and..

and...
and...
and...

.......and that is what happens when you big, tough, macho guys choose to be
an idiot and use your real names and callsigns on Usenet.
We told you so!

Neener! Neener! Neener!

wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

[snip]
It's a sexist claim to assume that Dee's husband takes care of the
Ohm's Law and Theory
end of her station

Why? She said she hardly, if ever, used it. Somebody's got to be
doing it?

You're presuming she's not doing what needs to be done, and is
dependent on someone else to deal with the theory. I don't think that's
the case at all.


No he's simply presuming that every aspect of amateur radio needs to deal
with every aspect of theory. That is a fundamental fallacy that too often
is used in an attempt to sidetrack a debate.

Dee, N8UZE

From: on Mon, Oct 30 2006 3:58
pm

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

EXCESSIVE QUOTING not germane to posting elided


Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.

You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.

40% is more like it.

49.5% according to your very own postings.

You are mistaken, Brian.

Tsk, everyone not in-line with your prissy pedantry of
"exact word definition" is "mistaken." :-)

Or "in error." Or just about any other adjective set
stopping short of actually USING the word "LIAR." :-)

The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of
Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All
Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested).

Do all those Plusses love, honor, and obey morsemanship?

Do you have 'accurate' statistics on that? Or just the
PCTA-biased 'stats' from Joe Speroni?

In addition, many hams whose licenses say "Technician" are code tested
and have some HF privileges.

Yes, in YOUR mind they DO love, honor, and obey morse...

So, if one strips away the Micollis massaging of morse,
the NO-CODE-TEST Technician class is STILL the LARGEST
US amateur radio class. Overwhelmingly.

The MAJORITY (no shaving of fractions there) of newcomers
are getting INTO US amateur radio via the NO-CODE-TEST
Tech class. Just enough to barely keep the total of all
licensees at the same level they were three years ago.

Attrition is keeping the EXPIRED numbers so large. Some
must be quitting the ARS before their lives are over...


btw, no US amateur radio license is "code-free". All of them can use
Morse Code.

BY THE WAY, prissy pedant, the phrase "code-free" refers
to the LICENSE TEST. TEST, Mother Superior. TEST.


Add to that those who rarely used code.

Why?

Even if someone rarely uses it, that means they still remember it and
can use it at some level.

I was wrong to write only two adjectives. It should be
three: Prissy, ****Y pedant. You have morse code on
the brain. [there might be a medical cure for that...]


Len claims to be a "PROFESSIONAL in radio-electronics" (whatever that
is) but he messes up on the length of an antenna for a radio service he
has claimed to use.

So, you did NOT see my own acknowledgement of my typo?

Of course not. You are operating in character-assassin mode
and SELECTIVELY highlight 'errors.' :-)

I've gotten money in return for services rendered. In the legal
sense that means I have done "professional work." The IRS thinks
so, the California Franchise Tax Board thinks so, and both have
been given the proper income tax copies.

I don't "claim" anything when I've handled an R-C control box
and flown a model aircraft. I simply DID it. :-) No morse
code or test for same required, NO license needed!


The Morsemen

Who are they?

Tsk, tsk, tsk, a worshipper at the shrine of Eniac and double-
dipped EE who CAN'T FIGURE THAT OUT?!? :-)

It is all those PCTAs who do 1906 thinking in the year 2006.

One of them is YOU. Another one is the knuckle-spanking
Mother Superior that you turn into when you go cross-dressing.
:-(


I simply want to know where all those stations are supposed to come
from.

...from off-shore manufacturers? :-)

...for "under $100" using salvage from "old TV sets?" :-)



So what? I don't read everything written to rrap. Larry hasn't posted
here in *years*.

All of three...that we know about. :-)



Jeez you're thick.

No, Brian, I'm not "thick". You just did a poor job of explaining.

You ARE thick. You couldn't figure out what "morsemen" are.


The reason FCC stopped doing testing was to save money.

It doesn't cost the FCC anything for an amateur to show up for testing,
unless you want to claim that the examinees got to file a voucher for
their travel.

Actually it cost FCC a lot of money to do testing.

It was the travel distance that was key in the creation of the
Conditional license, not the desire for the FCC to save money.

I was writing about the reason the FCC stopped doing license testing
for *all* license classes. That's part of the reduction in
requirements.

Oh, my, ON-LINE REDEFINITIONS! Goll-eeee, Gomer, you sure
NEED to win each and every argument, don't you? :-)

Tsk, tsk, tsk, the FCC privatized *ALL* radio operator
license testing. That's not just amateur...it involves
ALL RADIO SERVICES.

Hello? If you are going to MISDIRECT, at least be
ACCURATE about it! That's only common sense, and a
bit of fair play.

Justice.


The subject was the reduction in license requirements by FCC giving
over the testing to VEs.

The FCC "gave over" nothing to the COLEMs? Tsk, tsk!


Maybe. But they didn't even make the effort to define Morse Code in
the rules for the last 3 R&Os.

Why should they? Is there any doubt?

LEGALLY, the FCC does NOT define morse code WORD RATE.

The FCC defines a lot of technical requirements in Part 97.
Yet they keep thinking the CCITT-ITU Telegram Standard will
define word rate. It does not.


Yet they tell you that the exam myst be
5WPM, and you've got all these VEs getting to define what that means.

It's not a problem to anyone with common sense.

Tsk, you prattle on about "common sense." You haven't figured
out what "morsemen" are or "morsemenship" is after over a year
of use in here?!? :-)


If I considered your opinion to be wrong, do I get to call you a liar?

Why would you do that?

Have I ever called *anyone* here a liar?

You don't KNOW?!? :-)

You need to go Google yourself. :-)

Maybe not. The narcisstic would enjoy it too much. That
would be like emotional masturbation. :-)

Enjoy!