wrote:
"Dick Carroll;" writes:

wrote:

"Dick Carroll;" writes:

Wrong again, Bill. I define limited interest in ham radio as limited
interest in ham radio.

Where Ham Radio isn't Ham Radio if the CW testing requirement is
dropped. I approve of keeping the requirement, but I dispute your
right to define the ARS in terms like these.

Oh. So you don't believe that limited interest is actually limited
interest. I see.


You aren't that dense, so of course you're making this straw man on
purpose. You define "limited interest in CW" to be "limited interest
in ARS" because you define ARS as inherently including CW. Since
that's the topic under discussion, you are begging the question.

Where did Dick make that quote?

- Mike KB3EIA -

X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 10:22:27 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: !^Th1k-Y,5+DF(0N'$e (Encoded at Airnews!)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165

wrote in message ...

I believe in keeping the CW requirement, and even adding a few more
requirements, precisely to enhance the loyalty of licensees and to
discourage those who wouldn't be active anyway, or would engage in bad
practice. But I don't beg the original question; I've pointed out that
a swimming requirement would do almost as well.


Len, not to be argumentative, but there are numbers of hams who got their
license even under more stringent testing requirements than the past few
years, who are inactive and, of those still active, have terrible, terrible
operating practices.

CW doesn't prove loyalty, staying active, or provide for positive operating
practices. It simply means one has passed a CW test, don't you think?

Kim W5TIT

IOW, I believe in weeding out those whose interest in ARS is
sufficiently limited that he refuses to take and pass the swimming
test--but I wouldn't say, "If you aren't interested in swimming a
mile, you aren't interested in ARS."

Likewise with CW.

Regards,
Len.


Again, I don't believe in "weeding out" anyone who can and wants to pass the
requirements to get a ham license. And passing CW doesn't weed out
anything, heck, listen to any of the HF frequencies that we all have heard
with the creeps and nitwits on.

The only "area" in which the frequencies may prove out your belief is,
literally, on the CW bands, where--simply because of the mode of
operation--bad operating practices aren't easily facilitated. I know many
hams who claim to be "pure of heart" for the sake of their fellow CW-only
friends who, the minute they get on 2M or in an eyeball meeting, rival any
bad practices I've heard and have the language of the rest of us when we are
speaking verbally! GRIN

CW alone doesn't equal good operating, etc. The mode just simply doesn't
facilitate anything but a jargon based language that is difficult to spend
time swearing, cursing, etc.

Kim W5TIT

Dee D. Flint wrote:

Yes you need the high school diploma to get by in life but you don't "need"
a lot of the subjects that you are required to learn. How often do you use
history in daily life unless you are a teacher or politician? Who needs to
have knowledge of Shakespeare and other classic literature to get by in
daily life?

If you are going to talk Shakespeare with my wife (High School
English Literature teacher) you better be able to recite the
prolog from the Canterbury tales in Olde English.

(Vshah101) wrote in message ...
From: Mike Coslo:

My final original point was that that a person who would not study
Morse code in order to get a General license must have an interest akin
to mine towards piloting a plane. That is to say "Thanks but no thanks."


The skill has to be relevant. You should not use some unrelated skill as some
sort of barrier to getting a higher license class.

Morse Code is not (has not) been irrelevent. It has been a legal
prerequisite for operation on HF allocations.

Morse code does not necessarily show more interest. Its possible that someone
not interested in Morse may have an interest in many more areas therefore
having more interest in amateur radio than some that are mostly interested in
Morse code.

If they are not interested enough to do what's necessary to get a
license, then they are not interested enough. Taking the time to get
past the 5WPM test, even when it's not one's primary interest,
certainly DOES show one's more interested than one who is not.

Putting this artificial barrier may have the effect of blocking out those with
more ability or interest in favor of those with less ability or interest. The
only thing being that some with less ability or interest learned Morse code,
did HF, and not much else. A higher license class should represent more ability
(in the skills tested), not less.

An HF license DOES show more ability. I can do more with my HF
radio than YOU can, Vippy.

Code has nothing to do with the written material. It's a different kind of
skill. And it's a single skill independent of other skills. Just as various
awards are recognized individually, like Worked All States, one can recognize
code skill separately from the written tests.

The written tests are classes of technical ability. By placing code in between,
it implies that someone that learned code automatically and instantly also has
higher technical ability. We know that's not true. For example, degreed EEs
tend to have higher technical ability since they have already studied some of
the material. They would still have to review the rf specific areas, and the
areas on regulations.

The code should not be in the path way in between the written tests. Basic
integrity in Amateur Radio testing requires that.

The Morse Code test is NOT in the way of the written tests. You
may pass all the written tests without having passed the Code test.
My wife passed the written General WITHOUT having passed the Code
test. Has the CSCE to prove it.

Steve, K4YZ

Mike Coslo writes:
wrote:

You define "limited interest in CW" to be "limited interest in ARS"
because you define ARS as inherently including CW. Since that's the
topic under discussion, you are begging the question.

Where did Dick make that quote?

http://tinyurl.com/g5wj

Regards,
Len.

"Dick Carroll;" writes:
Len wrote:

You define "limited interest in CW" to be "limited interest in ARS"
because you define ARS as inherently including CW. Since that's the
topic under discussion, you are begging the question.

NO, that's not the topic under discussion. The topic under discussion was
the REQUIREMENTS for licensing, whatever they might be.

Let's run through this slowly. The question is whether the CW
component of the ARS licensure requirement should be kept. (I say
yes.)

If the requirement were dropped, then the ARS would have no CW
requirement. Participation in the hobby would not involve the
mandatory learning of code. The ARS would be a hobby in which some
people learned code, and some people didn't. Clear?

Under that circumstance, people who got their "no-code extra" would be
participants in the ARS. Some of them wouldn't know Morse Code at
all. You would reply that they have "limited interest in the
ARS". That would be untrue; they have plenty of interest in the ARS,
but no interest in CW.

To equate "no interest in CW" with "limited interest in the ARS"
involves defining the ARS as inherently requiring CW--that the ARS
without CW isn't really the ARS at all. But whether the ARS should
require CW at all is the topic under discussion. You're begging the
question.

(It's possible to patch up your argument so that it doesn't beg the
question. But saying, "You don't want to learn CW, therefore you
aren't interested in the ARS" is pointless and begs the question.)

I believe in keeping the CW requirement, and even adding a few more
requirements, precisely to enhance the loyalty of licensees and to
discourage those who wouldn't be active anyway, or would engage in
bad practice...

Really? And how would a swimming requirement add to the operational
capability of a ham radio operator?

I didn't say it would. Learn to read. (Note: learning CW doesn't
affect the operational capability of someone who never uses it.)

If you support Morse code testing I assume you already know how
Morse code proficiency adds to the communications capability of a
ham radio operator.

Only if used. If not, the operator might as well have learned landline
telegraph code. The benefit for the hobby would still accrue, though.

Ah, you're already the enemy of the code free, and that just cinches
it. "weed them out" will get you no friends and lots of enemies on
here.

Barriers to entry are good. Weeding out the diffident is
beneficial. If that ticks off the diffident, they can have a latte and
a good cry, on the house.

Since swimming has about as much to do with radiocommunication as
tiddlewinks you're just blowing smoke now. Interest level is
interest level, you can't change it by playing semantics.

Interest is demonstrated by making the effort. The nature of the
effort is secondary--but if it meets some operational objective, so
much the better.

Regards,
Len.

"Kim W5TIT" writes:
wrote:

I believe in keeping the CW requirement, and even adding a few more
requirements, precisely to enhance the loyalty of licensees and to
discourage those who wouldn't be active anyway, or would engage in bad
practice...

Len, not to be argumentative, but there are numbers of hams who got
their license even under more stringent testing requirements than
the past few years, who are inactive and, of those still active,
have terrible, terrible operating practices.

You're right; it's a battle that can never be won. Refusing to fight
it only makes matters worse, unfortunately.

CW doesn't prove loyalty, staying active, or provide for positive
operating practices.

We won't know until we have hard data--which we won't have until the
requirement is dropped. Then we can ask: how many people got their
no-code extras? How many are active? How long did they stay active?

The issue is compounded because valid statistics on the current
situation are probably not available, so a comparison can never be
made. All we can do is theorize, which is (as one poster said) nothing
but blowing smoke.

Again, I don't believe in "weeding out" anyone who can and wants to
pass the requirements to get a ham license.

Me neither. I believe in "weeding out" those who won't. Exactly where
to place the bar is a danged good question.

And passing CW doesn't weed out anything, heck, listen to any of the
HF frequencies that we all have heard with the creeps and nitwits
on.

Let's go vigilante and give their names to Riley--you and me. Whaddaya say?

The only "area" in which the frequencies may prove out your belief
is, literally, on the CW bands, where--simply because of the mode of
operation--bad operating practices aren't easily facilitated.

That's one of the reasons I expect to use CW as my primary mode.

CW alone doesn't equal good operating, etc.

Never said it did. Raising entry barriers to the right level, on the
one hand, and beefing up enforcement, on the other, can sure help.

Regards,
Len.

PS Of course I'm also interested in CW for historical reasons, but
that alone probably wouldn't make me advocate it as a licensure
requirement.

wrote:
Mike Coslo writes:

wrote:

You define "limited interest in CW" to be "limited interest in ARS"
because you define ARS as inherently including CW. Since that's the
topic under discussion, you are begging the question.

Where did Dick make that quote?


http://tinyurl.com/g5wj


I searched that message, and nowhere was to be found "Limited interest
in CW"

The closest thing I found was:
Dick A no-code tech has a limited interest in ham radio or he'd become
Dick something other than a no-code tech. WITHOUT whining about the
Dickrequirements. And many do just that.

There it is. You'll note that he specifically said "limited interest"
and not referred to CW except in the word "no-code tech". There is a
world of difference between that and your quote.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo writes:

Where did Dick make that quote?

http://tinyurl.com/g5wj

I searched that message, and nowhere was to be found "Limited
interest in CW"

I get it. You don't know what "no-code" means. Sorry, can't help you.

Regards,
Len.

wrote:
"Dick Carroll;" writes:

Len wrote:

You define "limited interest in CW" to be "limited interest in ARS"
because you define ARS as inherently including CW. Since that's the
topic under discussion, you are begging the question.

NO, that's not the topic under discussion. The topic under discussion was
the REQUIREMENTS for licensing, whatever they might be.


Let's run through this slowly. The question is whether the CW
component of the ARS licensure requirement should be kept. (I say
yes.)

Ahh, there the problem is! At some point in the dark past, I mentioned
that I thought that a person who was interested in the ARS would take
whatever tests thrown at them. I noted at the time that this was a
separate issue from whether the Morse test should be kept or not.

To me it just seemed logical and a little obvious. We have a person or
two here who say they refuse to get a license or advanced license
because of the Morse code test. I have a really hard time concluding
that they have more of an interest in Amateur radio than those who do
take the tests.

note: no one has to become a ham, no one has to become a General or Extra.

- Mike KB3EIA -