Let's see if this new server gets all upset at a long post

wrote in message ...
"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?


Well, we kind of already have some pretty good barometers. Those HF hams
with the crappy operating practices that any one of us can listen to, right?
I'm not sure the current potential for the demise of CW as a testing element
will affect, one way or the other, the potential for good or bad operating
practices.


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.


Well, that is what is mostly done, here in this newsgruop anyway GRIN.


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.


You know what I have found? Nitwits that get on the air are often off the
air pretty darned quick. I've found through listening and actively
participating that a crappy operator is soon ignored by many and they get
fed up and go away. The problem is the flow never ebbs with all the people
getting into ham radio at any given point. There will *always* be crappy
new operators and crappy old operators.


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?


Heh heh, from what I hear a lot of the old geezers doing this have been
there forever. And, I've given some names up before--to no avail. It
depends on how close one is to the higher echelon. I'm pretty far down on
the totem pole.


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.


I'm not that desperate BIG EVIL GRIN for mere conversation. If I am that
desperate I'll run down to my local Starbucks and find a "cool" person to
talk to...LOL I hate to insult your intelligence by clarifying, but I do
hope you'll take this in the light(hearted) that it is meant to be. Heck,
Dick Carroll and Larry Roll can go on in anger/hate for a year or more with
this one sentence...


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.


Oh, I know you didn't. But, I know that Dick Carroll and Larry Roll are
reading my posts


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.


Tradition and a respect for it are the only reasons I advocate that 5 wpm
remain as a testing requirement.

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
st.net...
On 05 Jul 2003 02:23:30 GMT, N2EY wrote:

The big problem with essay and fill-in-the-blank questions is that the
answers
are not 100% objective. There's always a measure of judgement involved.

For example, take a simple question like "what is the length of a
half-wave
dipole cut for 7.1 MHz?" With multiple choice, the QPC says that one
answer
(say, 66 feet) is the correct one and all others are incorrect.

Want to make that one more fun? Do it like the 200 multi-guess
questions on the Multistate Bar Exam: give four choices - two are
obviously incorrect and two are "almost correct". Ask which of the
four is the -best- answer.

Yup. Imagine the following answer sets to the question:

What is the length of a half-wave dipole cut for 7.1 MHz?

Answer set #1:

A) 25 feet
B) 40 feet
C) 66 feet
D) 90 feet

Answer set #2:

A) 65 feet
B) 67 feet
C) 66 feet
D) 68 feet

But with essays and fill-in-the-blank, what tolerance do we put on the
correct answer? Is 67 feet acceptable? 68 feet? 66 feet 3 inches? The
person being tested could write a long dissertation on tapering elements,
the effect of ground, wire/tubing sizes, etc., and come up with a whole
range of arguably-correct answers.

And run into an examiner who doesn't understand all the nuances of
such an answer.....

Bingo. Heck, about a year and a half ago FCC recalled a few new questions
because the answers were wrong - this after they'd been reviewed by both the
QPC and FCC. Embarrassing.

From what I have researched, FCC went to multiple-choice questions for all
ham exams no later than 1961.

IIRC the Novice and Tech/General that I took in 1952 were all
multi-choice.

I was there then too, I'll vouch for that.

The Advanced and Extra allegedly had some diagram content in that era. Of
course after Feb 1953 all it took was a General for full privs.

The next written exam that I took was the Advanced in
1968 and by that time multi-choice was in place for a long time in
all FCC license exams with the exception of two pages of diagrams in
the Commercial Radiotelegraph Element 6 which had to be graded by an
engineer, not a regular examiner.

I read somewhere that the reasons the FCC dropped the essay-type exams
of the '30's and earlier were (a) The answers were too subject to
interpretation by the examiner and/or the candidate knew the correct
answers but bungled the composition of his answers (b) Multiple choice
answer sheets can be much more quickly graded, almost automatically
with an overlay type checking mask.

Also (c) Anyone who has half a brain can proctor and mark the test - no special
radio knowledge needed.

Speaking of overlay type checking masks, I recall when I first saw the answer
sheets and used the prescribed #2 pencils. I thought FCC had some sort of
computer marking system, and wondered whether it used optical methods (shining
a light through the paper, to be read by photocells) or electrical contacts
sensing the graphite from the pencil on the answer sheet. Imagine my
disappointment when the secretary at the FCC office merely put a punched paper
mask over the answer sheet.

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

wrote:
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.

No-code means a technician without the Morse code test. I was one once.

And I still don't see that quote.............

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo writes:

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.

Missed that. If so, I concede we have a misunderstanding! And, indeed,
that we agree. (My illustration using a swimming test is of course a
more extreme version of exactly what you say above.)

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.

I agree completely.

Regards,
Len.

"Kim W5TIT" writes:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

I have a really hard time concluding that they have more of an
interest in Amateur radio than those who do take the tests.

I don't know, Mike. In theory you may be right. But, in
practicality, it is my belief that someone can have an extreme
interest in ham radio and never get a license.

Mike's position is roughly equivalent to an Austrian economist's: you
can say you have an "extreme interest" in owning a Jaguar, but the
people who pony up the $60K are _proving_ their "extreme interest".
As Mises would say, people's words do not demonstrate their
values--their actions do.

And so it goes. I don't think anyone is more passionate about
emergency service than I used to be, but I was never involved on the
operational side--only on the training/process/advocacy side.

True, but that's a boundary case. Mike's position is unchanged if he
replaces "interest in ARS" with "interest in participating in ARS"
everywhere.

Regards,
Len.

"Kim W5TIT" writes:
wrote:

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

I'm not that desperate BIG EVIL GRIN for mere conversation.

Heh. CW users don't usually converse anyway--they usually exchange RST
reports. The payoff for me will be soldering a kit with my son, and
then hearing him holler, "Mommy, Abba and I just talked to Korea!"

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.

Oh, I know you didn't. But, I know that Dick Carroll and Larry Roll
are reading my posts

I have a fondness for curmudgeons. They add pepper to life. As long as
they don't insult me (too badly), I've got no quarrel with them.

Tradition and a respect for it are the only reasons I advocate that
5 wpm remain as a testing requirement.

The ARS without morse does seem to me a bit like PB&J with no J. :-)


Regards,
Len.

Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

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 -



I don't know, Mike. In theory you may be right. But, in practicality, it
is my belief that someone can have an extreme interest in ham radio and
never get a license. For instance:

An FCC employee may take up some cause for amateur radio just because they
are extremely interested in see the service/hobby have whatever "cause" it
is they've decided to take up. (Good grief, follow that one, will ya? LOL)

Now I have a headache! 8^)

A parent make have more interest in ham radio than many amateurs (proven by
being very involved in legislative matters concerning ham radio) because
their kid is involved.

And so it goes. I don't think anyone is more passionate about emergency
service than I used to be, but I was never involved on the operational
side--only on the training/process/advocacy side.

You see what I mean?

Well I'll admit for any possibility. It's a big strange world. I think
your situation kind of works for what I was saying though. For what you
were interested in, the technician's license was adequate.

Remember, I'm not saying that lack of interest is a bad thing.

What I am saying is that professed interest followed by not pursuing
that interest because of some "unfairness" (like CW testing) or somesuch
is pretty odd.

- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote:
Mike Coslo writes:

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.


Missed that. If so, I concede we have a misunderstanding! And, indeed,
that we agree. (My illustration using a swimming test is of course a
more extreme version of exactly what you say above.)

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.


I agree completely.


Phew! Actually I am glad you gave me that google link, because I went
back and re-read the posts to figure out where this whole thing went
astray. Seems it happened soon after I made my first post.

Seems that some of the more vociferous PCTA'ers agreed with me, and
then the other side felt compelled to check in. From there, the simple
statement got kind of stratified.

Oh well, time for a few Ibuprofen....

73 - Mike KB3EIA -

Dwight Stewart wrote in message ...

At this point in the ITU conference, it does not look good for a change in
the Morse Code proficiency requirement as a treaty obligation for
high-frequency access.

The ITU no longer requires Morse testing, and has left it to each
Administration to decide for themselves if they wish to require the
test.

Thus it is now up to someone to petition FCC to remove the requirement
from US regulations.

Let the games begin (again).

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:44:50 GMT, 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?

In my "daily life" with my wife I -better- know that stuff because
we both make references to exotica in those areas, and one does not
want to be considered an ignoramus or unlettered by one's spouse, right?

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane