"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
.com:


"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in
:

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

Dee, no doubt CW has its benefits. Contrary to a lot of the
"pro-CW" folks, the "anti-CW" folks recognize its capabilities.
(It's silly to even put the groups in such diverse categories.)
However, that does not negate the argument that, even though it
may be quite beneficial, there are those of us who simply choose
not to learn it well enough for practicability (eh?).


You don't have to use it, just learn it. I don't like the stupid
satellite questions on the test, but I had to learn them. (sorry
satellite folks) If we threw out all the parts that some people did
not want to learn, there would soon be no test whatsoever.


I'd be happy to have as many _questions_ on the _written_exams_ about
Morse as about each other mode. A ham should _know_about_ all the
modes. What offends a lot of us is a _practical_ test in only _one_
mode. To take your example, if you had to track a satellite pass and
work someone via satellite to get a licence, and that was the only
practical test, that wouldn't be right either, as it would be an
unbalanced requirement relative to all the other things you can do in
the hobby. If you want to have a practical test, how about soldering?
At least it's not mode- specific.


Actually I agree with having a soldering test. I consider it a basic
skill that all hams should have at least to the extent of soldering a
PL259 connector to coax and demonstrating that they have achieved
continuity and no shorts.

The difference between CW and satellite is that CW is commonly used
(about 50% of hams use CW some to all of the time) and it is cheap to
use. Satellite is uncommon and expensive. In addition, it takes
actually having a basic, minimal skill level at CW to judge whether one
wishes to pursue it to a useful level thus the prospective ham should
be required to learn a basic minimum.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



Well, Dee, CW isn't used by me, although I have never actually worked
anyone through a satellite either. I question whether as many as 50%
really use CW to any great extent. It's always the same few people in any
club who come out to work CW at field day, and they have never been close
to 50% in any ham club I've belonged to.

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:
In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:


On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:53:58 -0400, Scott Unit 69 wrote:

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.

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 raneg of
arguably-correct answers.

Yup. Go check out rraa. There is a former member of this group involved
in a months long debate. Just as a sample of the lengths some will go to
to prove they are "right". Who would arbitrate contested answers?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Noted. Same old stuff, different year. Brian

Mike Coslo writes:

Just like the one lunchtime in high school when I put all my money
into the jukebox in the cafeteria and played "On the Cover of the
Rolling Stone" lessee, um.... 30 times. 3 dollars at a dime per
play.

Ah, memoriess...I once played Duran Duran's "Rio" about 50 times,
loudly, from my car stereo while stuck in a traffic jam. Made me feel
better.

It was finally unplugged after the last lunch shift, and I wasn't
around to demand my money back for the unplayed songs.

My dad and I would load up the jukebox at our favorite pizza place
with oldies, but not the same one. Daydream Believer, Lodi, Seven
Spanish Angels...the buggers behind the counter starting rejecting our
songs and giving our quarters back.

--Len.

Bingo! We are actually doing that next year!


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:
Don't know about our local group but I heard something like around a 100
morse code contacts (all bands being used) and around 70-80 voice mode
contacts.

Myself and about 1/3 to 1/2 of our local club pretty much boycotted
Field
Day this year..... (issues with local club)


Ya should have splintered off and done your own FD!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"K0HB" wrote:

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. (snip)


The message you replied to was posted many days ago as a commentary on the
speculation at that time surrounding the test requirement issue at the ITU
meeting. Clearly, since that message, the issue has been resolved - ending
the speculation.


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

Let the games begin (again).


Yes, now the speculation has begun concerning possible future FCC actions
in response to the ITU decision. That should be good for many weeks of
additional speculation and argument.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"K0HB" wrote:


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. (snip)



The message you replied to was posted many days ago as a commentary on the
speculation at that time surrounding the test requirement issue at the ITU
meeting. Clearly, since that message, the issue has been resolved - ending
the speculation.



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

Let the games begin (again).



Yes, now the speculation has begun concerning possible future FCC actions
in response to the ITU decision. That should be good for many weeks of
additional speculation and argument.


Gee Dwight, this harms you in some manner?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Gee Dwight, this harms you in some manner?


Silly question, Mike. Do my comments about the nearly endless speculation
harm you in some manner? Of course not. This has been going on for years.
Surely there is no harm in commenting on that fact.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:


Gee Dwight, this harms you in some manner?



Silly question, Mike. Do my comments about the nearly endless speculation
harm you in some manner? Of course not. This has been going on for years.
Surely there is no harm in commenting on that fact.


No harm done then!


- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in :



Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:


Gee Dwight, this harms you in some manner?



Silly question, Mike. Do my comments about the nearly endless
speculation
harm you in some manner? Of course not. This has been going on for
years. Surely there is no harm in commenting on that fact.


No harm done then!


- Mike KB3EIA -



That's better - fixed the title of the thread

AH!! Well, thanks for clarifying that Dwight. I thought I could see a
whole Header, but I guess not!

Kim W5TIT


"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

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


It isn't the long winded messages, Kim. The header comment refers to the
message reference list in the messages you replied to (part of the header
information included with all reply messages, used by news programs to
thread messages). Since that reference list was so long, your news program
or ISP cut some of the information off. This was neither your fault (it
came
from the message you replied to) or anything for you to really worry
about.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/



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