Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message

I dunno. I doubt it though. I wonder if a person who doesn't want to
jump through hoops is going to do much of anything that he/she doesn't
want to do.


Mike,

Do you seriously believe that just because someone is not interested in
Morse that they could not be interested in, and contribute in valuable
ways to, other aspects of ham radio?

Do you seriously not believe that?

An engineer can always get a technician's license. Why aren't we seeing
this happening? At least in my area, the Engineers with tech licenses
are there as they transition through the ranks.

"Elmering" new hams who are not technical on the technical aspects

designing new modes

writing useful ham software

building networks

public service communications

A technician engineer can do that

emergency/disaster communications
"SKYWARN"
etc., etc.

A technician Engineer can do all of these things.

Just because someone isn't interested in jumping through the Morse
hoop, doesn't mean that they are so selfish that they can't/won't
contribute.

If your premise is true, then why aren't there loads of Technician level
Engineers? In fact, I would give a whole lot more credence to a group of
technically savvy Engineers who have their Technician's license, and
they tell the ARRL and FCC. "Hey here we are folks! We're not going one
level past Technician because we simply don't believe in the Morse code
requirement."

It would have been nice to have hordes of technically competent
Technician level Engineers at the vangaurd of the Anti-Morse movement.

Instead we apparently have those who say "we won't participate at all
unless everything is to our liking, if your premise is to be believed.


Umm, Carl.... you are here! You have have achieved your goal, at least
will be very soon. I'm going to have to assume the reason is to engage
in a little gloating? So you're getting what you want on all counts. You
really wouldn't have to hear all us PCTA's crying if you didn't want to.

In other words, if you want to discuss it, we're here. Lessay we all do
what you want, and "just live with it". I guess that means we're
supposed to shut up. Then you wouldn't have the fun of discussing it
with us, or even telling us to "just live with it".

I don't think you would like that very much..


I'm not here to gloat ... I'm here to make sure that newcomers hear
the news and aren't overly tainted by being totally awash in PCTAs
to the point that they think all hams are that way and decide that ham
radio isn't really for them after all, because of a false perception that
it's totally populated with the sort of folks that they'd really not like to
associate. :-)

I think you just said that a person who is a PCTA is someone not to be
associated with?!?!?!?!?

Thanks for the "locker room wall" post! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

I'm not here to gloat ... I'm here to make sure that newcomers hear
the news and aren't overly tainted by being totally awash in PCTAs
to the point that they think all hams are that way and decide that ham
radio isn't really for them after all, because of a false perception that
it's totally populated with the sort of folks that they'd really not like to
associate. :-)

I think you just said that a person who is a PCTA is someone not to be
associated with?!?!?!?!?

Thanks for the "locker room wall" post! 8^)

Mike, that's mild stuff for Carl. Go Googling for his posts and get an
education in bilgewater postings.

Dick Carroll wrote:

Arnie Macy wrote:


"JJ" wrote ...

You mean you and Larry boy don't know semaphore Dick? Why that is just
plain LAZINESS. You know, when conditions are so bad that you and Larry have
to rely on CW and your faithful CW rigs gives up the ghost or conditions get
SO bad that CW can't even get through you and Larry could save the world by
using semaphore, if you had that skill, that is.
________________________________________________ _______________________

I have to presume by your comment, JJ that you indeed know semaphore.
Otherwise, you look stupid when you chastise them for a skill you don't
possess. And, of course -- I'm sure it's just plain LAZINESS on your part.
What else could it be?


Arnie, if learning semaphores had been a licensing requirement for the ARS, I
would have learned it along with lots of others, like it or not.

Hear, Hear!


I sure wouldn't
have sat on my backside for most of my lifetime carping about how 'unnecessary'
it all was to make me jump through some "useless" hoop.

Hear, Hear!

Alas, poor Richard, they are those we now seek to bolster our ranks.

Now if Carl can get to then before those nasty PCTA's with whom they
don't want to associate!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote ...

Fred Maia, W5YI, was quoted as saying something along that line WRT the
Tech test ... but Fred is just *one* of the Directors of NCI, and I can
state that his view in that regard is NOT NCI policy and is not shared by me
or the rest of the NCI board. (IIRC, Fred also said he'd like to make the
Extra test more rigorous ...)

[Of course, NCI was never in favor of removing the digital/CW sub bands
either, right?]

No, we were not ... and we never said we were. If you "google" or whatever,
you will, I am sure, find numerous instances of me saying that I would *not*
favor an expansion of the phone bands at the expense of the digital/CW
sub-bands, because I wouldn't want to see the future development of digital
modes impeded. (the rest snipped)
__________________________________________________ _______________________

That could be what I was thinking of. Quoted by ya'll referring to Fred.
But I distinctly remember there being a discussion about lowering the
technical test requirements and that NCI was in favor of that.

Now, as to Digital/CW sub-bands. Below is the official comment by NCI -- it
sure sounds like they would roll over and play dead if it should ever come
to supporting the keeping of sub-bands for Digital/CW. Do you read it
differently, Carl?
__________________________________________________ ________________________

"d. Third, Mr. Kane recommends that there be no regulatory distinction made
between modes of transmission. This point would likely gain mixed, but
significant support amongst NCI's membership, and it should be pointed out
that this is the norm in the rest of the world and no real harm seems to
have come from the lack of restrictive sub-band-by-mode limitations such as
those currently embodied in the Commission's Rules."

From NCIs Reply comments to the NPRM


Arnie -
KT4ST

Brian Kelly wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


I await the influx of all these engineers and the advances they
will bring Amateur Radio.


Don't hold your breath waiting for either.


Heh, heh. Thanks Brian, I was starting to turn blue there! 8^) You're
right, it isn't going to happen.



Did anyone seriously say they were really interested in Ham
radio, but the Morse Code test kept them out? just har dto
imagine that someone really interested would do that.


Right on the money.



I have reported that, in my over 32 years in the RF communications
business, I have worked with MANY very competent engineers who
would be interested in ham radio, but can't/won't be bothered with
wasting their time jumping through a silly Morse code "hoop."

Some have become hams since they could get meaningful HF privs for
"only" 5 wpm ... I'm sure that more will once they can do the same
without having to waste their time on even 5 wpm ... these are
folks that could pass a technical test well beyond the Extra. Do
you doubt that, even without Morse proficiency, they could/would
make good hams and could contribute to the service?



Brings up a question Carl: You're a seasoned EE and have been a ham
for many years. What technology-based contributions have you made to
the service?


I understand he is working on some sort of device that PCTA's will have
to use so that we can be identified on the air, so that the new hams
will know not to associate with us! ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

JJ wrote:


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


Fred Maia, W5YI, was quoted as saying something along that line WRT the
Tech test ... but Fred is just *one* of the Directors of NCI, and I can
state that
his view in that regard is NOT NCI policy and is not shared by me or the
rest of the NCI board. (IIRC, Fred also said he'd like to make the Extra
test
more rigorous ...)


Having known Fred Maia personally in the past, I would not put much
stock in anything he has to say.

So he is incorrect in this?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Alun Palmer" wrote ...

How do you know they are not here? Do you really know what each of us
majored in? I really don't think so.
__________________________________________________ _________________________

The numbers speak louder than any person -- or the lack thereof. See how
easy that was?

Arnie -

"Kim W5TIT" wrote ...

No doubt what started ham radio was an experiment using the best of what
was around then. Perhaps you'd like to move into the most recent century,
Dick. If ham radio were "invented" today, it would never even get near CW.
__________________________________________________ _______________________

Or SSB, Kim.

Arnie -
KT4ST

"What Hath God Wrought?"

Alun Palmer wrote:
"Guessing" wrote in
news:bXVPa.1425$Bd5.445@fed1read01:


I still maintain it is all a matter of achieve or cop out. Make
excuses or meet a challenge.
And you are correct "Code aptitude and IQ are completely unrelated" So
much for the "Engineer copout"

It has nothing to do whether you or I like or dislike the code.


I disagree. If someone doesn't like CW, why on earth should they be forced
to train as a CW operator to get accesss to phone frequencies? This is a
hobby.


It has nothing to do with "Antiquated technology"


I don't think CW can match PSK or TOR, so it is somewhat antiquated, IMHO

Well, Alun, what say we just get rid of all the "antiquated"
technologies? Our anonymous friend is right.



It has nothing to do with "I'll never use code"


On the contrary. I don't use code, so why did I have to learn to use it?

You don't have to learn anything you don't want to learn.

It has everything to do with "Want HF Ham Ticket -- Pass the Test "(at
the moment) If dropped is all OK with me. Times and requirements change
as they should.


So you have no trouble with the oncoming changes, then?

I do. A Celebration of Entropy


Black and white -- yep sure is -- society, government, et al make it
that way. Don't Drink and Drive, 3 strikes you are outta here -- Pass
the Test -- pretty black and white to me.



So you don't beleive anyone should try to change any of the rules?


As for Anyone who used the code as an excuse for not becoming a
ham, just

wasn't serious about it.

An unsupported assertion, and untrue

I have talked with hundreds and I mean hundreds of folks and VE's over
the years and here are the copouts.

I don't have time. The most common one. VE's here have found that 15
min a day EVERY day practice and in a month --90%+ pass the code test
BUT the other 10% spend all night on the boob tube.



Usually that is just an excuse, I agree. My XYL uses it all the time!


I'll never use code. (You may never have to parallel park either) (if
they still require that)



No, that one is valid.


I can't take tests (Has Drivers License and a BSEE)

Its a lot easier to get on CB

Its too expensive (has $1000 computer, can't afford a Swan 350 at $250)



That one makes me smile too

That Swan should be outa the picture. It's antiquated technology.


Its so illogical (so is a job interview at times)

Notice I didn't even mention whether I am a Ham or not -- Tech no-code
or Extra ---pro or anti-code -- cause that ain't got nothing to do
with -- PASS THE TEST


"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
. ..

"Guessing" wrote in
news:QWCPa.913$Bd5.644@fed1read01:


Someone squawked
As an engineer myself, I can verfiy that lots of engineers have
told me exactly that. Whether they would get a licence once code
testing is abolished might be another matter.

Nonsense and a big copout

It happens to be the truth, whether you like it or not


If you want a BS/MS/PHD Degree -- pass the tests
Want a driver license -- take a test
Want a job - take a drug test and physical exam and perhaps a
professional test
Want insurance -- take a physical exam
Want to be an apprentice (JourneyPerson) -- take the test
Want to advance in the Military -- take the test
Pass the Bar (Legal that is) Pass Da Test
Nurses CPR for sure and maybe ACLS Tests
Sobriety Test -- Try to dodge this one
et al tests
Want an HF Ham license -- take the code and Technical/Rules et al
test

Code won't be included in that for much longer. I assume that since
you just say 'take the test' about everything, that you must have no
problem with that. I certainly don't!


Otherwise we have CB and FRS. And one who listens on these bands
ought to be totally inspired to get a Ham Ticket !!!

Simple as that.


You live in a 'black and white' world, don't you?


Anyone who used the code as an excuse for not becoming a ham, just
wasn't serious about it.


An unsupported assertion, and untrue


If 10 to 17 year olds can do it, why can't an engineer or any other
college grad ???


Code aptitude and IQ are completely unrelated


Did any of those "Engineers" get a No-Code Tech license ??

Yes, I did (although I did code eventually)


Didn't think so !!

"N2EY" wrote in part ...

There are at least three different kinds of knowledge - facts, concepts and
skills.
__________________________________________________ _________________

In government service we refer to these as KSAs, Knowledge, Skill, Ability

Arnie -
KT4ST