Arnie Macy wrote:

"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

Yup, they're brain dead. Or never actaually got on the air and took a good
look around at what was going on.

"Guessing" wrote in message
news:kTWPa.1427$Bd5.928@fed1read01...

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

Alun I respect you opinions. Just like I don't like some laws (blue or
otherwise) and CC&R's in the HOA in which I live -- I can express a
personal
emotion or opinion as you have. But my point is that thousands who hate
the
code have passed the code test because they had to in order to achieve
their
goals. If one's desire to get on HF is high enough, the code should not be
a
deterrent as many have proved. And they didn't like proving it.

Just because thousands did it before, doesn't justify
keeping it (the 5 wpm test).

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.

Because the FCC sez so -- don't mix emotions with the law.
It is not a hobby -- FCC Part 97 sez it is a Service. (That ought to stir
up
a hornets nest!!)

BUT, you seem to say...accept it and never try to change
it. The ITU just dropped mandatory testing...for one of the
reasons being they didn't see any need to keep it. Not
one country spoke in favor of keeping mandatory code
as an ITU requirement.

It has nothing to do with "Antiquated technology"

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

Besides the point

The point being, in any case, that no one is saying
don't use morse anymore. The ONLY issue is the
test.

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?

FCC sez so -- you are making an excuse to avoid the requirement. Logic has
nothing to do with it -- its the law.

It's the law today. That'l change relatively soon.

Ask a lawyer about that one. Hey I
want to be a BSEE, why do I have to take History classes ????

You don't have to take history classes in some schools
to get a BSEE.

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?

None at all.

Good!.

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?

Of course change is inevitable. But for now -- buckle up

Or just wait it out a few months.

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!
Mine Too !!

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

No, that one is valid.

Try telling that to the FCC -- meantime Pass The Test

Or wait till it changes.

(SNIP)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Dick Carroll wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:


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!


Isn't it special, Mike? Carl is, unfortunately evidently not one of a kind, he's just
probably the worst example.


Well, I'm dissapointed.

Speaking of the No-coders, I wonder where the king of them all is? He
should be riding in with a heavenly host of trumpets blowing.......


- Mike KB3EIA -

Kim W5TIT wrote:


I think some PCTAs are darned great people and I have no problem associating
with them. I think some NCTAs are darned great people and I have no problem
associating with them. Now, you Dick, as a PCTA? Well, Carl's expression
above says it all.

Kim W5TIT

Larry and Dick are perfect examples of the elitist types of hams
to whom a new or prospective ham attends a ham club meeting sees
as an example of ham radio, and decides they don't want to have
anything to do with ham radio.

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
"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.

NCI was NOT in favor of that ... Fred, and Fred alone, in his capacity
on the QPC, stated something to the effect that HE thought that since
most Techs use store-bought rigs, the Tech test could be simplified.
I (and as I recall, all of the other NCI directors who spoke on the subject)
disagreed with that view.

However, Fred ALSO indicated that he thought that the Extra written
test could/should be made more rigorous.

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."

Simply stating the facts as perceived in terms of the membership's views.
This
is NOT NCI's issue though ... though, as I have said over and over, I
*personally*
would hate to see the digital/CW sub-bands overrun by SSB.

Carl - wk3c

Dick Carroll wrote:



JJ you're about as dippy as they're made these days. One of us says he beleives
that it's important for hams to learn to do morse code because it's a good, really
simple and viable communications mode for hams, and suddenly you've got us all
packaged up as ogres. You haven't a single clue, and you'r so far off that
you have no clue that you have no clue. Probably a good thing, dipschitz like you,
if intelligent, might be something of an annoyance. As it is you come in somewhere
below a gnat.


I haven't packaged anyone who supports CW mode as an ogre, just
those who choose to use derogatory terms to describe fellow hams
who choose not to learn or use CW or put the importance on it you
do, you know, like those dumbed-down lowly, not "real hams"
good-for-nothing, no-techical knowledge, no-coders.

I must really get under your skin Dickie.

"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
om...
(N2EY) wrote in message
...


What will be very interesting to see is what effect complete elimination
of
code testing has on the number of new hams and the overall growth of the
ARS.
More than three years ago, the 13 and 20 wpm code tests, and the medical
waivers, were dumped by FCC. Result was growth of about 11,000 hams -
and a
lot of already-licensed hams got upgrades. Sure doesn't seem like there
were a lot of people being kept out by the 13 and 20 wpm code tests.

And of that 11,000 how many do you 'spose are engineers who wouldn't
have become hams unless the code test was dropped to 5 wpm? And of
those, how many of these newly minted ham engineers will ever make any
"contribution to the service"?


I don't think that's a very fair question. How many long-licensed/current
hams have ever made a contribution to the service? I suspect not many by
your definition, so it's not even a good question, let alone a fair one.

btw - I'm an engineer, and none of the tests were a deterrent for me.

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

Kim W5TIT


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

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


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.


I think some PCTAs are darned great people and I have no problem associating
with them. I think some NCTAs are darned great people and I have no problem
associating with them. Now, you Dick, as a PCTA? Well, Carl's expression
above says it all.

Kim W5TIT


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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
"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?"



Well, yeah. But my comments were specifically to Dick and were angled at
his argument for CW. Heck, yeah. I think if ham radio were "invented"
today, we'd pretty much need to be computer experts...

Kim W5TIT

If radio were invented today, no amateur radio service would even be allowed
to exist. The governments would hog it all. They've already tried to take
it away more than once.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
"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?"



Well, yeah. But my comments were specifically to Dick and were angled at
his argument for CW. Heck, yeah. I think if ham radio were "invented"
today, we'd pretty much need to be computer experts...

Kim W5TIT

If radio were invented today, no amateur radio service would even be allowed
to exist. The governments would hog it all. They've already tried to take
it away more than once.

Naw, the politically connected money would soon own the whole show.