In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Why should one be forced to learn to play the piano if what one REALLY
wants to do is to play one or more OTHER instruments?

Would there be ANY sense in a rule that said "You can't play any other
instrument, no matter how good you might be at it, unless you first
demonstrate
that you can play the piano proficiently." ???

I don't think so ...

Carl - wk3c

Carl:

*I* think so. When you learn the piano, you're dealing with chords virtualy
from the beginning. You learn more about key signatures, time signatures,
and the structure of harmony from learning the piano than you do with any
other instrument. Why do you think virtually all music is composed on
the piano (or modern electronic keyboards)? It is because the piano has
all the basics wrapped up in one instrument which is a bit more difficult
to learn, but does virtually as much as all the others combined. I started
with the clarinet, and quickly moved to the various types of saxophone
and the trombone. I could play the instruments well enough, but I never
had the general background in musical theory that all the piano players
had, regardless of which instrument they were playing at the time.
Therefore, I never became a Real Musician(tm) as a result. Piano is an
essential skill in music, and I firmly believe all musicians should start
on the piano and be tested in piano proficiency before being allowed to
move on to any other instrument -- which will be much easier as a result.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Kim W5TIT wrote:

BUT, have you ever actually known anyone who has really whined? That has
become such a cliche. What I mean is, those of us who do not believe that
CW should be a part of requirements for ham licensing are simply exercising
the same "rights" we would in any other type of situation in which change is
desired. No difference at all.

Read Vipul's posts. Those are about as close to printed whining as you
can get. He continues to post his ARS slurs long after they have been
proven wrong. Otherwise I agree with you that often "disagreement" is
rferred to as whining.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Kim W5TIT wrote:

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: library1-aux.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 20:16:15 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: !X@U/1k-Y-#+3:P-T$! (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

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:

Dick Carroll wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:

To be honest, I don't think there is any answer that will
satisfy you.

Brian

At least not a truthful one.

Well then, that's it. Jim isn't satisfied with truthful answers.
No
wonder he keeps asking.

You haven't even provided truthful responses now. You've been asked.
You have declined. You've provided reasons such as, "The questions
are
just too hard". Jim and I have continued to ask because you've
continued to be evasive.

Most of the answers were given long, long ago. Whether you or Jim
believe me isn't my problem.

Sure, it's your problem. You have a credibility problem, one which is
compounded by your saying that you've already answered the questions.

You haven't done so and your tale remains vapor.

Dave K8MN

heh heh...he just doesn't understand the concept of "not my problem," Brian!


Brian's saying that it isn't his problem does not mean that he has no
problem. In this case, it only means that he doesn't care to
acknowledge it.

Dave K8MN

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

Dick Carroll wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:

To be honest, I don't think there is any answer that will satisfy you.

Brian

At least not a truthful one.

Well then, that's it. Jim isn't satisfied with truthful answers. No
wonder he keeps asking.

Nope.

I haven't seen any truthful answers to my questions about your alleged /T5
operations. In fact I haven't seen any answers at all, just evasions such as
"those questions are too hard".

Here they are again:

What callsign was used?
What rigs and antennas were used?
Who did the equipment belong to?
What amateur bands and modes were used?
What countries and continents were worked?
How were the QSLs delivered?

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:

Dick Carroll wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:

To be honest, I don't think there is any answer that will satisfy
you.

Brian

At least not a truthful one.

Well then, that's it. Jim isn't satisfied with truthful answers. No
wonder he keeps asking.

You haven't even provided truthful responses now. You've been asked.
You have declined. You've provided reasons such as, "The questions are
just too hard". Jim and I have continued to ask because you've
continued to be evasive.

Dave K8MN

Most of the answers were given long, long ago.

Where? Not here on rrap.

Whether you or Jim believe me isn't my problem.

Yet you insist on being evasive rather than simply answering the questions.

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...

heh heh...he just doesn't understand the concept of "not my problem," Brian!


Kim W5TIT

Kim, he really doesn't understand, does he? I think he's still
lashing out over his Tanzania/French 6M debacle.

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


Why should one be forced to learn to play the piano if what one REALLY
wants to do is to play one or more OTHER instruments?

Would there be ANY sense in a rule that said "You can't play any other
instrument, no matter how good you might be at it, unless you first
demonstrate
that you can play the piano proficiently." ???

I don't think so ...

Carl - wk3c


Carl:

*I* think so. When you learn the piano, you're dealing with chords virtualy
from the beginning. You learn more about key signatures, time signatures,
and the structure of harmony from learning the piano than you do with any
other instrument. Why do you think virtually all music is composed on
the piano (or modern electronic keyboards)?

Yaknow, Larry, I think maybe there is a new cause brewing here "No
Piano's International. We can get those stupid arbitrary requirements to
learn the piano abolished. 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

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

BUT, have you ever actually known anyone who has really whined? That
has
become such a cliche. What I mean is, those of us who do not believe
that
CW should be a part of requirements for ham licensing are simply
exercising
the same "rights" we would in any other type of situation in which
change is
desired. No difference at all.

Read Vipul's posts. Those are about as close to printed whining as you
can get. He continues to post his ARS slurs long after they have been
proven wrong. Otherwise I agree with you that often "disagreement" is
rferred to as whining.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Well, and this is no personal comment on Vipul(?) as I haven't paid much
attention to his posting--if someone is wrong, they are wrong. BUT, still
in all, if someone disagrees with CW testing and, therefore, chooses not to
participate in the process of testing for amateur radio, I see nothing wrong
with that and don't consider their protests whining.

In other words, if someone just plain disagrees with the testing and states
it as so and has valid responses to "the other side" then I see nothing
wrong with it. For goodness' sake, the licensed person could be considered
as a whiner, too, right?

Here's an example. Person A is the person who disagrees with the CW
licensing issue. Person B is a licensed amateur radio operator.

A: I think that CW testing should be done away with.
B: Why would CW be done away with, when it's been a basic part of the
licensing process for a long time?
A: I don't agree that testing for CW proficiency has anything to do with
being a good amateur radio operator.
B: But CW is a useful skill to have as an amateur radio operator!
A: There are many modes in ham radio. To focus on one and use it as a
testing tool is wrong, in my opinion.

That is the general stance of the CW debate. No one, above, has whined. It
is when personal disagreements get involved that it quickly degrades into a
senseless and meaningless idiot challenge.

Kim W5TIT


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

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

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

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.

OK, fine. If someone doesn't like building their own equipment why on earth
should they be forced to learn all sorts of stuff about how radios work to get
access to modern, reliable manufactured transmitting equipment that has no
critical adjustments and won't go outside the allocated bands? This is a hobby
(for them).

It has nothing to do with "Antiquated technology"

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

In some ways CW beats PSK-31 and the various TOR modes. And the reverse. All
depends on the measure.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...
[snip] Yes I have. Both in person and on the internet, there have
been
numerous
individuals who simply refuse to upgrade until and unless the
requirement
goes away. Whether or not it should be part of the licensing is an
entirely
different issue than refusing to upgrade because one doesn't agree
with
that
requirement. While some may consider that approach to be a protest,
it
is
an ineffective protest as refusing to take the test won't get it
eliminated.


I respect your opinion, Dee, but don't understand it. Choosing not to
participate in something one does not agree with is part of the
democratic
process. If you don't agree with fishermen netting dolphins,
accidentally
or otherwise, refusing to eat fish is committing to a principle. It may
not
change a thing in terms of commercial fishing practices, but why would
someone be so dedicated to the idea of not wanting dolphins caught in
fishing nets; but then turn around and eat fish--supporting the action
so
to
speak?


Wanting HF privileges and refusing to take the code but waiting instead is
just like not wanting dolphins harmed but eating fish. Pariticipation or
non-participation has a different effect depending on what is being
protested.


I have seen people express opinions about CW--on both sides. I
would
not
classify any of them as whining. For instance, you have your
opinion
behind
your desire to have CW remain a part of the ham radio licensure
process.
The same for me on the opposite side of the fence. Is it either of
us
that
is whining?

It's interesting how, because someone desires something different
from
another, it is labeled as whining. I sure haven't seen any evidence
of
whining. I didn't like studying the CW part of the Tech+ license; I
don't
like using CW; and I don't think CW should be a part of testing.

No that is not whining because you actually went ahead and took the
test.
Having studied the basic material, you are now have some background on
which
to judge whether or not to pursue CW any further.


That may sound nice and packaged when speaking just to the issue of CW
testing in the ham radio licensure process. But, that same principle
applied to other areas doesn't work, so why should it for ham radio?

The principal does work for other areas. Just look at the noticeable
number
of college graduates who ended up pursuing a career in a field other than
that in which they received their degree. And it was generally based on
interest sparked by some non-degree course they had to take. People need
to
be exposed to a broad range of basics. In ham radio, that should include
at
least a minimal code test.



But, you have a personal dislike for what you perceive to be laziness,
and
you want a federal agency to support that personal dislike. I don't
think
the US Government should be in the business of supporting personal
dislikes--they are close enough to that as it is.


You have a personal dislike for code and want a federal agency to support
your personal dislike.

I do not have a dislike for laziness. If the person is happy being lazy
and
does not demand things he/she hasn't worked for, that's great. They are
probably the happiest people on earth. I will, however, always object to
the person who demands what they haven't earned regardless of the field of
endeavor.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


I respectfully misunderstand, I believe. I don't know what's wrong with
wishing or demanding something one has not worked for; it will do them no
good in this case since they cannot legally operate amateur radio without a
license. I have no problem with someone screaming from the top of the world
that they "want" something. They just can't have it until they've met
whatever demands there are to have it. If they wish to seek changes to the
way of getting something they want, and those changes are made, I have no
problem with that.

Kim W5TIT


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