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


Larry ... you admit that you wouldn't have learned Morse if you had not
been
(effectively) forced to ... you happened to decide that you liked it
afterwards.
Many folks that have followed the same path NEVER liked Morse and put
the key in the drawer (or sold it, or gave it away) after passing the
Morse
test to get the privs they REALLY wanted, never to use Morse again.

Carl:

That's right. They did. And a lot of them kept the key on the top of the
operating table and continued to use it. Now, in the absence of a code
testing requirement as part of the licensing procedure, how many new hams
will even bother to own a telegraph key?

Frankly, I don't care one iota ... I see that as a totally unimportant issue
in
the grand scheme of things ... it is up to Morse enthusiasts to recruit new
Morse ops ... and talking down to those who are not interested will not help
that cause.
Could *I* become proficient at 20 wpm ... certainly, with enough use and
practice. Do I *care* to? The answer is obviously "No."

Well, at least you were exposed to the code and learned it well enough to
make that choice from a vantage point of actual personal experience. In
the
future, a lot of hams who may have decided to become active CW users will
no longer get that opportunity, due to the elimination of the code testing
requirement.

Again, it's up to the current crop of Morse enthusiasts to do any
recruiting.

There is essentially nothing that could make me interested in becoming "a
regular CW operator with 20 wpm proficiency."

Does this make me a "lesser/2nd class ham?"

Since you tried it and gave it a fair evaluation, I'd have to say that it
does
not. Again, future hams will not have had your experience. That is the
difference. Not having "been there, done that" disqualifies them from
making any judgment on the "code" issue whatsoever.

I don't buy that argument ... folks can be intelligent enough that, with
a modest exposure to Morse through personal contact with other hams,
seeing others using the mode, etc., they can make a choice as to whether
they are interested in purusing the mode or not.

Carl - wk3c

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

Carl:

That's right. They did. And a lot of them kept the key on the top of
the
operating table and continued to use it. Now, in the absence of a code
testing requirement as part of the licensing procedure, how many new
hams
will even bother to own a telegraph key?

Frankly, I don't care one iota

Carl:

Well, you've spent years making THAT perfectly clear! Fortunately there
are
those of us who do care about whether or not a useful communications skill
continues to be practiced in the ARS.

Then do your own "recruiting" from those who are interested/willing,
don't rely on the govt. to be your "recruiting agency" by making everyone
pass a Morse test so that you can skim off those who decide to keep the
key instead of tossing it.

Could *I* become proficient at 20 wpm ... certainly, with enough use
and
practice. Do I *care* to? The answer is obviously "No."

Well, at least you were exposed to the code and learned it well enough
to
make that choice from a vantage point of actual personal experience.
In
the
future, a lot of hams who may have decided to become active CW users
will
no longer get that opportunity, due to the elimination of the code
testing
requirement.

Having had to submit to "hazing by Morse" in the past, and even having used
it (and then discarded it), does NOT define how good a ham I may be ...
and it certainly doesn't make me a "better ham" than someone who's never
taken a Morse test or used Morse.


Again, it's up to the current crop of Morse enthusiasts to do any
recruiting.

I don't believe that the use of Morse code is something that is
"recruitable,"
if there is such a word. My own personal experience would lead me to
believe that the only thing that will get someone to try it is some kind
of
overwhelming incentive.

Translation: "I've either never put forth the effort to 'recruit' new Morse
ops,
or I'm so frustrated with my inability to gain converts that I feel I must
rely
on govt. mandates to do the work for me."

We used to have that incentive in the Pre-Restructuring Era. Now that it
is
gone, to rely simply on enticing people to Morse/CW with the promise of
better operating capability will probably not resonate very well with the
majority of newcomers

As above, with the added factor that you're admitting that your "product"
is unattractive, and therefore "hard to sell."

who, basically, are going to be refugees from
the Citizen's Band, who just want a louder, more frequency-agile box to
plug
their microphone into.

I knew if I read far enough, I'd get to your obligatory derrogation of
newcomers.

... folks can be intelligent enough that, with
a modest exposure to Morse through personal contact with other hams,
seeing others using the mode, etc., they can make a choice as to whether
they are interested in purusing the mode or not.

That's not the same thing, Carl. I was referring to their "opinions," or
subjective impressions, of the Morse code. The decision-making process
they apply to decide whether or not to attempt to learn it is a much more
objective process.

Face it Larry, your product is unattractive to most and hard to sell.
That's not
a reason for a govt. life support system that does your recruiting work for
you.

If you can sell your "product" to enough people, fine ... if not, and you
"go out
of business," that's fine with me, too ... just remember, I am NOT trying to
"board
up your storefront and confiscate your assets," but it's ALSO not my job
(or the
FCC's) to help you "prop up a poor business model, based on an unattractive
product, with govt. subsidies."

Carl - wk3c

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

Carl:

That's right. They did. And a lot of them kept the key on the top of
the
operating table and continued to use it. Now, in the absence of a code
testing requirement as part of the licensing procedure, how many new
hams
will even bother to own a telegraph key?

Frankly, I don't care one iota

Carl:
Well, you've spent years making THAT perfectly clear! Fortunately there
are
those of us who do care about whether or not a useful communications skill
continues to be practiced in the ARS.

Do YOU care enough to be a positive spokesperson/recruiter
for CW to new hams?

... I see that as a totally unimportant issue in he grand scheme of things
....
it is up to Morse enthusiasts to recruit new
Morse ops ... and talking down to those who are not interested will not
help
that cause.

Especially since those who are not interested have finally gotten their
way!

Sounds like a personal problem.

Could *I* become proficient at 20 wpm ... certainly, with enough use
and
practice. Do I *care* to? The answer is obviously "No."

Well, at least you were exposed to the code and learned it well enough
to
make that choice from a vantage point of actual personal experience.
In
the
future, a lot of hams who may have decided to become active CW users
will
no longer get that opportunity, due to the elimination of the code
testing
requirement.

Again, it's up to the current crop of Morse enthusiasts to do any
recruiting.

I don't believe that the use of Morse code is something that is
"recruitable,"
if there is such a word. My own personal experience would lead me to
believe that the only thing that will get someone to try it is some kind
of
overwhelming incentive. We used to have that incentive in the
Pre-Restructuring
Era. Now that it is gone, to rely simply on enticing people to Morse/CW
with
the promise of better operating capability will probably not resonate very
well
with the majority of newcomers who, basically, are going to be refugees
from
the Citizen's Band, who just want a louder, more frequency-agile box to
plug
their microphone into.

Defeatist attitude as I see it.

There is essentially nothing that could make me interested in becoming
"a
regular CW operator with 20 wpm proficiency."

Does this make me a "lesser/2nd class ham?"

Since you tried it and gave it a fair evaluation, I'd have to say that
it
does
not. Again, future hams will not have had your experience. That is
the
difference. Not having "been there, done that" disqualifies them from
making any judgment on the "code" issue whatsoever.

I don't buy that argument

Which doesn't make it any less true.

Nor does it change the fact that your statement
is only an opinion.

... folks can be intelligent enough that, with
a modest exposure to Morse through personal contact with other hams,
seeing others using the mode, etc., they can make a choice as to whether
they are interested in purusing the mode or not.

That's not the same thing, Carl. I was referring to their "opinions," or
subjective impressions, of the Morse code. The decision-making process
they apply to decide whether or not to attempt to learn it is a much more
objective process.

So work te process, be a recruiter for morse.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:38:20 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:

Actually the fact that other services don't use it very much is a strong
argument to require hams to learn it. This is the place to preserve the
skill in case of need and to prevent this capability from becoming a lost
art. Plus of course the fact that quite a few hams do use it.

The original reason for requiring CW/Morse proficiency of amateur
operators was to ensure that they would be able to read signals
directed at their station by government stations who came up on the
amateur's frequency to tell them to leave the air because they were
interfering with the governemnt (usually Navy) communications - WW-I
era stuff.

OK, fine.

Everything else was superfluous - the need for "trained operators"
for CW/Morse circuits went away after WW-II.

Then why did the Navy (at least) keep training them, and to high levels of
proficiency?

Civil aviation CW went
away right after that war, too. Marine CW persisted another 60
years or so, but amateur radio operators were never trained nor
recruited to be the "reserve force" for the merchant marine'd Radio
Officers.

But then why was the FCC so hot for more code testing in the 1960s? From the
1930s to the 1960s a ham could get full privs with a 13 wpm code test. Yes, the
Extra and its 20 wpm code test was reintroduced in 1951, but then FCC gave all
privs to Generals so nobody had to get an Extra for full privileges. And in
fact very few did - in 1967, at the dawn of incentive licensing, there were
maybe 4000 Extras out of about 250,000 US hams.

At one point (1965), FCC proposed four code tests - 5, 13, 16, and 20 wpm. When
the dust settled it took 20 per to get a full privileges. Why was FCC so hopped
up on code testing back then?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

Carl:
Well, you've spent years making THAT perfectly clear! Fortunately
there
are
those of us who do care about whether or not a useful communications
skill
continues to be practiced in the ARS.

Do YOU care enough to be a positive spokesperson/recruiter
for CW to new hams?

Bill:

I've been doing that all along.

Coulda fooled me by many of your comments in this
newsgroup.

... I see that as a totally unimportant issue in he grand scheme of
things
...
it is up to Morse enthusiasts to recruit new
Morse ops ... and talking down to those who are not interested will
not
help
that cause.

Especially since those who are not interested have finally gotten their
way!

Sounds like a personal problem.

Well, it will be for the New Age hams who will not have benefited from
having been exposed to the more comprehensive and challenging licensing
process of the Pre-Restructuring/WRC-03 Era, including Morse code
testing.

Yawn.

We used to have that incentive in the
Pre-Restructuring
Era. Now that it is gone, to rely simply on enticing people to
Morse/CW
with
the promise of better operating capability will probably not resonate
very
well
with the majority of newcomers who, basically, are going to be refugees
from
the Citizen's Band, who just want a louder, more frequency-agile box to
plug
their microphone into.

Defeatist attitude as I see it.

Anything like the "defeatist attitude" of those who, for years, have
avoided
being involved in Amateur Radio because of code testing?

Suck it up and deal with it.

Again, future hams will not have had your experience. That is
the
difference. Not having "been there, done that" disqualifies them
from
making any judgment on the "code" issue whatsoever.

I don't buy that argument

Which doesn't make it any less true.

Nor does it change the fact that your statement
is only an opinion.

My statement about future hams having no experience with Morse/CW
is plain FACT, not opinion, Bill. It is also a fact that because of their
lack of experience, they are self-disqualified from having an "opinion"
about the subject.

That's utter bull. For no other reason than
this is the USA and anyone is free to have an opinion
on morse and voice it as they see fit. Your opinion,
is exactly that...your opinion.

... folks can be intelligent enough that, with
a modest exposure to Morse through personal contact with other hams,
seeing others using the mode, etc., they can make a choice as to
whether
they are interested in purusing the mode or not.

That's not the same thing, Carl. I was referring to their "opinions,"
or
subjective impressions, of the Morse code. The decision-making process
they apply to decide whether or not to attempt to learn it is a much
more
objective process.

So work te process, be a recruiter for morse.

As has always been the case, the ability of any advocate of Morse code
testing to "recruit" new hams to the mode is limited to relating their
own experience. The new hams will be receptive to his in varying degrees,
yet they will, in fact, not have the same incentive to actually give it a
try
that existed under the previous licensing process.

Guess you'll just have to accept that.

In the end, whether or
not they learn it is strictly up to them, as it has always been.

Agreed.

The problem
is, in the future, they will still have full HF privileges, so they no
longer
have nothing to lose by simply forgoing the whole Morse/CW mode.

That's a problem for you. Others might consider it just a challange
to overcome in the recruiting process.

They will, however, most likely petition the ARRL and the FCC for more
HF phone allocations -- and where do you think they'll come from?

Petition the ARRL? The ARRL doesn't set the
rules last time I checked :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:


Do YOU care enough to be a positive spokesperson/recruiter
for CW to new hams?

Bill:

I've been doing that all along.

Coulda fooled me by many of your comments in this
newsgroup.


heh heh heh, not just you, Bill!

[NOTE: not sure if this is Bill or someone else that said this:
Nor does it change the fact that your statement
is only an opinion.

My statement about future hams having no experience with Morse/CW
is plain FACT, not opinion, Bill. It is also a fact that because of
their
lack of experience, they are self-disqualified from having an "opinion"
about the subject.

That's utter bull. For no other reason than
this is the USA and anyone is free to have an opinion
on morse and voice it as they see fit. Your opinion,
is exactly that...your opinion.


Not to mention that Larry cannot state facts as here, because no one can
predict the future. There's no difference right now with the CW issue than
there ever has been--except that the testing requirement MAY be eliminated
(and I am not so sure anymore).

Under current testing requirements, someone has to be encouraged (or just
have the personal desire) to study CW to pass that part of the requirement.
That desire was either "just there," which was probably in a minimum of
persons; or they had to be encouraged by someone. (Larry's probably never
encouraged anyone, unless they are gluttons for punishment or like being
beat down.) Anyway, so there is no difference now or then in the CW issue
from the perspective of "getting people interested in it."

Larry said:
As has always been the case, the ability of any advocate of Morse code
testing to "recruit" new hams to the mode is limited to relating their
own experience. The new hams will be receptive to his in varying
degrees,
yet they will, in fact, not have the same incentive to actually give it
a
try
that existed under the previous licensing process.

Guess you'll just have to accept that.


Well, plus that has not changed and any changes to testing requirements will
not change it. Which, by the way, proves that having CW testing there for
that purpose is not successful in any way.


Agreed.

The problem
is, in the future, they will still have full HF privileges, so they no
longer
have nothing to lose by simply forgoing the whole Morse/CW mode.

That's a problem for you. Others might consider it just a challange
to overcome in the recruiting process.


I think the real issue is that Larry knows he is challenged to encourage
anyone to learn and use CW--he's not up for the challenge. I daresay there
aren't as many people interested in HF operation as many may think. I just
don't think they are. It's much more fun on 2M/70cm, where one can also
decide to have a meal with the folks they are talking to. HF is/may be fun
for an occasional contest or Field Day, or something like that. But most of
us, I bet, get a whole lot more fun outaa local FM chats.


They will, however, most likely petition the ARRL and the FCC for more
HF phone allocations -- and where do you think they'll come from?

Petition the ARRL? The ARRL doesn't set the
rules last time I checked :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


*Cough* Yeah, that's probably not a Freudian slip, either. Anyway, as I
said, I don't think most people new to the hobby are really all that
interested in HF. Of the people I've known new to the hobby since "new" was
1998, very few have disappeared to HF. They all have way too much fun on
2M.

So, don't worry, Larry. Your HF is still and will be quite as it is now.
If you find that exciting and interesting, others may not and they don't
have to.

Kim W5TIT


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

(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:38:20 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:

Actually the fact that other services don't use it very much is a strong
argument to require hams to learn it. This is the place to preserve the
skill in case of need and to prevent this capability from becoming a lost
art. Plus of course the fact that quite a few hams do use it.

The original reason for requiring CW/Morse proficiency of amateur
operators was to ensure that they would be able to read signals
directed at their station by government stations who came up on the
amateur's frequency to tell them to leave the air because they were
interfering with the governemnt (usually Navy) communications - WW-I
era stuff.

OK, fine.

Everything else was superfluous - the need for "trained operators"
for CW/Morse circuits went away after WW-II.

Then why did the Navy (at least) keep training them, and to high levels of
proficiency?

Civil aviation CW went
away right after that war, too. Marine CW persisted another 60
years or so, but amateur radio operators were never trained nor
recruited to be the "reserve force" for the merchant marine'd Radio
Officers.

But then why was the FCC so hot for more code testing in the 1960s? From the
1930s to the 1960s a ham could get full privs with a 13 wpm code test. Yes, the
Extra and its 20 wpm code test was reintroduced in 1951, but then FCC gave all
privs to Generals so nobody had to get an Extra for full privileges. And in
fact very few did - in 1967, at the dawn of incentive licensing, there were
maybe 4000 Extras out of about 250,000 US hams.

At one point (1965), FCC proposed four code tests - 5, 13, 16, and 20 wpm. When
the dust settled it took 20 per to get a full privileges. Why was FCC so hopped
up on code testing back then?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim, the FCC probably had some misguided ham employee pushing Morse.

Brian

"N2EY" wrote


Then why did the Navy (at least) keep training them, and to high levels of
proficiency?


Because until about 1960, most of the "small boys" (destroyers,
submarines, frigates, and fleet tugs) still used Morse for passing
traffic ashore. With the advent of Orestes (covered Baudot) in these
hulls, about 1963, the widespread training of Navy Morse code operators
ceased. After that point, each ship had a complement of 2 or 3 Morse
capable operators "just in case" until the late 70's when even that
modest capability was no longer maintained. We're talking about a
quarter century ago!


But then why was the FCC so hot for more code testing in the 1960s?


Because ARRL had the ear of FCC minions like Johnny Johnston, et. al.
In that same era others at FCC were pushing a "dual ladder" licensing
structure
with 4 or five levels of progressively more technical no-code or
minimal-code "VHF/UHF Communicator" licensees. ARRL didn't think these
guys would be "real hams" and used their "inside guys" at FCC to squash
such progressive thinking.

73, de Hans, K0HB


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

But then why was the FCC so hot for more code testing in the 1960s? From
the
1930s to the 1960s a ham could get full privs with a 13 wpm code test. Yes,
the
Extra and its 20 wpm code test was reintroduced in 1951, but then FCC gave
all
privs to Generals so nobody had to get an Extra for full privileges. And in
fact very few did - in 1967, at the dawn of incentive licensing, there were
maybe 4000 Extras out of about 250,000 US hams.

At one point (1965), FCC proposed four code tests - 5, 13, 16, and 20 wpm.
When
the dust settled it took 20 per to get a full privileges. Why was FCC so
hopped
up on code testing back then?

Intense lobbying by the ARRL?

Nope. ARRL's proposal was to go back to the pre-1953 system where it took an
Advanced or Extra for full privileges. Also reopen the Advanced to new
licenses.

Well whoopee for you. You constantly repeat What Was Done. If it
doesn't favor your position, the FCC is the evil weenie. If it does
favor your position then it is the Glory of the World...

1965 is THIRTY-EIGHT YEARS AGO,

So what? You talk about much older things that are much less relevant.

Radio for communications is "irrelevant?" You're weird, Rev. Jim.

THIRTY-EIGHT YEARS AGO you were about 10 years old. At the
same time I'd already worked three years in military HF and micro-
wave communications with my Honorable Discharge received five
years in the past. You work a lot of communications at age 10?

Of course you did!


No Internet then and
Washington, DC, was a far place to get to and communicate by paper.

Not at all. An envelope and a stamp.

...and the courage to write.

You spend a lot of your allowance on paper, envelopes and stamps, did
you?

Hams in the USA rarely wrote to the FCC for anything...

Wrong. The incentive licensing proposals brought in over 6000 comments back
then, even though there were only about 250,000 US hams.

Oh? Did you frequent the FCC Reading Room in DC a lot? Did you read
all "6000" comments? Frankly, I don't think you did squat about any
comments way back when.


Did you have a point to make?

Yes. Why haven't you made any points yet, despite the hours and
hours of newsgrouping?

LHA

"N2EY" wrote


It's interesting that you call the seven-class two-ladder system "progressive
thinking", but today favor a two-class license system, as I recall.


What was progressive was the notion (which ARRL rejected) that a ham
could be advanced along technical/scientific lines without being able to
copy Morse code. It's interesting that you didn't take the time to
review my proposal to FCC in response to WT Docket 98-143. If you'd
taken just a moment, you'd have noted that it included the same notion
of a "dual ladder" which included an option for advanced electronics
qualifications without Morse testing. Sunuvagun, isn't that
interesting!

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG