"K0HB with non-approved radios" wrote in message news:221cd76d407ae3d8168be302c6e36efd.128005@myga te.mailgate.org...
"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.

Where did you see that concept in the 1975 dual ladder proposal? In
that proposal, all of the VHF/UHF licenses required code tests except
for the very basic "Communicator" class, which would have had an
extremely simple written exam. Full privileges would have required an
Extra, with its 20 wpm exam.

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.

I reviewed it but did not see it as "progressive" in that sense. Your
proposal is actually a four-class system, with three tests: two
written and one code. The only incentive offered for more technical
tests is more power.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
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 asked a question, I answered it. Do you have a problem with the
facts?

You constantly repeat What Was Done.

So? You constantly repeat What Len Did.

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...

If someone doesn't agree with your position, they are an "evil weenie"
and treated to your insult. If someone agrees with you they can do no
wrong and are "the Glory of the World..."

Heaven forbid someone prove you to be in error about anything.

1965 is THIRTY-EIGHT YEARS AGO,

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

Radio for communications is "irrelevant?"

Your personal experience of fifty plus years ago is irrelevant to
amateur radio policy, but you repeat it anyway.

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.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

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.

"courage"?

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

Nope. 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?

Yep.

Did you frequent the FCC Reading Room in DC a lot?

No - did you?

Did you read all "6000" comments?

No - did you?

Frankly, I don't think you did squat about any
comments way back when.

I don't claim to.

Did you comment "way back then"?

Do you have any disproof of my facts as stated?

Didn't think so.

Tell us more about the ham-astronauts and their callsigns, Len.

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article ilgate.org,
"Hans
Kohb" writes:

"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!

Sure - so FCC was behind that curve.

I fail to see the connection of the FCC and the US Navy insofar as
modes of communications "influence" in military radio. That is
solely your inference/opinion and not bolstered by any factual data.

Note also W4NTI's military service and use of Morse skill in same.

Totally irrelevant. Dan, W4NTI, served in the USAF and was TDY
in Thailand to an Army unit doing ELINT work, interceptions. That
is NOT communications, just military intelligence tasks.

While there is cooperation between military branches on methods
and hardware for same, the USN is not "influenced" on needed
choices of communications by what either the USA or USAF use.

Hans Brakob has a lot of experience in USN communications. I
have some experience in US Army communications. We have both
serviced in the military. You have not served in the US military and
have no prior claim to doing any sort of military communications.


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.

Yet it was FCC, not ARRL, that wanted more code testing. If FCC had simply
adopted ARRL's 1963 proposal, 13 wpm and an Advanced would have gotten hams
all privileges.

FCC came up with 16 wpm from a source other than ARRL. The League and others
eventually got FCC to drop that idea.

All this "insider information" on cause-effect is a lot of uncorroborated
opinions based on very little. 1963 was FORTY YEARS AGO and
you have not yet had any personal experience with amateur radio at
age 8.

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.

You might want to recheck the dates and details on that, Hans.

You seem to be confusing civilian-military radio regulation
conditions around WW One with that of post-WW Two. Try to
understand their differences.

"N2EY" wrote

Your proposal is actually a four-class system, with three tests:
two written and one code.

I call it a two-class system, "Basic" and "Standard", each of which
could be endorsed for HF operation upon passing a 5WPM Morse exam. If
it suits your agenda, feel free to call that four classes.

The only incentive offered for more
technical tests is more power.

Incentive? I consider incentive licensing to be a spectaculure failure,
mostly an attempt at "social engineering" by ARRL/FCC, and my proposal
is not based on "incentives". The difference in power levels is based
on safety issues --- the Basic test material probably would not
prepare a licensee to safely deal with "full gallon" powered stations.
(As an aside, I do not belive the current Technican exam prepares an
applicant for these power levels either.)

73, de Hans, K0HB






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

On 20 Jul 2003 02:35:45 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

My statement about future hams having no experience with Morse/CW
is plain FACT, not opinion, Bill.

There seem to be quite a few hams now who have no experience with
Morse/CW. There are 257,319 Technicians in the ARS, according to the
most recently posted figures from N2EY, some of which are undoubtedly
former Tech-Plus licensees renewed as Technician, but most of whom are
undoubtedly of the no-code variety. Even if 20% are renewed Tech+ then
that's still over 200,000 hams with no Morse/CW experience. And that
is a lotta hams - two or three football stadiums full, in fact.

It is also a fact that because of their
lack of experience, they are self-disqualified from having an "opinion"
about the subject.

I disagree - it's not a fact, it's your opinion. I also happen to
disagree with that opinion.

Larry, no disrespect intended here, but what's your current opinion of
eating...oh...how about...elephant dung, for example?

Most of us would say that the idea sounds quite disgusting, no thanks,
I'll pass. Same goes for cat dung, rat dung, bat dung, or any other
kind of dung for that matter. I don't need to have tasted 'em all in
order to form that opinion. Similarly, one does not need to have
learned to send and receive CW at 50 WPM in order to decide that one
is not interested in that particular mode.

Note that it is not my intention to equate CW skills with animal dung,
the skill remains a useful one to have and I don't begrudge those who
enjoy CW their pleasure at using the mode - not for a single minute.
I'm merely pointing out that expertise at a particular activity is not
a prerequisite for deciding whether or not one wishes to pursue said
activity. Do I need to be able to deadlift 600 pounds in order to
decide I don't wish to be an olympic weightlifter? Nope. Can I
currently deadlift 600 pounds? Nope. Does that render my decision to
not try to deadlift 600 pounds invalid? Nope.

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.

Assuming that you agreed with my opinion that eating animal dung is
not a very good idea - did you arrive at that conclusion through
subjective or objective reasoning?

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,

....which will undoubtedly be directly proportional to the number of
times that another ham patiently explains the relative merits of the
mode and encourages them to give it a try, and inversely proportional
to the number of times that another ham calls them lazy, good for
nothing, not "real" hams and similar rhetoric.

yet they will, in fact, not have the same incentive to actually give it a try
that existed under the previous licensing process.

Hmmm, let's see...

Incentive under the old (current) licensing process: Either submit to
being coerced into learning code at a rate of at least 5 WPM, or
remain on 6m and above where, except for a relatively small number of
weak-signal enthusiasts and on repeaters that use a Morse ID'er, the
use of CW is virtually nil anyway and so their lack of Morse
proficiency matters not.

Incentive under the future licensing process: Either voluntarily
develop CW skills, or be content to either remain on the crowded phone
bands or use one of the other digital modes where, except for the
Morse ID on a RTTY or other signal or on 10m repeaters, the use of CW
will be virtually nil anyway and so their lack of Morse proficiency
matters not until they want to work the CW ops for higher point totals
during contests or to put those elusive CW ops' calls in the log.

There's definitely a difference, but I don't think it's as big a
difference as a lot of people may think.

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

Agreed...

The problem

Ahem...the difference...

is, in the future, they will still

Ahem...they will finally...

have full HF privileges, so they no longer
have nothing to lose by simply forgoing the whole Morse/CW mode.

Larry, you're supposed to be trying to convince them to try CW,
remember? They *do* have something to lose by forgoing the mode. You
know it, and I know it too, even though I happen to have chosen (for
now at least) not to pursue the use of CW. I suspect you'll "convert"
more no-coders into CW enthusiasts by pointing out what they're
missing than you'll "convert" by ostracizing and villifying no-coders.

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?

73 de Larry, K3LT

Ahhhhh! So this isn't about the merits of the mode after all, it's a
turf war! Why didn't you just say so in the first place?

I'm going to wet my pants laughing if it ends up being PSK31 or Hell
or SSTV ops rather than phone ops that end up populating those parts
of the bands.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
...
On 20 Jul 2003 02:35:45 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

My statement about future hams having no experience with Morse/CW
is plain FACT, not opinion, Bill.

There seem to be quite a few hams now who have no experience with
Morse/CW. There are 257,319 Technicians in the ARS, according to the
most recently posted figures from N2EY, some of which are undoubtedly
former Tech-Plus licensees renewed as Technician, but most of whom are
undoubtedly of the no-code variety. Even if 20% are renewed Tech+ then
that's still over 200,000 hams with no Morse/CW experience. And that
is a lotta hams - two or three football stadiums full, in fact.

It is also a fact that because of their
lack of experience, they are self-disqualified from having an "opinion"
about the subject.

I disagree - it's not a fact, it's your opinion. I also happen to
disagree with that opinion.

Larry, no disrespect intended here, but what's your current opinion of
eating...oh...how about...elephant dung, for example?

Most of us would say that the idea sounds quite disgusting, no thanks,
I'll pass. Same goes for cat dung, rat dung, bat dung, or any other
kind of dung for that matter. I don't need to have tasted 'em all in
order to form that opinion. Similarly, one does not need to have
learned to send and receive CW at 50 WPM in order to decide that one
is not interested in that particular mode.


That's a specious argument and you know it.

You do have to actually eat an apple to determine if you will like it. It's
not possible to determine what a cake or whatever will taste like by reading
the ingredients of the mix. You have to eat it. For example, I hate
tomatoes, cheeses, and garlic. Yet I could not predetermine what pizza
tasted like. I had to try it. And you know what, I love pizza.

Note that it is not my intention to equate CW skills with animal dung,
the skill remains a useful one to have and I don't begrudge those who
enjoy CW their pleasure at using the mode - not for a single minute.

Yes it was and yes you do or you would not have used the dung comparison.

I'm merely pointing out that expertise at a particular activity is not
a prerequisite for deciding whether or not one wishes to pursue said
activity. Do I need to be able to deadlift 600 pounds in order to
decide I don't wish to be an olympic weightlifter? Nope. Can I
currently deadlift 600 pounds? Nope. Does that render my decision to
not try to deadlift 600 pounds invalid? Nope.

CW skills are more like music. You have to acquire a BASIC level of skill
to determine if you will like it. Almost every adult that I know wishes
they had learned to play an instrument and wishes their parents had made
them take lessons.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com...
"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
...
On 20 Jul 2003 02:35:45 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

My statement about future hams having no experience with Morse/CW
is plain FACT, not opinion, Bill.

There seem to be quite a few hams now who have no experience with
Morse/CW. There are 257,319 Technicians in the ARS, according to the
most recently posted figures from N2EY, some of which are undoubtedly
former Tech-Plus licensees renewed as Technician, but most of whom are
undoubtedly of the no-code variety.

20% renewals is a reasonable estimate.

Even if 20% are renewed Tech+ then
that's still over 200,000 hams with no Morse/CW experience.

Actually, that's not strictly true. We don't know how many of those
~200,000 have experience with code. An unknown number have the Element
1 CSCE, but haven't passed General theory yet. Others are studying but
haven't passed the code test - yet.

It is also a fact that because of their
lack of experience, they are self-disqualified from having an "opinion"
about the subject.

I disagree - it's not a fact, it's your opinion. I also happen to
disagree with that opinion.

Anyone can have an opinion about anything. Whether that opinion is
based on reasonable evidence and logic or not is another matter. For
example, a person who says that Sealtest vanilla bean ice cream is the
best ice cream in the world but has only tried a few other types of
ice cream isn't basing that opinion on reasonable evidence and logic.

Larry, no disrespect intended here, but what's your current opinion of
eating...oh...how about...elephant dung, for example?

Most of us would say that the idea sounds quite disgusting, no thanks,
I'll pass. Same goes for cat dung, rat dung, bat dung, or any other
kind of dung for that matter. I don't need to have tasted 'em all in
order to form that opinion.

Bad analogy. Here's why:

You would be hard pressed to find a rational person, at any time or in
any culture, who finds that activity anything other than disgusting.
Also, taste and smell are closely related, and it's very rare that
something will smell bad but taste good.

Similarly, one does not need to have
learned to send and receive CW at 50 WPM in order to decide that one
is not interested in that particular mode.

Not similarly. But the rest of the statement is quite reasonable. It's
like saying "I tried sushi a few times and I just don't like them. I
know others do, but not me. You go ahead, I'll have a cheeseburger."
(There's actually a song by Pat Donahue about this).

That's a specious argument and you know it.

You do have to actually eat an apple to determine if you will like it. It's
not possible to determine what a cake or whatever will taste like by reading
the ingredients of the mix. You have to eat it.

Smell can be an indicator, too. And it's possible to use all the right
ingredients and yet bake a terrible cake.

For example, I hate
tomatoes, cheeses, and garlic.

But you tried those things before you decided you hated them, right?

Yet I could not predetermine what pizza
tasted like. I had to try it. And you know what, I love pizza.

With anchovies?

Note that it is not my intention to equate CW skills with animal dung,
the skill remains a useful one to have and I don't begrudge those who
enjoy CW their pleasure at using the mode - not for a single minute.

Yes it was and yes you do or you would not have used the dung comparison.

There's the Utah Phillips story about the moose....

I'm merely pointing out that expertise at a particular activity is not
a prerequisite for deciding whether or not one wishes to pursue said
activity. Do I need to be able to deadlift 600 pounds in order to
decide I don't wish to be an olympic weightlifter? Nope. Can I
currently deadlift 600 pounds? Nope. Does that render my decision to
not try to deadlift 600 pounds invalid? Nope.

Which boils down to "I don't think I will like that".

CW skills are more like music. You have to acquire a BASIC level of skill
to determine if you will like it. Almost every adult that I know wishes
they had learned to play an instrument and wishes their parents had made
them take lessons.

I wish I'd had the opportunity, anyway.

Simple question: Have you ever thought you wouldn't like something,
tried it anyway, and decided you really liked it? Example: ever get
dragged to a movie you thought you wouldn't like and wound up liking
it so much that you bought the tape/DVD?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...
For example, I hate
tomatoes, cheeses, and garlic.

But you tried those things before you decided you hated them, right?

Based on my many postings, you should be able to deduce that I would not
have formed the opinion without trying them. However I will formally
confirm that I did taste them and my dislike is based on actual experience.


Yet I could not predetermine what pizza
tasted like. I had to try it. And you know what, I love pizza.

With anchovies?


Tried anchovies but they go in the do not repeat category. However bacon,
sausage, pepperoni, etc are all nice.

Note that it is not my intention to equate CW skills with animal dung,
the skill remains a useful one to have and I don't begrudge those who
enjoy CW their pleasure at using the mode - not for a single minute.

Yes it was and yes you do or you would not have used the dung
comparison.

There's the Utah Phillips story about the moose....

I'm merely pointing out that expertise at a particular activity is not
a prerequisite for deciding whether or not one wishes to pursue said
activity. Do I need to be able to deadlift 600 pounds in order to
decide I don't wish to be an olympic weightlifter? Nope. Can I
currently deadlift 600 pounds? Nope. Does that render my decision to
not try to deadlift 600 pounds invalid? Nope.

Which boils down to "I don't think I will like that".

CW skills are more like music. You have to acquire a BASIC level of
skill
to determine if you will like it. Almost every adult that I know wishes
they had learned to play an instrument and wishes their parents had made
them take lessons.

I wish I'd had the opportunity, anyway.

Simple question: Have you ever thought you wouldn't like something,
tried it anyway, and decided you really liked it? Example: ever get
dragged to a movie you thought you wouldn't like and wound up liking
it so much that you bought the tape/DVD?


If everyone in here was honest about past experiences, they would admit to
trying something they believed they would dislike (generally under pressure
of some type) yet ending up feeling quite the opposite.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:02:00 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
.. .

Note that it is not my intention to equate CW skills with animal dung,
the skill remains a useful one to have and I don't begrudge those who
enjoy CW their pleasure at using the mode - not for a single minute.

Yes it was and yes you do or you would not have used the dung comparison.

If you insist on thinking that you know what is inside my own mind
better than I do, go right ahead and delude yourself.

I'm merely pointing out that expertise at a particular activity is not
a prerequisite for deciding whether or not one wishes to pursue said
activity. Do I need to be able to deadlift 600 pounds in order to
decide I don't wish to be an olympic weightlifter? Nope. Can I
currently deadlift 600 pounds? Nope. Does that render my decision to
not try to deadlift 600 pounds invalid? Nope.

CW skills are more like music. You have to acquire a BASIC level of skill
to determine if you will like it.

I don't think so. Every time I turn on a broadcast band radio, I hear
what passes for music nowadays - often being performed by "musicians"
who sound as if they never bothered to acquire a basic level of skill
in much of anything related to music - while at the same time there
are countless people the world over who enjoy listening to music, even
though many of them couldn't carry a tune in a bushel basket to save
their necks.

Almost every adult that I know wishes
they had learned to play an instrument and wishes their parents had made
them take lessons.

Mine did. I gave it up as soon as I was given the opportunity. To this
day I wish they'd have let me spend the time I something I was
actually interested in. Different strokes for different folks.

Funny, though, I have yet to meet anyone who's told me they wish their
parents had made them learn Morse. shrug

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

N2EY wrote:

You would be hard pressed to find a rational person, at any time or in
any culture, who finds that activity anything other than disgusting.
Also, taste and smell are closely related, and it's very rare that
something will smell bad but taste good.

Have you heard of that coffee in which the beans are passed through the
digestive tract of a monkey? It seems to be real (although it now passes
through a critter called a Palm Toddy (Civet) Cat. Read:

http://www.geocities.com/unasoda42/p...eaturette.html

and:

http://home.earthlink.net/~stewartallen/india.html

and

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/kopiluwak.htm

I won't say this isn't some kind of joke, but we can always hope....


Let's go into Starbucks and ask for a cup of crappuchino....


- Mike KB3EIA -