"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...
"Brian Kelly" wrote:

(snip) Can you cite a single example of a nocode who
"pushed the hobby/service forward" since then? (snip)


In what way are we supposed to push the hobby/service forward? Give us
an
example - an example of something a person with code ability has done in
the
last two to three decades to push the hobby/service forward.

As I see it, the Technicians are doing pretty much doing the same things
the other license holders are doing - talking on the radio, tinkering with
their equipment, occasionally going to club meetings, occasionally helping
out in disasters, and so on. All of these are contributions. Obviously,
nothing special since other license holders are also doing the same
things,
but I wasn't aware Technicians were expected to do more than the other
license holders.


And while you're at it perhaps you can explain what
would change in this respect by handing nocodes access
to the HF bands too?


You, Brian, aren't handing access to the HF bands to those without code
ability. Regardless, since you're opposed to HF access for those without
code ability, and that position is out of step with the current trend, it
is
up to you to make an argument to support that position. Demanding more
from
those without code ability than those with is not exactly a strong
argument.


One of the big no-code arguments is that code was keeping highly qualified
people out of ham ram radio and that these people would push the hobby
forward technically. So the other side asked what have the current
no-coders done to push it forward to prove that dropping the code altogether
would bring in the hi-tech types since we ought to have a bunch of hi-tech
types in the no-code tech group. If one looks at reality, only a very, very
limited handful of people came up with the technical advances regardless of
license class so it's probably not a fair question anyway. Plus it would be
skewed by the fact that prior to the no-code tech license, all hams had to
have code. Neither side has a good argument attempting to use this point
to prove anything.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dwight Stewart wrote in message ...
"Brian Kelly" wrote:

(snip) Can you cite a single example of a nocode who
"pushed the hobby/service forward" since then? (snip)


In what way are we supposed to push the hobby/service forward?

Beats me, ask those who repeatedly claim that eliminating the code
tests will by some mysterious means or another "push the hobby/service
forward". Which experince has already demonstrated is complete BS.

Give us an
example - an example of something a person with code ability has done in the
last two to three decades to push the hobby/service forward.

G3PLX for one. But that's not the point. The difference is that us
coders don't go around bleating about how we "push the hobby/service
forward". Which is one of the bogus battle cries of the free
lunchers.

As I see it, the Technicians are doing pretty much doing the same things
the other license holders are doing - talking on the radio, tinkering with
their equipment, occasionally going to club meetings, occasionally helping
out in disasters, and so on. All of these are contributions. Obviously,
nothing special since other license holders are also doing the same things,
but I wasn't aware Technicians were expected to do more than the other
license holders.

EXACTLY my point. The nocodes haven't done a thing to "push the
hobby/service forward", the circle is complete, thankew for the
support.

And while you're at it perhaps you can explain what
would change in this respect by handing nocodes access
to the HF bands too?


You, Brian, aren't handing access to the HF bands to those without code
ability. Regardless, since you're opposed to HF access for those without
code ability, and that position is out of step with the current trend, it is
up to you to make an argument to support that position.

Watch for my response to the NPRM. It will not be in support of the
claim that eliminating the code tests on the basis of "pushing the
hobby/service forward" is a valid rationale.

Demanding more from
those without code ability than those with is not exactly a strong argument.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

w3rv

Dwight Stewart wrote in message ...
"Jerry Oxendine" wrote:

(snip) But *if* radio should fail (terrorists,
infrastructure, etc) then CW can get thru when
others fail. (snip)


That is very easy to claim but the fact that neither the military or
government requires all their operators to learn CW clearly suggests there
is something seriously wrong with that claim.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

I think BOTH of you have lost context of what everyone is up in arms
over. Who cares if CW will get through when the other modes fail, it's
not important because those who pass the 5-wpm test are NOT equipped
to take advantage of that mode. I'm living proof of that. I'm NOWHERE
close to being Morse code proficient, yet I can pass Element 1 every
day of the week and twice on Sunday...and very likely with 100% copy.

We're talking about donning a set of headphones and having five
minutes of perfectly sent CW piped through in a format that, with some
minimal preparation, is fully expected. Ready? A one and a two and ...

N0CW DE KN0WCW, UR RST IS 589. M_ N_M_ IS J_NA_HON. RI_ HE_E I_ _AES_.
QT_ IS _LORI_A. _EATH_R I_ SU_N_.

The above sample represents 92 characters as sent on the test.
Remember, Numbers, punctuation marks, and prosigns count for two each.
Can ANTONE really look at this and assuming that BOTH calls up front
are missed, believe that the average Joe can't fill in the missed
characters solely from commonn sense?!

Does passing Element 1 demonstrate Morse proficiency? Heck no. It's
not jumping through hoops, it's not a barrier, (Except to the lazy.)
it's a forced TASTE. That's it. YES it's a method by which one is
FORCED to utilize a little self discipline and try out a little CW.
Like it...keep moving and practice on your own. Don't like it...drop
it like a bad habit. But to say that:

A. Morse code is a barrier to ham radio.

B. Passing Element 1 represents "knowing" Morse code.

C. If the military doesn't use it, it's no longer needed.

Is pure horsefeathers. Sorry, but it's time to call the lazy...lazy. I
personally believe that 5-wpm is great for entry-level HF (Including
the General, BTW.) with 13-wpm for the Extra. The no-code Tech allows
those who wish to enter ham radio sans the code so the barrier
argument is empty. Try passing Element 1 and just hopping on 40 and
see how "proficient" you feel. Finally, who gives a hoot whether or
not the military uses CW...this is ham radio, rich with tradition.
It's part of our culture. Don't like it...try scale modelling or
gardening. I wanted more than CB could offer. I researched the
requirements...and fulfilled them. END OF STORY.

You better believe that I'll be writing the FCC and EVERY local and
state rep who'll listen and I'll make sure they know that I'm a newbie
and a CBer too. (No barrier to either.) A suggestion to all. (Even you
NCTA.) When you get those political flyers in your mailbox, respond to
them immediately re. your concerns. Those are when these guys are
hungry for their jobs and will likely, at the very least, make
inquiries. Remember, one ham's letter is responsible for the vanity
call system AFTER his NPRM was denied. His letter ended up in the
hands of a rep who had some say with the FCC's budget. How quickly the
vanity call system was implemented WITHOUT a second NPRM. Your
political and monetary clout will have much more leverage than NCI. I
happen to believe that PCTA outnumber NCTA by 2:1...likely why the
idea of a square and fair vote scares 'em $hitless. Then comes the
"FCC knows best" whine to go along with the "regulatory" cheese. What
a stroke of luck it is that the FCC has ZERO interest in the ARS and
welcomes anything that'll reduce it's "regulatory" workload. (Oh, so
THAT'S where that darned word fits in.)

I for one cannot join in recent "celebration of underachievement."
PCTA's, get off your duffs and write a letter. (Not to the FCC, to
your local reps.)

73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS# 9384

.. Can you cite a single example of a nocode who
"pushed the hobby/service forward" since then?

Please define "pushed the hobby/service forward" ?

"Steve Stone" wrote in message
...
. Can you cite a single example of a nocode who
"pushed the hobby/service forward" since then?

Please define "pushed the hobby/service forward" ?



That's too intelligent a question. You'll never get an answer.

Kim W5TIT


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

In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:

I agree. But then we shouldn't either. Our equipment is also advancing,
reducing the need for a fallback system (which may explain why code testing
appears to be going away). A modern station, equipped with the latest gear
(properly installed), has the ability to get through where needed. At that
point, it is fairly useless to argue CW offers more than that (even if that
can be proven - it hasn't).

"CW gets through when everything else will..." - B. Burke

I was on HF and communicating
before any of the regulars in here and I didn't have to use any
morse code at all.

Im sure your right, CB or 11 Meters is considered HF.

(WA8ULX) wrote in message ...
I was on HF and communicating
before any of the regulars in here and I didn't have to use any
morse code at all.

Im sure your right, CB or 11 Meters is considered HF.

He's so fulla **** the whites of his eyes gotta be brown. I for one
was on the HF ham bands in 1951 *with CW* from W3CGS before I got my
Novice ticket. The only "HF experience" he had in that timeframe was
as a grunt U.S. Army apprentice RTTY equipment mechanic & babysitter
1952-53.

w3rv

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

(snip) If one looks at reality, only a very, very
limited handful of people came up with the technical
advances regardless of license class so it's probably
not a fair question anyway. Plus it would be skewed by
the fact that prior to the no-code tech license, all
hams had to have code. Neither side has a good argument
attempting to use this point to prove anything.


What you said above pretty much sums up my thoughts on this also.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Brian Kelly" wrote:

Beats me, ask those who repeatedly claim that
eliminating the code tests will by some
mysterious means or another "push the hobby/
service forward". Which experience has already
demonstrated is complete BS.


Well, I suppose one could argue that those without code ability have
pushed the hobby/service forward by just being there (shear numbers do help
Amateur Radio). Of course, that is not likely to be an argument that
satisfies you, but it was the only thing I could come up with at this
moment. However, I think even those with code ability would agree that at
least some have walked away from ham radio because of the code testing
requirement. Would one of those have pushed the hobby/service forward? We'll
obviously never know (especially since we're not even clear on what that
phrase means).


The difference is that us coders don't go around
bleating about how we "push the hobby/service
forward". Which is one of the bogus battle cries
of the free lunchers. (snip)


Well, with the amount of noise those with code ability make in general, it
would be a little hard to notice even if they did.

The rest of your message seems more to be a declaration than a discussion
so I'll let it go unanswered.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/