In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Put it that way, Mike, yes. It is hard to argue that removing *any* part
of
a test is not a reduction in the amount of knowledge needed to pass a test.
But, that is simply a word game and nothing else.

It's more than a word game. Encouraging radio knowledge of all types is one of
the most basic reasons to have the ARS exist at all. The tests are there to
insure a minimum knowledge level. ("Knowledge" including skills, concepts,
facts, etc.)

The point is, what does passing a CW test prove in the way of
knowledge--other than that one can pass a CW test?

It proves that:

1) The person has learned a useful radio skill at a very basic level.
2) The person was willing and able to devote the time and effort necessary to
learn that skill.
3) The person has been exposed to a useful, widely-used-by-hams radio
communications mode other than voice or data.

What does passing the
written tests prove in the way of knowledge--other than that one can pass a
written test?

It proves that:

1) The person has learned some useful radio knowledge at a very basic level.
2) The person was willing and able to devote the time and effort necessary to
learn that knowledge.
3) The person has been exposed to several aspects of the amateur radio service
(regulations, operating practices, technology).


If you see the parody in both of those questions, then I go
one step further and say: What does passing a CW test have to with anything
related to overall knowledge of ham radio?!!!!!???? In my mind, *NOTHING*

Then your knowledge of amateur radio is very lacking. Like it or not, CW/Morse
is a very big part of amateur radio today. Of course, that by itself doesn't
prove we must have a code test.

It's bad enough that the written tests don't prove a whole lot, without the
added argument of CW in the mix. To continue to support CW as some form
of
proof that people know more about ham radio, know more about
communication,
know more about the standards and technology of ham radio, et al, is to
continue to do nothing but whine about a tradition--which is really all CW
really is: A TRADITION that no one wants to see fade away.

You are mistaken on several counts there, Kim.

1) The written tests are what they are. They are in a continuing state of
development.

2) ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, a ham who has Morse skills knows more about amateur
radio than one with no Morse skills.

3) Morse/CW has certain advantages to hams beyond being "just another mode".
4) Morse/CW is more than "just a tradition". It's a useful mode of radio
communication enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of hams.

5) There do exist folks who want Morse/CW USE (not just the TEST) by hams to
simply go away. They are a very small minority, but they do exist. Or at least
there are people whose rhetoric indicates they want Morse use by hams to end.

Of course, whether all of that "proves" we must have a code test is simply a
matter of opinion.

Passing CW is nothing.

Maybe not to you. To others, it's a big deal.

And it proves nothing to anyone else, except that
they studied CW and passed it in a test. I've seen idiots on every side of
ham radio, so it does nothing to prove quality or *interest* as everyone
seems to like to argue. If CW was that kind of instrument, then we'd have
no jerks on ham radio and, believe me, I've heard them.

That's simply illogical. No test, no matter how contrived, will filter out
every single "jerk" from the ranks of amateur radio. Or anything else, for that
matter.

Look at how much it takes just to become a physician. The training and testing
required is phenomenal, and designed to weed out the incapable. The hard work
and dedication required just to get into medical school are extraordinary, and
yet that's just the beginning. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

And yet there are some physicians who are jerks, pure and simple. Not many, but
some. And they make life hell for the rest, through things like high
malpractice insurance premiums and over-regulation.

Using CW as a test to prove "diligence" to the desire of wanting to be a
ham
radio operator is pure crap in my not-so-humble opinion.

OK, fine. At least you note that it's your opinion.

It is wrong to
even attempt to measure someone's desire and interest.

Why? I'd rather have an ARS consisting of a few hundred thousand interested,
active, dedicated, skilled, knowledgeable hams than one of a few million
inactive, apathetic, unskilled, ignorant ones who could not care less. Code
test or no code test.

If I have an Extra
license and I have no equipment or haven't even been on the radio in years,
then what did passing CW prove, in terms of proven interest? Nothing. And
it never will.

Incorrect. It proved that at one time the person had the interest.

Yes, CW is a useful communication skill. Hell, *ANY* type of communication
skill is useful. If we place such importance on CW, then why not RTTY,
phone, ATV, etc.

Because those modes don't require the acquisition of new skills for their use.

You know what I'm saying.

Not really.

And, if CW proves a higher
plane of dedication and knowledge, then why are there extremely skilled CW
operators out there, who are real jerks?! And you know there are.

No, I don't. Name some. If your only reference is how a few folks behave in
this newsgroup, it should be remembered that lots of folks on both sides of the
code test fence have behaved like real jerks in their posts here.

So, how
can someone, *anyone* then turn around and say that CW proves *anything*?
It proves nothing but that the person studied for and passed the CW
requirement.

Seems to me that you want the Morse code test to be a perfect "jerk" filter.
And of course no test can do that.

But note this plain, simple fact: Almost all of the FCC enforcement actions for
"jerk-like" on-air behavior (obscenity, jamming, failure to ID, exceeeding
license privileges, etc., etc.) are against hams using PHONE modes, not
CW/Morse or data modes. ALL of us have taken written tests detailing what we
should and should not do on the air, but it seems like violations are much more
prevalent among the talkers than the brasspounders or keyboarders. Why?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo

writes:

Put it that way, Mike, yes. It is hard to argue that removing *any*
part
of
a test is not a reduction in the amount of knowledge needed to pass a
test.
But, that is simply a word game and nothing else.

It's more than a word game. Encouraging radio knowledge of all types is
one of
the most basic reasons to have the ARS exist at all. The tests are there
to
insure a minimum knowledge level. ("Knowledge" including skills, concepts,
facts, etc.)

The point is, what does passing a CW test prove in the way of
knowledge--other than that one can pass a CW test?

It proves that:

1) The person has learned a useful radio skill at a very basic level.


Then, why not have a "net operation" test? Net operation is fairly
standard. That's as basic a level as you can get: everyone understands the
English Language (at least those who are testing for a US amateur radio
license).


2) The person was willing and able to devote the time and effort necessary
to
learn that skill.


That has nothing to do with their participation in ham radio.


3) The person has been exposed to a useful, widely-used-by-hams radio
communications mode other than voice or data.


Like I said, then test on voice. It's the widest-used-by-hams radio
communication. Why not test the most used mode?


What does passing the
written tests prove in the way of knowledge--other than that one can
pass a
written test?

It proves that:

[Skip 1 and 2, we already went over those]
3) The person has been exposed to several aspects of the amateur radio
service
(regulations, operating practices, technology).


Agreed.


If you see the parody in both of those questions, then I go
one step further and say: What does passing a CW test have to with
anything
related to overall knowledge of ham radio?!!!!!???? In my mind,
*NOTHING*

Then your knowledge of amateur radio is very lacking. Like it or not,
CW/Morse
is a very big part of amateur radio today. Of course, that by itself
doesn't
prove we must have a code test.


Thank you. And, was that you acquiescing? Yes, CW is incredibly important
and a big part of amateur radio. But, no, it does not prove that we must
have a code test.


It's bad enough that the written tests don't prove a whole lot, without
the
added argument of CW in the mix. To continue to support CW as some
form
of
proof that people know more about ham radio, know more about
communication,
know more about the standards and technology of ham radio, et al, is to
continue to do nothing but whine about a tradition--which is really all
CW
really is: A TRADITION that no one wants to see fade away.

You are mistaken on several counts there, Kim.

1) The written tests are what they are. They are in a continuing state of
development.

2) ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, a ham who has Morse skills knows more about
amateur
radio than one with no Morse skills.


I disagree. A ham who has CW skills knows more about CW than one with no CW
skills.


3) Morse/CW has certain advantages to hams beyond being "just another
mode".


That does not merit a CW test.


4) Morse/CW is more than "just a tradition". It's a useful mode of radio
communication enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of hams.


That does not merit a CW test.


5) There do exist folks who want Morse/CW USE (not just the TEST) by hams
to
simply go away. They are a very small minority, but they do exist. Or at
least
there are people whose rhetoric indicates they want Morse use by hams to
end.


That's their problem, not mine. I don't believe CW will ever exit from the
ham radio scene.


Of course, whether all of that "proves" we must have a code test is simply
a
matter of opinion.

Passing CW is nothing.

Maybe not to you. To others, it's a big deal.


Well, I worded that wrong. Passing CW is a big deal, but it does nothing
for the benefit of ham radio, save that that particular operator may use
CW--but that particular operator would probably have used CW anyway, then.


And it proves nothing to anyone else, except that
they studied CW and passed it in a test. I've seen idiots on every
side of
ham radio, so it does nothing to prove quality or *interest* as
everyone
seems to like to argue. If CW was that kind of instrument, then we'd
have
no jerks on ham radio and, believe me, I've heard them.

That's simply illogical. No test, no matter how contrived, will filter out
every single "jerk" from the ranks of amateur radio. Or anything else, for
that
matter.


I know that, and you know that. But others here either don't know that or
don't want to let go of that part of the argument.


Look at how much it takes just to become a physician. The training and
testing
required is phenomenal, and designed to weed out the incapable. The hard
work
and dedication required just to get into medical school are extraordinary,
and
yet that's just the beginning. I could go on and on, but you get the
picture.


I will not argue the merit of CW testing against the measure of training and
testing for a professional field. There is no reason to put someone through
the same stressful training and testing that a physician goes through, for
an amateur radio license.


Using CW as a test to prove "diligence" to the desire of wanting to be
a
ham
radio operator is pure crap in my not-so-humble opinion.

OK, fine. At least you note that it's your opinion.


One would hope, Jim, that everyone realizes we post our opinions.


It is wrong to
even attempt to measure someone's desire and interest.

Why? I'd rather have an ARS consisting of a few hundred thousand
interested,
active, dedicated, skilled, knowledgeable hams than one of a few million
inactive, apathetic, unskilled, ignorant ones who could not care less.
Code
test or no code test.


And, I'd rather have *everyone.*


If I have an Extra
license and I have no equipment or haven't even been on the radio in
years,
then what did passing CW prove, in terms of proven interest? Nothing.
And
it never will.

Incorrect. It proved that at one time the person had the interest.


Oh, wow...


Yes, CW is a useful communication skill. Hell, *ANY* type of
communication
skill is useful. If we place such importance on CW, then why not RTTY,
phone, ATV, etc.

Because those modes don't require the acquisition of new skills for their
use.


Uh, 'scuse me? They require being able to establish communication between
devices, have the signal within a certain bandwidth, etc.


You know what I'm saying.

Not really.

And, if CW proves a higher
plane of dedication and knowledge, then why are there extremely skilled
CW
operators out there, who are real jerks?! And you know there are.

No, I don't. Name some. If your only reference is how a few folks behave
in
this newsgroup, it should be remembered that lots of folks on both sides
of the
code test fence have behaved like real jerks in their posts here.


No, it would not be only by a few folks in this newsgroup. And, I won't
name them because they are from my local area. Suffice it to say their
interference for the use of spelling curse words in CW was frequent and
sufficient enough to end a years long tradition of hams getting together
every night at 10:00PM for a phone net on 10M.


So, how
can someone, *anyone* then turn around and say that CW proves
*anything*?
It proves nothing but that the person studied for and passed the CW
requirement.

Seems to me that you want the Morse code test to be a perfect "jerk"
filter.
And of course no test can do that.


Not at all. Others already think it does.


But note this plain, simple fact: Almost all of the FCC enforcement
actions for
"jerk-like" on-air behavior (obscenity, jamming, failure to ID, exceeeding
license privileges, etc., etc.) are against hams using PHONE modes, not
CW/Morse or data modes. ALL of us have taken written tests detailing what
we
should and should not do on the air, but it seems like violations are much
more
prevalent among the talkers than the brasspounders or keyboarders. Why?

73 de Jim, N2EY

I've already said that there are probably more reasons for that than it
being because a CW operator is a finer person than others who are not. And,
talking is much easier and quicker to let things roll off that we shouldn't.
CW is mostly callsign/whereabouts/weather/TNX and that's it. If an actual
conversation ensues, I'm sure no one (except the jerks I know of) would
waste their time getting carpal tunnel with cursing in CW.

Kim W5TIT


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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
CW is mostly callsign/whereabouts/weather/TNX and that's it. If an actual
conversation ensues, I'm sure no one (except the jerks I know of) would
waste their time getting carpal tunnel with cursing in CW.


There you are wrong. There are many extensive conversations on CW. They
converse about the same things voice operators do. I've heard them talking
about their careers, families, computers, buying and selling on ebay and a
myriad of other topics.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
CW is mostly callsign/whereabouts/weather/TNX and that's it. If an
actual
conversation ensues, I'm sure no one (except the jerks I know of) would
waste their time getting carpal tunnel with cursing in CW.


There you are wrong. There are many extensive conversations on CW. They
converse about the same things voice operators do. I've heard them
talking
about their careers, families, computers, buying and selling on ebay and a
myriad of other topics.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Wow, most of the CW operators I've known even state that all they "pretty
much" do is exchange information. Most of them also only use it during a
contest, though. Maybe that's the difference.

Kim W5TIT


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

Kim W5TIT wrote:

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
CW is mostly callsign/whereabouts/weather/TNX and that's it. If an
actual
conversation ensues, I'm sure no one (except the jerks I know of) would
waste their time getting carpal tunnel with cursing in CW.


There you are wrong. There are many extensive conversations on CW. They
converse about the same things voice operators do. I've heard them
talking
about their careers, families, computers, buying and selling on ebay and a
myriad of other topics.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Wow, most of the CW operators I've known even state that all they "pretty
much" do is exchange information. Most of them also only use it during a
contest, though. Maybe that's the difference.

Interesting data, Kim. Do you have evidence that your anecdotal tale is
indicative of national stats--or do you just have a feeling?

Dave K8MN

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
CW is mostly callsign/whereabouts/weather/TNX and that's it. If an
actual
conversation ensues, I'm sure no one (except the jerks I know of)
would
waste their time getting carpal tunnel with cursing in CW.


There you are wrong. There are many extensive conversations on CW.
They
converse about the same things voice operators do. I've heard them
talking
about their careers, families, computers, buying and selling on ebay and
a
myriad of other topics.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Wow, most of the CW operators I've known even state that all they "pretty
much" do is exchange information. Most of them also only use it during a
contest, though. Maybe that's the difference.

Kim W5TIT

Just cruise the bands at non-contest times and that is when you will find
the extended conversations.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
CW is mostly callsign/whereabouts/weather/TNX and that's it. If an
actual
conversation ensues, I'm sure no one (except the jerks I know of)
would
waste their time getting carpal tunnel with cursing in CW.


There you are wrong. There are many extensive conversations on CW.
They
converse about the same things voice operators do. I've heard them
talking
about their careers, families, computers, buying and selling on ebay and
a
myriad of other topics.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Wow, most of the CW operators I've known even state that all they "pretty
much" do is exchange information. Most of them also only use it during a
contest, though. Maybe that's the difference.

Kim W5TIT


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

Kim keeps referencing all her friends that do CW. And what they tell her.
Hey Kim....here is an eye opener for you. CW ops actually to 'communicate'
Yes there is the wx reports, rig here is etc. But real CW ops don't bother
with that booooorings stuff. We talk about everything under the sun.

Get you 'CW OP BUDS' to get their speed up around 40 and check out 7030
or so. There are some 'real' conversations going on.

Dan/W4NTI

In article , "Kim"
writes:

Wow, most of the CW operators I've known even state that all they "pretty
much" do is exchange information.

Not me.

Most of them also only use it during a
contest, though.

Not me.

Maybe that's the difference.

Of course. The 'phone and data folks do the same - get the QSO and on to the
next, which is what contests are all about. DXing is similar.

CW ragchewing is a completely different game. Tremendous fun once you have the
skills and a decent rig.

And CW can offer a feature most other modes don't - full break-in, or QSK. The
receiving op can interrupt the sending op just by tapping the key. Great for
traffic handling, too.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Interesting. Of course, I never gave a hang for contests, but I recall the
RPN (Rochester Peanut Whistle Net) that we had years ago. We met evenings
on 15 CW. I'm trying to recall ... there was me (then WB2OSP), Tim WB2KAO
(still has that call), Greg WB2GLK (now a 4 call and I'm not sure ... I'd
have to look it up), Mike (WA2SEY now W2AV) and a couple of others. I can't
imagine us getting on a bunch of evenings only to state rrr tnx fer call ur
5nn here in Rochester,, ny (heck, we were all from Rochester!). I enjoyed
rag chewing, and preferred cw back then. When in the service, I usually
split my operating around 1/3 ssb, 1/3 cw, 1/3 rtty. I used to talk via
rtty with Norm, VK2NP, for hours on end. ssb and cw contacts were usually
in the range of 15 minutes to half an hour. Even a cw contact for 15
minutes did consist of far more than simple weather, rig, etc exchanges as
my cw contacts were fairly high speed cw (usually - although I did enjoy
dropping into the novice 40 or 15 meter bands to give a few folks a chance
to work something more than a couple of states away. Those were usually
limited as you imply simply by the limitation of slow cw). The cw contacts
close approached the limit of the rtty gear running a tape reader. rtty was
60 words per minute, too much for me, but at the time I had no problem
putting 40 words per minute perfect copy on paper and 50 words per minute
before I was struggling to copy it. Most of my contacts were between 30 and
50 words per minute cw. Come to think of it, a lot of voice contacts were
just what you mentioned - signal, weather, rig, name, and - oh yes -
*please* QSL.

Don't get me wrong; I don't care whether someone else want to learn code or
not; I just don't care for a bunch of folks who want to blame it for their
washing machines over-sudsing As far as carpel-tunnel, I never used a
straight key (although I could send decent code to about 22 and shaky code
to about 28 with one). A small amount of movement and the Hallicrafters
HA1-TO keyer took care of the tough stuff A few hours of cw contacts
never bithered me a bot.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...

Wow, most of the CW operators I've known even state that all they "pretty
much" do is exchange information. Most of them also only use it during a
contest, though. Maybe that's the difference.

Kim W5TIT





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/4/03

In article , "Kim"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo

writes:

Put it that way, Mike, yes. It is hard to argue that removing *any*
part of
a test is not a reduction in the amount of knowledge needed to pass a
test. But, that is simply a word game and nothing else.

It's more than a word game. Encouraging radio knowledge of all types is
one of
the most basic reasons to have the ARS exist at all. The tests are there
to
insure a minimum knowledge level. ("Knowledge" including skills, concepts,
facts, etc.)

The point is, what does passing a CW test prove in the way of
knowledge--other than that one can pass a CW test?

It proves that:

1) The person has learned a useful radio skill at a very basic level.

Then, why not have a "net operation" test? Net operation is fairly
standard. That's as basic a level as you can get: everyone understands the
English Language (at least those who are testing for a US amateur radio
license).

Actually, based on some postings here, understanding of English should not be
taken for granted!

Net operation test? Good idea! In fact, I have posted suggestions here about a
similar (but simpler) test. Basic idea was that the person taking the test
would demonstrate the ability to send and receive simple messages in standard
form using either CW/Morse, voice, or a data mode. I can google up the details
if you want.

However, when I proposed such a test as a replacement for the code test, there
was universal opposition from nocodetest folks. That's when I realized that for
some of the loudest complainers here it wasn't really about the code at all,
but about the idea of operating skills and standard procedures.

2) The person was willing and able to devote the time and effort necessary
to learn that skill.

That has nothing to do with their participation in ham radio.

So? There's no requirement that any licensee actually participate. There used
to be, btw.

3) The person has been exposed to a useful, widely-used-by-hams radio
communications mode other than voice or data.

Like I said, then test on voice. It's the widest-used-by-hams radio
communication. Why not test the most used mode?

Why test what almost everyone can do?

My proposed message-skills test would have left the choice of mode up to the
person being tested. What could be fairer?

What does passing the
written tests prove in the way of knowledge--other than that one can
pass a written test?

It proves that:

[Skip 1 and 2, we already went over those]
3) The person has been exposed to several aspects of the amateur radio
service (regulations, operating practices, technology).

Agreed.

Well, there you have it.

If you see the parody in both of those questions, then I go
one step further and say: What does passing a CW test have to with
anything
related to overall knowledge of ham radio?!!!!!???? In my mind,
*NOTHING*

Then your knowledge of amateur radio is very lacking. Like it or not,
CW/Morse
is a very big part of amateur radio today. Of course, that by itself
doesn't prove we must have a code test.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

And, was that you acquiescing?

Nope.

When you boil down all the arguments, almost everything on any ARS license test
(real or proposed) comes down to somebody's opinion on what's important and
what isn't. Proof just doesn't exist, one way or the other. Take Ohm's Law -
why MUST it be tested? Some hams do perfectly well with little or no knowledge
of it, and yet it's on the tests because somebody thinks it's important enough
to force it down everyone's throats.

Yes, CW is incredibly important
and a big part of amateur radio. But, no, it does not prove that we must
have a code test.

Exactly. Just like Ohm's Law.

It's bad enough that the written tests don't prove a whole lot, without
the added argument of CW in the mix. To continue to support CW as
some form of
proof that people know more about ham radio, know more about
communication,
know more about the standards and technology of ham radio, et al, is to
continue to do nothing but whine about a tradition--which is really all
CW really is: A TRADITION that no one wants to see fade away.

You are mistaken on several counts there, Kim.

1) The written tests are what they are. They are in a continuing state of
development.

2) ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, a ham who has Morse skills knows more about
amateur radio than one with no Morse skills.

I disagree. A ham who has CW skills knows more about CW than one with no CW
skills.

And since CW/Morse is a big important part of amateur radio, a ham who has CW
skills knows more about amateur radio than one with no CW skills.

You cannot escape that conclusion. Of course, that conclusion does not prove
that CW must have its own test, just that "ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, a ham who has
Morse skills knows more about amateur radio than one with no Morse skills."

3) Morse/CW has certain advantages to hams beyond being "just another
mode".

That does not merit a CW test.

In your opinion. In others' opinions, it does.

4) Morse/CW is more than "just a tradition". It's a useful mode of radio
communication enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of hams.

That does not merit a CW test.

In your opinion. In others' opinions, it does.

5) There do exist folks who want Morse/CW USE (not just the TEST) by hams
to simply go away. They are a very small minority, but they do exist. Or at
least
there are people whose rhetoric indicates they want Morse use by hams to
end.

That's their problem, not mine. I don't believe CW will ever exit from the
ham radio scene.

I hope you are right about that.

Of course, whether all of that "proves" we must have a code test is simply
a matter of opinion.

Passing CW is nothing.

Maybe not to you. To others, it's a big deal.

Well, I worded that wrong. Passing CW is a big deal, but it does nothing
for the benefit of ham radio, save that that particular operator may use
CW--but that particular operator would probably have used CW anyway, then.

If it does nothing, why all the fuss?.

And it proves nothing to anyone else, except that
they studied CW and passed it in a test. I've seen idiots on every
side of ham radio, so it does nothing to prove quality or *interest* as
everyone
seems to like to argue. If CW was that kind of instrument, then we'd
have
no jerks on ham radio and, believe me, I've heard them.

That's simply illogical. No test, no matter how contrived, will filter out
every single "jerk" from the ranks of amateur radio. Or anything else, for
that matter.

I know that, and you know that. But others here either don't know that or
don't want to let go of that part of the argument.

I've never seen anyone argue that a code test is a perfect "jerk filter". I
have seen people argue that it is not a "jerk filter" at all. I've also seen
arguments that since it's not a perfect "jerk filter", it has no effect at all
on "jerks".

Look at how much it takes just to become a physician. The training and
testing
required is phenomenal, and designed to weed out the incapable. The hard
work
and dedication required just to get into medical school are extraordinary,
and
yet that's just the beginning. I could go on and on, but you get the
picture.

I will not argue the merit of CW testing against the measure of training and
testing for a professional field. There is no reason to put someone through
the same stressful training and testing that a physician goes through, for
an amateur radio license.

Apparently you did not get the picture at all.

The point is simply that NO test or training is a perfect "jerk filter", not
even at the level of what doctors go through.

Using CW as a test to prove "diligence" to the desire of wanting to be
a ham radio operator is pure crap in my not-so-humble opinion.

OK, fine. At least you note that it's your opinion.

One would hope, Jim, that everyone realizes we post our opinions.

We post both opinions and objective facts. The problem is that some folks try
to pass off their opinions as objective facts.

It is wrong to even attempt to measure someone's desire and interest.

Why? I'd rather have an ARS consisting of a few hundred thousand
interested,
active, dedicated, skilled, knowledgeable hams than one of a few million
inactive, apathetic, unskilled, ignorant ones who could not care less.
Code test or no code test.

And, I'd rather have *everyone.*

That means there should be no tests and no qualifications at all. We've seen
what happens to a radio service that takes that route. No thanks.

If I have an Extra
license and I have no equipment or haven't even been on the radio in
years,
then what did passing CW prove, in terms of proven interest? Nothing.
And it never will.

Incorrect. It proved that at one time the person had the interest.

Oh, wow...

When's the last time YOU were on the ham bands, Kim?

Yes, CW is a useful communication skill. Hell, *ANY* type of
communication
skill is useful. If we place such importance on CW, then why not RTTY,
phone, ATV, etc.

Because those modes don't require the acquisition of new skills for their
use.

Uh, 'scuse me? They require being able to establish communication between
devices, have the signal within a certain bandwidth, etc.

Plug 'n' play, Kim. No test for that. Does it really take a lot of skill to use
an HT?

You know what I'm saying.

Not really.

And, if CW proves a higher
plane of dedication and knowledge, then why are there extremely skilled
CW operators out there, who are real jerks?! And you know there are.

No, I don't. Name some. If your only reference is how a few folks behave
in this newsgroup, it should be remembered that lots of folks on both sides
of the code test fence have behaved like real jerks in their posts here.

No, it would not be only by a few folks in this newsgroup. And, I won't
name them because they are from my local area. Suffice it to say their
interference for the use of spelling curse words in CW was frequent and
sufficient enough to end a years long tradition of hams getting together
every night at 10:00PM for a phone net on 10M.

Never heard of such a thing around here. How do you know who these folks
are/were? What was their problem with a local 10 meter 'phone net?

Doesn't take any real skill to program a keyer, computer or keyboard to send
cuss words.

So, how
can someone, *anyone* then turn around and say that CW proves
*anything*?
It proves nothing but that the person studied for and passed the CW
requirement.

Seems to me that you want the Morse code test to be a perfect "jerk"
filter. And of course no test can do that.

Not at all. Others already think it does.

Who?

But note this plain, simple fact: Almost all of the FCC enforcement
actions for
"jerk-like" on-air behavior (obscenity, jamming, failure to ID, exceeeding
license privileges, etc., etc.) are against hams using PHONE modes, not
CW/Morse or data modes. ALL of us have taken written tests detailing what
we
should and should not do on the air, but it seems like violations are much
more
prevalent among the talkers than the brasspounders or keyboarders. Why?

I've already said that there are probably more reasons for that than it
being because a CW operator is a finer person than others who are not.

" a CW operator is a finer person than others who are not. " Has a nice ring to
it...

And,
talking is much easier and quicker to let things roll off that we shouldn't.

All the more reason to promote CW as a mode and downplay voice.

CW is mostly callsign/whereabouts/weather/TNX and that's it.

Not at all, Kim.

I'm on HF CW several times a week, mostly ragchewing on 80 and 40. Typicla QSO
is at least a half hour, usually more. Call/QTH/wx/rig/name/age/ham experience
is all done withing 5-10 minutes max at the speeds normally eno****ered.
Wonderful QSOs with many wonderful people. No cussing, no jamming, no
nastiness. Lots of politeness and good manners. If one or both ops have QSK,
conversation flows naturally.

If an actual
conversation ensues, I'm sure no one (except the jerks I know of) would
waste their time getting carpal tunnel with cursing in CW.

Carpal tunnel? Not a problem - the side-to-side motion of a bug or paddles
avoids CTS, while the up-and-down motion of keyboards promotes it. Just another
advantage of CW...

73 de Jim, N2EY