"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

Clint wrote:
I'm sorry but that is YOUR oppinion. What counts is the decision of
those in
authority, namely the FCC.

Son, you might want to learn somewhere along the way that opinion is
sometimes
congruent with fact, sometimes not.

I. you're not my father, do not call me son.
II. the second part of your remark has not the slightest shred of relavance
to anything.


No matter what the FCC says or does, it can't alter facts.

You are so correct. However, what it DOES is make rules and laws. Therefore,
if they make a rule that code practical tests are no longer valid nor
necissary
to aquire a ham radio license, then the bottom line is that there will not
be
any further code tests. It is YOUR oppinion that somebody is not a fully
qualified ham without code testing. It is FACT that they are a fully
qualified
ham in the eyes of the FCC if they meet all the requirements the FCC sets
forth; now, THAT is a fact.



And nowhere have
they ever said that a no-code license is a fully qualified ham.

excuse me? then what is the little piece of paper your issued with a
callsign
when you meet all the requirements set forth by the FCC to acquire one?

In fact, the
retired Chief of the Amateur and Citizen's Division of FCC (now called
something
else) stated in his comments on the NCVEC pettion
(which BTW he helped write) that it was an oxymoron to expect an Extra
class
ham to be a expert on ham radio if he doesn't know Morse code.

and that is the RETIRED chief's oppinion.

the oppinions of the current members of the FCC are what counts. Not his.



Thus he supports
a code test for Extras.


and he's retired, and no longer a voting member of the FCC.




Which can't change facts. Facts are immutable.

yes, like it is a fact that the FCC makes the laws regarding the
use of ham radio bands and the requirements to do so. NOT
retired members.

Live with it. Any ham not able
to operate CW is simply and factually not fully qualified.


that is your oppinion.

I tell you what; next time you're operating a motor vehicle, drive
as fast as you can... I mean pedal to the medal; do over 100mph
if you can. when a policeman pulls you over and hands you
a ticket, then tell him "I am driving at a perfectly safe speed for my
skills. Your oppinion and that of the judge that I am about to have
to go in front of are not relavant. It is an immutable fact that
a driver is not a good driver unless he can do 100 without wrecking,
which I did. That's a fact, and you can't do anything about it."

and just see what happens.

Clint
KB5ZHT
a code-tested ham who, regardless of the fact, does not believe
in code testing.

NOTHING has changed about the USE of Morse code, from spark to today's
rigs-which aren't simple CW generators, BTW,

then why not test the use of spark generators, thier constructions, etc?
it's a "basic", right?

since you seem to have
missed that (at least in the case of most modern rigs).
It's the MODE, the requirement to selftrain to learn to use it, that
remains just as valid today as ever.

just what century do you live in? haven't you heard that even in
the military they are pulling away from morse code use?


Of course technical improvements in equipement have enhanced the use of
Morse as they have other modes, but the simple requirement to learn to
use it remains, as always. FACT!

Nope. your oppinion. MAN you need to learn the difference between
a fact of life and your oppinion on a topic. Nobody will buy your
circular thinking of "I said it, so it MUST be so!" thinking.

Clint
KB5ZHT

Ham radio isn't about engineering,


then why is there a knowledge test on circuits?



Ham radio isn't about metalurgy pr plastics technology, Clint, it's about
OPERATING .

and if you choose NOT to operate CW, then why test it if it's soley
about OPERATING????

you're mad because YOU had to do it, bottom line.

I guess it's too bad that there aren't that many coal fired steam
locomotives
being used anymore.

On the othe hand, there IS very MUCH Morse code being used on ham radio!

and a LOT more FM, ssb, AM, packet, etc too.

Clint
KB5ZHT

"Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote in message ...
many people that are in or supports the doctrines of PCTA keeps
spouting "basics", and draws an anology to either handwriting...
and I say this; does this mean you could NEVER write cursive
if you were never taught print? could you NOT be taught
cursive directly without first being taught print? No.

OK, fine.

But why should any sort of manual writing skill be mandatory in a
world full of keyboards?

However, it's simply another skill that can be taught, and they
do, and that's fine.

Why?

Why not teach keyboarding from Day One? Our children will spend far
more time at keyboards than writing.

However, they do not look at CW the
same way; it's pass/fail, not merely a percentage of test
that needs to be passed.

If it were up to me, there would be several written tests (or the
written would be split up into separately-graded parts) as well as a
code test.

Do you think they would support a system where you had
to be tested on CW, if an only if you wanted to use CW
on the CW part of the bands? Heh, of COURSE not.

There are no CW-only parts of the HF/MF bands. None at all.

That is where thier anology fails. The art of CW needs
to be tested with a practical test if you are to use and
learn CW, but not necissarily ham radio. I would have
supported a system like that, where if you wanted to
operate CW on the lower half of the band you had to
be tested on if first, but of course, that was out of the
question.

Your opinion noted. Others have a different opinion.

They do not, however, likewise, first test people
on knowing how to build a double sideband carrier
transmission if they want to operate AM; they do
not require you to show how to get a microphone,
talk on it, and recieve the response on a speaker
if you want to use frequency modulated radiotelephone,
or single sideband carrier suppressed radiotelephone.

Perhaps they should.

But they DO want to force CW on people that don't
necissarily have any interest in operating it. "basics"
arguments fail; "selftrained skill" fails because everything
is a selftrained skill, why put the emphasis on an outdated
mode instead of testing selftrained skills on new, modern
modes of communication?

Then answer this question: Why should people who are not interested in
building or fixing their radios have to learn all that theory stuff
for the written tests? Why are all hams tested on all sorts of stuff
they are not interested in?

When I first started out in ham radio, all I wanted to do was join the
folks I heard on 75 meter AM. Yet in order to get the license, I had
to learn not only Morse Code, but all sorts of theory and regulatory
stuff that had absolutely nothing to do with 75 meter AM.

Why was I forced to learn all that?

73 de Jim, N2EY

There are no CW-only parts of the HF/MF bands. None at all.


You'd better check your frequency priviledge/allocation charts.
The lower half of the HF bands except for 160 meters is
"cw/fsk only"....




Your opinion noted. Others have a different opinion.

yes, agreed.
However, it would seem that MOST oppinions worldwide
are on the side of removing code tests.


They do not, however, likewise, first test people
on knowing how to build a double sideband carrier
transmission if they want to operate AM; they do
not require you to show how to get a microphone,
talk on it, and recieve the response on a speaker
if you want to use frequency modulated radiotelephone,
or single sideband carrier suppressed radiotelephone.

Perhaps they should.

but they don't.




When I first started out in ham radio, all I wanted to do was join the
folks I heard on 75 meter AM. Yet in order to get the license, I had
to learn not only Morse Code, but all sorts of theory and regulatory
stuff that had absolutely nothing to do with 75 meter AM.

Why was I forced to learn all that?

I really don't know. Thank heaven they've gone a long way to fix
the problem, and may make the final move here soon to remove the
scourge of CW tests all together.

Clint
KB5ZHT

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Clint wrote:


If you refuse to learn how to handle radio's most basic mode you can
never
be
able to regard yourself as fully qualified in ham radio communciations.
That's just the Way it Is. Live with it.


I'm sorry but that is YOUR oppinion. What counts is the decision of
those in
authority, namely the FCC.

Son, you might want to learn somewhere along the way that opinion is
sometimes
congruent with fact, sometimes not.

No matter what the FCC says or does, it can't alter facts. And nowhere
have
they ever said that a no-code license is a fully qualified ham.

So far the UK, Netherlands and several other countries have done
exactly that. Once all code testing is ended by the FCC will you
accept that action as supporting the FCC position that
morse isn't needed to be a "fully qualified ham?"
Additionally, I don't recall anywhere seeing any FCC reference
to the concept of a "fully qualified ham". Is that a new license
class?

In fact, the
retired Chief of the Amateur and Citizen's Division of FCC (now called
something
else) stated in his comments on the NCVEC pettion
(which BTW he helped write) that it was an oxymoron to expect an Extra
class
ham to be a expert on ham radio if he doesn't know Morse code. Thus he
supports
a code test for Extras.

Does he speak for the FCC today?

And it should be obvious, to anyone who actually owns and uses a thought
process
- when Morse code is a widely-used mode within ham radio, *anyone* who
can't use
it simply and factually *cannot* be a fully qualified ham - No matter
what
license or privileges the FCC gives them.

What a crock. On that basis, if you can't speak Spanish, Chineese, and
several
other languages commonly used by hams around the globe, then you
shouldn't be considered "qualified" either.

And YOU will have to live with the decisions THEY
make.


Which can't change facts. Facts are immutable. Live with it. Any ham not
able
to operate CW is simply and factually not fully qualified.

Your Opinion yes, a fact? Not at all. And that's an opinion
I'm entitled to.

Cheers as always,
Bill K2UNK

(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , "Steve Stone"
writes:

I think anyone who is a train engineer should pass a test for operating a
coal fired steam locomotive

The term usually used is "locomotive engineer"

If the railroad they intend to work for uses coal fired steam locomotives,
learning how to run them would be a good idea.

Ya can't operate any locomotive if yer not certified "in type" per
(+/-) the FAA regs for being licensed in type of A/C. I forget who
issues the certifications, the states or the feds. Plus the ASME also
gets into the act in the case of steamers because of requirments on
certification of boiler operators. Which is not the case with diesels
and full-scale Lionels.

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Clint wrote:

IF morse (i.e. radiotelegraphy) had any basis as a foundation
for higher learning of radio concepts, principles or theory
then it would be a requirement of engineering students...which
it has never been to my knowledge anywhere.

And that's where your argument falls flat on its face. The point is
operational, on the air *communications *. It's called OPERATING.

snip
you just employed the "diversion" tactic. he was totally correct; if
the basic fundamentals of radio, which you have been totally parroting
until now, required it, then it would be a necissary requirement for
all basic electrical engineering, and it is not.

It's the BASICS, Bill.

As YOU see it.
Why aren't new hams required to show they now how to forge/smelt
copper wire, produce polyethelene insulation, make aluminum out
of scratch for antennas, etc., if BASICS were the name of
everything?


Clint your ignorance is showing again. Ham radio isn't about engineering,
its about operating ham radio. Sure, one CAN use engineering if one
wishes, and someone surely had to do some engineering to produce the gear
we all use. But if Bill's comment holds any water at all then the tests
would have been becoming harder instead of becominig giveaways.

Ham radio isn't about metalurgy pr plastics technology, Clint, it's about
OPERATING . But you amd Bill already knew that, it's jsut your NCI/CB
attitudes showing through, again.

You can always tell when Dick runs out of arguments...resort
to cheap namecalling.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article , "Clint"
rattlehead@computronDOTnet writes:

If the railroad they intend to work for uses coal fired steam locomotives,
learning how to run them would be a good idea.

yes, exactly.

Then you agree that the skills tested for should be those actually used.

I guess it's too bad that there aren't that many coal fired steam
locomotives being used anymore.

They had their good and bad features.

The main reason most US railroads stopped using them in the 1950s was simple
economics, nothing more. The total operating cost of diesel electric
locomotives, in terms of ton-miles per locomotive operating dollar, was simply
better. The diesels themselves were more expensive to buy, and so was their
fuel. Parts were also more expensive. But the diesel-electrics did not require
water, did not generate ashes or cinders, and could be left idling in cold
weather without much attention.

US railroads then were (and most still are) private companies whose purpose is
to make a profit.

Ham radio is completely different.

73 de Jim, N2EY