Wonderfl, then you'll learn code if you want to participate there.
If not, nothing lost. More to the point, is there any minimum code
speed that should be banned from the CW/data segments at the
bottom of the bands?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


Excellent point.... yet another reason why specific code speed testing
is irrelavent. AND, for that matter, it leads to the next argument...
what of those people that have true disabilities and cannot pass a
CW test, and have a physician's written excuse, when they had faster
than 5 wmp testing? they were NOT required to take a 13 or 20 wpm
test... yet, somehow, they were accepted into the world of ham radio
as legal operators. How is it POSSIBLE that they did this without
having ever passed a profeciency test @ high speed CW?

Oh, that's right. Because it's not really that necessary in the first place.

Clint
KB5ZHT

--
--
Top nations that fund UN treasury,
in descending order...

United States: 22%
Japan: 19.6%
Germany: 9.8%
France: 6.5%
UK: 5.6%
Italy 5.1%
Canada: 2.6%
Spain: 2.5%

Russia isn't even in this top 8 list.
France, Russia and Germany, COMBINED,
do not contribute as much to the UN as
does the United States......

--

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?"

I hear belgium just got rid of it's last CW testing, in another
newsgroup.

Additionally, I don't recall anywhere seeing any FCC reference
to the concept of a "fully qualified ham". Is that a new license
class?

Neither have I... I already posted a remark to that effect, too...
....that is, has the FCC been "lieing" when it passed out many
test certificates giving an operator his licence class and thus
frequency priviledges? have they been saying "um, you can
talk on the radio, but you're really not qualified to do it"?


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

snip PCTA dribble

Does he speak for the FCC today?

BINGO!


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.

EXACTLY.... he's inserting his "oppinion" for "fact".



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



Yet another voice of reason. And there are more of them out there
on this side of the argument than the PCTA's.

Clint
KB5ZHT

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

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK



I'm use to it.... it's the same thing I run into in other newsgroups
during political debates. As soon as "the other side" runs out
of arguments, I start getting the following remarks, and in
no certain order...

s__thead
hatemonger
shut the f__k up
fascist
moron
why don't you take a _____ and shove it _____ until you _____....

....plus a few other directives instructing me to take objects and do
things with them with certain parts of my body, most of which
aren't physically possible but are quite colorful.

Clint
KB5ZHT

Dick Carroll wrote:

Clint wrote:


some snippage



I mean, ORIGINALLY, the first communication that
was EVER sent was a spark with a spark generator.
The do not require you to show profeciency in building
a spark generator and using it; if you say "well, we just
SKIP that step and go to CW", then you can say that
about EVERY step along the way of learning
ham radio.


Aw Clint, surely you're better informed than that...arent you?

And Clint says Dee was spurious?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bill Sohl wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , "Clint"
rattlehead@computronDOTnet writes:


sending and receiving CW isn't a building block
to anything else.....

Yes, it is.

First, it's a building block to the use of the mode on the air.


Come on Jim. that's a self fullfilling argument. My point, and I know
you know this, is that morse knowledge is not needed in any manner as
a foundation, stepping stone, or whatever to any body or radio knowledge
or concepts.

Come on Bill! NO knowledge of much of anything is needed as a
foundation. Thousands of CB ops say otherwise!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote in message ...
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.

Yep, in a nutshell. When the gubmn't said, "Jump!" DICK replied, "How High?"

Now he feels foolish.

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

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.

CB radio is all about OPERATING, senior.

No morsemanship needed in CB radio...


you're mad because YOU had to do it.

Tattoo is just mad. He can't get many to pop-to and salute his mighty
macho morsemanship skills which were very useful in the 1930s.

Poor guy. :-)

LHA

In article , "Clint"
rattlehead@computronDOTnet writes:

Let's have a go at "No Handwriting International".
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Exaggeration to the ridiculous.


spurious analogies are in the PCTA handbook, bill.

Clint
KB5ZHT

Heh heh heh...too bad that "spark" is outlawed.

PCTA types would demand that ALL hams know "spark" theory and
operating skills if it was still legal... :-)

LHA

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

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.

"Congruent?" :-)

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.

The FDA qualifies ham, senior.

The FCC does NOT use the term "ham" in Part 97. That's the LAW.

For NEW amateur radio licensees, the FCC "qualifies" radio amateurs in
three license classes. One of those is the "no-code-test" Technician.

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.

That is a RETIREE's OPINION, senior.

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.

The FCC does NOT agree with you, senior.

ANYONE granted a US amateur radio license, ANY CLASS, is a licensed
radio amateur.

That's just the way it is. Live with it.


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.

For the 1930s or on Fantasy Island where you seem to live... ?

LHA

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article , "Clint"
rattlehead@computronDOTnet writes:

sending and receiving CW isn't a building block
to anything else.....

Yes, it is.

First, it's a building block to the use of the mode on the air. Although other
services have pretty much stopped using Morse Code, hams use it extensivley,
and an amateur license is permission to operate an amateur station, not a
station in another service.

Roger that, Reverend Jim...IN the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service...

Note that the Morse Code tests are at a very
basic level. They're entry-level, nothing more.

Well, "there ya go."

Second, if someone wants to actually design and build radio equipment, having
skill in Morse Code permits them to use almost anything from very simple to
very sophisticated equipment to good advantage. Would you expect a newcomer
to radio to build an SSB transceiver as a first project?

I built a simple battery powered voice transmitter back in 1948. Single
tube,
very low power, worked fine for a whole block. Was 14 then. :-)

now, the electrical principals of what a CW
transmission is, and a knowledge test of that is a good idea, but
that's comparing apples and oranges.

Comparing apples and oranges is fine for the produce market, Rev. Jim.

Why should there be *any* written test on theory if all a person wants to do
is
operate manufactured radios? If someone doesn't want to build a rig, why
should
they have to memorize all those symbols, diagrams and formulas?

Well then, you WANT type-accepted radios in amateur radio?!?

Why would you WANT such a thing?

I think most of the PCTA
is being disingenuous when they come up with "good reasons"
to keep CW testing alive;

Why?

You've been GIVEN all the "whys" you can possibly handle.

Maybe you are suffering from "information overload" and can't accept
all those valid reasons?

I think the true deeper reason lies
somewhere in the "I had to do it so everybody should" relm,
as i've stated before.

You can think what you want, but you're mistaken on that account.

Nope. NO ONE is "mistaken" on that account.

You WANT an exclusive Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service.

You ought to petition for an RM with the FCC. Start a movement to make
the ARS all-code, no voice, no data, nothing else but on-off-keying morse.

That would make you happy, right, Reverend Jim?

LHA