In article , "Clint"
rattlehead@computronDOTnet writes:

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

Oh, MAN! GOOD POINT!!!!
that's what I like about forums, enough people share ideas and group X
thinks of things that group Y didn't, and vica versa... just where IS
the PCTA's emphasis on "basics" and such, when the very basic
beginning is not only NOT pushed upon them, but outlawed?

Oh, it's TOO sweet!!!!!!

Well, that's how it goes. Every amateur must know morse in order to save
the next Titanic or something. Morse is used "countless times" in national
emergencies. It is the next most basic radio communications thing, etc.
["countless" is apt because the number of actual emergency comms done
by on-off-keying modes is zero, zilch, nada...unless the self-promoters
think that Health and Welfare messages are "emergencies."]

"Spark" or damped-wave RFI generators could only be used in any kind of
communications by an on-off keying mode. Wasn't possible to AM it or
FM it, or PM it or much of anything else except on-off kind of thing.

Somewhere about now, Rev. Jim is going to come up with the famous 1906
first-known AM application...and conveniently fail to note that such was
done on a rather large alternator generator (definitely not a "spark" xmtr)
and using a water-cooled microphone. Not really practical except it proved
AM was possible and receivable on a crystal receiving set or coherer.

Beep, beep

LHA.

In article , "Clint"
rattlehead@computronDOTnet writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...

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

interesting topic spin-off, but I once researched where the term "ham" came
from... the only thing I could find was that it was simply a *******ization
of the term "amateur"

Heh heh. We will now expect that ARRL supporters to jump and reference
the "official" source of "ham." For once the ARRL is close to the truth.
:-)

Etymologically speaking, American English was already using "ham" as a
poor substitute for beef at the turn of the century before last. In show
biz
the term "ham actor" referred to a showy, not-very-good entertainer who
was more interested in presenting themselves than the stageplay.

The progression from "amateur" to "ham" was a natural for American
English speakers (a "*******ization of the word amateur" as you say).
According to the ARRL "official" source of all things amateur in the USA,
the word "ham" was used by professional radiotelegraphers as a not-nice
term for the non-professional radio amateurs way back in the beginning of
radio time.

"Real hams" do NOT like the word "amateur" at all applying to them. Some
want to be considered of "professional caliber" and constantly shoot off at
professionals in radio. They are shooting blanks of course, and their
caliber is about BB size.

So, we've got a bunch of these "professional amateurs" who want to be
"better" than real professionals because they think they are so damn
good. No doubt they are very skilled at morsemanship and have been
tossing out money for decades in building their "station," but very few are
REAL professionals in the sense that they accept money for amateur
services rendered (illegal, of course, a sort of "financial bootlegging").

ARRL is "professional amateurism" in an organized sense and with an IRS-
reported taxable income of $12 million or so a few years ago.

REAL hams are "superior" or something. They keep saying that outright if
not implying it constantly. I'm not sure what their "superiority" really is
other than marketing certain kinds of plant growth nutrient surrogates. :-)

Amateur radio remains a HOBBY, a recreational activity that requires
government regulation due to the physics of radio waves. Apparently new
folks aren't supposed to enjoy it or have fun in it unless they bow and
scrape to their "superiors" in ham radio. Rank, title, status, privilege
are
all "necessary" in the hobby of these "superiors." :-)

When questioned on their actual enjoyment of the hobby (to them it is a
"service" of a higher calling), they answer that they enjoy it "more" just
because they are "superior." :-)

LHA

"Clint" wrote ...

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

Not really -- Morse Code is the second most popular mode in Amateur Radio
after SSB. But, you knew that already, right? (Oh, apparently not!)

Arnie -
KT4ST

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
"Bill Sohl" wrote ...

They just don't get it (the PCTAs that is). Ending morse testing should
happen because there is NO logical/rational reason for government to
continue mandating morse knowledge of all HF licensed hams. Getting the
government out of a "morse code affirmative action program" by ending
mandated morse is far more a conservative concept than a liberal one.
__________________________________________________ ________________

Isn't it about time to put some music to that song, Bill? I suppose if
you
repeat it enough times, maybe even *you* will actually believe it.

Too bad the only entity that makes the difference
(i.e. the FCC) believes my position.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Len Over 21" wrote in part ...

Well, that's how it goes. Every amateur must know morse in order to save
the next Titanic or something. Morse is used "countless times" in national
emergencies. It is the next most basic radio communications thing, etc.
["countless" is apt because the number of actual emergency comms done by
on-off-keying modes is zero, zilch, nada...unless the self-promoters think
that Health and Welfare messages are "emergencies."]
__________________________________________________ _______________

My EM Agency has multiple sets of HF gear and every one of them is manned by
an ARS operator that is CW capable -- and we'd be foolish not to include
that capability in our EM package. Now, don't get me wrong, I just love the
new technology. As a part of that, we have FM trunked radios, laptop
computers, closed network capability, VTC Scotties, and SATLinks. IOW, we
use *all* of the tools available to us. Why not just admit that CW does
have a place in the EM package -- or are you just so dug into your position
that you can't see the sky anymore? IMO, it's not necessary to throw out
the older viable technology in order to embrace the future. If that were
the case, none of us would ever use a hard-wired phone again.

Arnie -
KT4ST

"Bill Sohl" wrote ...

The fact that morse is in use o ham bands offers no reason to have a code
test in order to begin learning and using the mode. If a new ham without
code knowledge decided to get together with another ham to mutually
learn/use code at veerrrryyy slow seed (say 1-2 wpm)...would you oppose
that?
__________________________________________________ ___________

As a matter of fact, I'm teaching a guy code now that runs about 4 wpm --
and he is *yet* to take test one. I don't need to tell you that this is
considerably slower than I usually send/receive. But, the fact is that we
*all* started at 0 wpm and worked up from there. My prediction is that my
friend will be up to a reasonable speed in no time flat. It's all in the
attitude of the learner and elmer, Bill. I have no doubt that CW will go on
much longer than any testing requirements. That's why I continue to promote
and teach it.

Arnie -

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"Bill Sohl" wrote ...

The fact that morse is in use o ham bands offers no reason to have a code
test in order to begin learning and using the mode. If a new ham without
code knowledge decided to get together with another ham to mutually
learn/use code at veerrrryyy slow seed (say 1-2 wpm)...would you oppose
that?
__________________________________________________ ___________

As a matter of fact, I'm teaching a guy code now that runs about 4 wpm --
and he is *yet* to take test one. I don't need to tell you that this is
considerably slower than I usually send/receive. But, the fact is that we
*all* started at 0 wpm and worked up from there. My prediction is that my
friend will be up to a reasonable speed in no time flat. It's all in the
attitude of the learner and elmer, Bill. I have no doubt that CW will go on
much longer than any testing requirements. That's why I continue to promote
and teach it.

Arnie -

Better put a zerk fitting on those keys for what's coming your way.

Dick Carroll wrote in message ...
Clint wrote:

"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...

Keep 1896 alive and well in the hearts of all amateurs.

yea, so much for "advancing the radio art" and so forth... that would
basically turn it into "freeze the radio art in time, and dam any possible
advancement or progress"

(YAWN!!!) You clowns are more stale than last week's coffee.

in a 40's flophouse, no doubt.

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
If a new ham without code knowledge decided to get together
with another ham to mutually learn/use code at veerrrryyy slow
seed (say 1-2 wpm)...would you oppose that?

That's in place right now, Bill...6m, 2m, 220, 440...

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
"Bill Sohl" wrote ...

They just don't get it (the PCTAs that is). Ending morse testing
should
happen because there is NO logical/rational reason for government to
continue mandating morse knowledge of all HF licensed hams. Getting
the
government out of a "morse code affirmative action program" by ending
mandated morse is far more a conservative concept than a liberal one.
__________________________________________________ ________________

Isn't it about time to put some music to that song, Bill? I suppose
if
you
repeat it enough times, maybe even *you* will actually believe it.

Too bad the only entity that makes the difference
(i.e. the FCC) believes my position.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Really??? That was last time. You have no idea what they 'll do this time.

Do you really think the FCC has or will have a change of opinion...
especially in light of the entire international community endorsing
the end of mandatory code testing as an ITU requirement?

Has anyone come up with that WOW argument that will justify
the need for morse testing? So far, nothing new has been
offered by PCTAs at all.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK