"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
news

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

But does the NCVEC petition, or the NCI petition address the writtens?
Not
at
all.

No, why should it? I have ALWAYS said the code was a
separate issue from writtens. I'm not opposed to revisiting
the writtens, but there's no need to wait for that before ending all
code testing.


Yes it should address writtens because by eliminating the code test without
addressing the writtens, you are reducing the overall level of knowledge
required to earn the various levels of ham licenses. Until the replacement
exams are ready, the old exams, including the code should remain intact.

Personally if the code is dropped, I would like to see the exams
restructured as follows:

A) Regulations element: One must pass this before being allowed to take any
of the other elements.
A lengthy and separate exam covering the FCC rules and regulations in depth.
Based on what I hear on the air and the statements on the internet from any
hams, there's a real problem in this area. This one should require at least
a score of 85% to pass.

B) Technician element:
Rewritten to move the regulations questions to A). Additional technical
material and operating procedures material to keep the test pool about the
same size.

C) General element:
Rewritten to move the regulations questions to A). Additional technical
material, operating procedures, and basic VE requirements material to keep
the test pool about the same size.

D) Extra element
Rewritten to move the regulations questions to A). Additional technical
material, operating procedures, and extensive VE requirements material to
keep the test pool about the same size.

I'd really like to see a rules test as a stand alone test that one must pass
before even taking any of the other elements.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
om...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
news

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

But does the NCVEC petition, or the NCI petition address the writtens?
Not
at
all.

No, why should it? I have ALWAYS said the code was a
separate issue from writtens. I'm not opposed to revisiting
the writtens, but there's no need to wait for that before ending all
code testing.


Yes it should address writtens because by eliminating the code test
without
addressing the writtens, you are reducing the overall level of knowledge
required to earn the various levels of ham licenses. Until the
replacement
exams are ready, the old exams, including the code should remain intact.

Gee, when the states stopped requiring manual transmission knowledge
and/or use of hand signals while driving, what'd they replace
those elements with to keep the driving test at the same level of knowledge?

The point is that licensing should be about rational requirement
consistent with license privileges. It has NOTHING to do with maintaining
any set level of difficulty...as if that can even be measured in some
way.

Personally if the code is dropped, I would like to see the exams
restructured as follows:

A) Regulations element: One must pass this before being allowed to take
any
of the other elements.
A lengthy and separate exam covering the FCC rules and regulations in
depth.
Based on what I hear on the air and the statements on the internet from
any
hams, there's a real problem in this area. This one should require at
least
a score of 85% to pass.

B) Technician element:
Rewritten to move the regulations questions to A). Additional technical
material and operating procedures material to keep the test pool about the
same size.

C) General element:
Rewritten to move the regulations questions to A). Additional technical
material, operating procedures, and basic VE requirements material to keep
the test pool about the same size.

D) Extra element
Rewritten to move the regulations questions to A). Additional technical
material, operating procedures, and extensive VE requirements material to
keep the test pool about the same size.

I'd really like to see a rules test as a stand alone test that one must
pass
before even taking any of the other elements.

Not a bad approach... but not sure 85% should be expected passing
rate for A. In any case, such a change in approach would involve
considerable comment and discussion which should NOT stop
the immediate removal of Element 1 (code).

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

Tell you what Dwight....when you get some
knowledge of the subject, I'll pay attention. Just
quit trying to put on a spin on a subject you know
NOTHING about.


First of all, the subject was you and Larry (and your attitudes about
code), which I do know something about. Second, one does not need to know
code itself to see the amount of code used in this country or elsewhere.
Perhaps if you looked up from you code key occasionally, and stopped looking
down your nose at everyone else when you do, you would see the same decline
of code use and therefore recognize how useless it is as a testing
requirement. Of course, to acknowledge that reality would force you to drop
your false pride and I truly wonder whether you're man enough to do that
(the same with Larry).

Dwight:

You just locked, loaded, took careful aim, and shot yourself in the foot!
If you had ANY experience with Morse/CW at all, you'd realize that the
mode which is in "decline" lately on HF is SSB -- due to poor operating
conditions. The CW segments continue to jump with activity. You
are hopelessly out of the loop due to your own operational inexperience.

I'm gonna give you some free advice here, Dwight. You're getting almost
Kim-like in your shrill but specious arguments. You are truly not
equipped for this debate whatsoever, and are making a bigger fool of
yourself with each and every posting. You're out of your depth when
discussing code testing, so I would suggest, for the sake of your own
credibility, that you chose a topic you know something about.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

You just locked, loaded, took careful aim, and shot
yourself in the foot! If you had ANY experience with
Morse/CW at all, you'd realize that the mode which
is in "decline" lately on HF is SSB -- due to poor
operating conditions. The CW segments continue to
jump with activity. (snip)


So you're saying code use "in this country" is jumping with activity? If
so, where? I've looked in the commercial bands, shortwave broadcast bands,
military bands, and so on, and found very little code use (certainly far
less than just a few decades ago, just as I said).


I'm gonna give you some free advice here, Dwight.
(snip) You're out of your depth when discussing code
testing, so I would suggest, for the sake of your own
credibility, that you chose a topic you know something
about.


Now, let me give you some advice, Larry. You're too narrow-minded to even
understand the concepts behind code testing. Code testing is not, and has
never been, solely to benefit Amateur Radio. Therefore, you can't focus
solely on Amateur Radio when discussing the code testing issue. So, for the
sake of your own credibility on this subject, look outside your own narrowly
defined little world at the much larger picture elsewhere (the view from the
FCC's perspective). Only then will you be aware enough to seriously discuss
this issue.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

You just locked, loaded, took careful aim, and shot
yourself in the foot! If you had ANY experience with
Morse/CW at all, you'd realize that the mode which
is in "decline" lately on HF is SSB -- due to poor
operating conditions. The CW segments continue to
jump with activity. (snip)

So you're saying code use "in this country" is jumping with activity? If
so, where? I've looked in the commercial bands, shortwave broadcast bands,
military bands, and so on, and found very little code use (certainly far
less than just a few decades ago, just as I said).

Dwight:

Uh huh. Right. I totally agree. And if I were discussing commercial
or military communications, that may be a relevant point. However,
since we're discussing Amateur Radio, you're just spinning your
wheels with the NCTA's most famously irrelevant and unresponsive
argument.

I'm gonna give you some free advice here, Dwight.
(snip) You're out of your depth when discussing code
testing, so I would suggest, for the sake of your own
credibility, that you chose a topic you know something
about.

Now, let me give you some advice, Larry. You're too narrow-minded to even
understand the concepts behind code testing. Code testing is not, and has
never been, solely to benefit Amateur Radio.

OK, Dwight -- then, for the umpteenth time, please inform us what it
IS relevant to OTHER than the ARS? By your own admission, no
other communications service is using Morse/CW to any noticeable
extent. So, WHICH ONE IS???

Therefore, you can't focus
solely on Amateur Radio when discussing the code testing issue.

The heck I can't, Dwight!

So, for the
sake of your own credibility on this subject, look outside your own narrowly
defined little world at the much larger picture elsewhere (the view from the
FCC's perspective). Only then will you be aware enough to seriously discuss
this issue.

Dwight, unless and until you can show us just exactly WHERE the
ARS's code testing requirement ***IS*** relevant OUTSIDE of the ARS,
all you're doing is blowing smoke. And not very dense smoke at that.

The subject of this thread is "where PCTA's fail in logic." So far, it has
only served to prove that the NCTA's have no concept of logic at all,
and are therefore unqualified to discuss it.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

Dwight, unless and until you can show us just exactly
WHERE the ARS's code testing requirement ***IS***
relevant OUTSIDE of the ARS, all you're doing is
blowing smoke. And not very dense smoke at that.


It isn't relevant to anything outside the Amateur Radio today, Larry.
That's exactly why there are efforts being made to eliminate the Morse Code
test requirement. Those efforts extend throughout the world, including the
recent ITU vote to allow more flexibility on this issue.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

This may be so, but it is an imperfect system being
directed by people with imperfect wisdom and
questionable motives. I say questionable because
their motives, for the most part, are entirely
self-serving.


Can you can show me one law in this country that wasn't advocated by
people with self-serving motives? Laws, by their very nature, tend to serve
the interests of at least someone. In reality, the only reason you're
pointing to this is because people are now advocating the change of a law
you happen to like (the code test requirement). And, of course, you would
like everyone to believe your position in all this is not at all
self-serving.

Dwight:

Which it isn't. The only outcome I desire is to preserve Morse code testing
in order to preserve the continued growth in the numbers of new hams who
have been exposed to training in this mode, in the interest of getting some
percentage of them to get to the point where they can effectively use it
OTA.

And it is my right as an American Citizen to make an
attempt to preserve this requirement. I am not
challenging your right to do the opposite, even though
you seem interesting in squelching my own efforts. What
are you afraid of?


I'm afraid of your motives in all this, Larry. I don't like the words I
hear from many advocating the continuation of the code testing requirement.
Those words often reek of bigotry, elitism, and discrimination against other
Americans.

One of the classic NCTA whines. Us horrible old PCTA's want to keep
Morse code going so that we can continue to demonstrate the dominance
of the white, middle-class, American male, who represents 5% of the
world's population yet consumes 25% of the planet's resources, and is
responsible for racism, bigotry, famine, disease, poverty, ethnic cleansing,
global warming, destruction of the environment, homophobia, halitosis,
and every other bad thing you can think of. Yawn! However, I guess that
works for you NCTA's, in the absence of any truly valid reason for the
further dumbing-down of licensing requirements in the ARS.

Are you comfortable with some of the things said by those with
your position? Are you comfortable with some of the things you've said (the
garbage about a dumb downed America, your superiority, and so on)?

Don't look now, Dwight, but America *is* dumbed-down. It has been made
that way by a liberal, socialist media that continuously mocks traditional
values of morality, integrity, ingenuity and hard work, and makes it a virtue
to be dependent on government for cradle-to-grave life support. It is truly
an international conspiracy to deprive America of it's greatness.

(snip) HF access is different, and it is here that the
Morse/CW mode offers benefits and advantages
which can be exploited to the benefit of all radio
amateurs -- but only if they know how to do so.
Therefore, the testing requirement remains current
and valid -- forever.

Since it appears only a small minority of hams use Morse/CW on a regular
or routine basis,

And it is my desire that the ARS continues to have at least that "small number"
of CW-using hams among it's ranks. I don't think that's too much to ask.

a testing requirement obviously does not benefit "all
radio amateurs."

Well, it certainly doesn't benefit those hams who can't be bothered to
learn a useful communications skill. However, considering the nature of
the ARS in today's electronic communications reality, where the typical
teenager with a computer and a cell phone has truly global communications
capability in his pocket, ham radio still serves as the ultimate backup
system which can effectively employ numerous modes of communication,
including the most basic form -- Morse/CW. I don't want to see that
valuable capability become obsolete merely because of the indifference
of those who don't wish to make the effort to learn the Morse code.

In addition, the testing requirements are not there to
exclusively benefit Amateur Radio operators - they also exist to facilitate
the goals and purposes of Amateur Radio.

And it is my belief that unless we preserve code testing, those goals cannot
be fully achieved.

Therefore, any testing requirement
must be judged within the context of each of these. The code testing
requirement fails in each regard.

Just the opposite is true. However, as previously stated, you are not
qualified to make any judgment against the code testing requirement,
since you have not gained practical operational experience in this mode.
You have not had that mode's unique benefits and advantages proved
to you over and over again through years of daily OTA use. I have.
And I didn't go into ham radio as a CW "lover" by any means -- in fact,
I was a dedicated NCTA at the time. I came across to the other side
due to my own experience with Morse/CW, and thus became a True
Believer. Moreover, while I now consider myself to be primarily a
digital mode operator in my OTA experience, I still continue to be
convinced of the value of CW when I use that mode after using
PSK-31, RTTY, or any other digital mode. It's all good, and I believe
that we hams need all of these resources at our fingertips. However,
the only way we'll "have" CW is to know the code, and that's the rub
for you NCTA's.

I'm reasonably sure you'll ultimately get your way, since that's the
direction this country is going in general -- down the tubes.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

(snip) However, as previously stated, you are not qualified
to make any judgment against the code testing requirement,
since you have not gained practical operational experience
in this mode. (snip)


Larry, one does not need to survive a house fire to make judgements about
fire safety. Or be attacked by a foreign government to make a judgement
about certain defense planning. Or live under a dictator to make judgements
about laws affecting our freedoms. Or experience a business failure to make
wise business judgements. Or experience anything else firsthand to make
value judgements about it.


(snip) You have not had that mode's unique benefits
and advantages proved to you over and over again through
years of daily OTA use. I have. (snip)


Again, this is not about Morse Code/CW use - it's about the code test
requirement. I can have that operational experience without a test
requirement and you can continue to enjoy the "mode's unique benefits and
advantages" long after the testing requirement is gone.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

(snip) However, as previously stated, you are not qualified
to make any judgment against the code testing requirement,
since you have not gained practical operational experience
in this mode. (snip)


Larry, one does not need to survive a house fire to make judgements
about
fire safety. Or be attacked by a foreign government to make a judgement
about certain defense planning. Or live under a dictator to make
judgements
about laws affecting our freedoms. Or experience a business failure to
make
wise business judgements. Or experience anything else firsthand to make
value judgements about it.


One does have to eat a pizza to evaluate its taste and whether they will
like it or not. I love pizza but hate tomatoes, cheese, and garlic. Yet
combine them into a pizza and the result is entirely different. No one can
tell how a cake will taste simply from reading the ingredients on a box.
You can evaluate its nutritional content but not its taste. So while there
are some things that do not need to be experienced to evaluate them, there
are other things that do.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

One does have to eat a pizza to evaluate its taste and whether they will
like it or not.

snip erroneous diatribe

incorrect anology... the correct one would be to say "you don't have to eat
a pizza to know WHAT it is, and WHAT it's made of".

it's so easy.

Clint
KB5ZHT