In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

I have always presented well-reasoned, factual, and unemotional
arguments in support of code testing.


*Cough* WHAT?????!!!!! Sure, Larry. That is why you are so endeared by
many in this newsgroup, alone. Sure.

Why, Kim, I thought you were ignoring me because I don't post anything
here worthy of your response. Where did I go wrong this time?

Please don't hold me up to
the same light as those who may have transgressed in the manner
which you refer to above.

PHULEEZE. You are the *BEACON* to those whom Carl depicted, Larry! Forget
about being held up to any light. You *ARE* the light.

Sorry, Kim, not me. Jesus is the "light."

Above all, please remember that by far,
the largest portion of the QRM in the code/no-code debate has been
from the NCTA side. Also remember that as one who has never
used the Morse/CW mode to an extent which would have allowed
you to gain useful proficiency in the mode, you are not qualified to
judge the value of this mode at all. I'm not sitting here trying to
argue technical topics with you, so don't you try to tell me that the
Morse/CW mode and testing aren't of value to the ARS. We are
not on each other's respective levels of expertise. Since I'm
more than willing to respect your technical expertise, don't presume
to challenge my qualifications to make judgments about CW and
code testing, because you don't know what your talking about.

73 de Larry, K3LT


And, you obviously think that what you just said, above, is well-reasoned,
factual, and unemotional??!! I've broken my own rule and just responded to
a post from you that was none of the above.

Well, Kim, please feel free to go back to following your "rule." In fact, I
must insist that you do. I wouldn't want you to do anything that would
cause you any inconvenience.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

How do you know it was polar phase shift, DICK? Did you get enough
information to see that they were transmitting from their home locations as
well? How do you know they weren't visiting somewhere? Did you get enough
copy to tell all that?

Kim W5TIT

Just what *is* polar phase shift, Kim? Please give us the benefit of
your obviously superior technical knowledge.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Carl - wk3c


ROFLMAO!!!!!

Kim W5TIT

Not to mention Kim's!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Kim:

Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use.

I would assert that being forced to learn code to gain access to HF
"soured" more people on code use than it encouraged

Carl:

Yeah, you *would* assert that, all right. However, I am singularly
unconcerned with those who may have been "soured" on code by
being "forced" to learn it.

... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked code and continued to
use it, but MANY simply endured something they had no interest in
to get past the test, then "threw away the key."

Let's say that as many as 80% of hams who were "forced" to learn the
code subsequently "threw away the key." That leaves 20% (I believe
my figures are close to reality, anyway, I believe in Pareto's Principle)
of hams who subsequently became active CW operators with
increasing levels of proficiency as they gained OTA experience. I
find that to be quite acceptable.

Remember the old adage "honey is better than vinegar."

Well, even those who "threw away the key" got the "honey" in the
form of increased HF operating privileges. No harm, no foul.

In the absence of a code testing requirement, there will be progressively
fewer hams who have never been exposed to learning the code as a
result of the requirement. Since the requirement was the principle
motivation to learn the code, code use *will* decline once code testing
is abolished. Therefore, testing and use are two closely interrelated
concepts.

Translation: Larry and his "kindred spirits" are either unwilling to expend
the effort to (or incapable of *politely*) encourage people to "give the
code a try and see if you like it."

Carl, I have, on many occasions, very patiently, politely, and
enthusiastically explained all of the fun and operating satisfaction that
I and other hams have derived from using CW. I have offered all the
encouragement I can to anyone willing to give it a try. The one thing
that I can't do is learn it for them. That they have to do for themselves,
if they *want* to do so. In the past, the thing that made them want to
learn the code was to gain HF operating privileges. Now, it would seem
that even that incentive will be given away, and soon. If the use of CW
declines in the ECTA, it will not be my fault, as much as you would
like it to be.

And, they are apparently unwilling to
take "No thanks, not interested" for an answer.

I've always been willing to take this answer, for it is they who had to
bear the consequences of no HF privileges. Now, that will no longer
be the case...and phone users like yourself will have a lot more
company on the phone bands in the near future. I just hope it's the
kind of company you appreciate.

Thus, they continue to
seek to have the FCC mandate an arguably counter-productive "recruiting
program" for them ...

I see nothing "counter-productive" in the requirement to learn and gain
greater proficiency in a useful communications skill. What I don't
understand is why you apparently do.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

Jim:

Indeed. And more often than not, it's usually good, 'ole fashion Morse/CW
which is getting through.

Right you are Roarke of Fantasy Island. Good old fashioned Morse/CW
is what all the present-day public safety agencies use for communications
as well as the global maritime world for distress and safety signalling.

On Fantasy Island "good ole fashion Morse/CW ALWAYS gets through!"

Now get back up in the bell tower and look for de blane, de blane!

Lennie:

You're losin' it, man! Which one am I -- Roarke or Tatoo? You've
referred to be as both in two consecutive postings.

BTW I don't live on Fantasy Island -- In fact, I don't think I've seen two
complete episodes of that program! I am, however, very much a
"Survivor."

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote

But, did the FCC ever get anywhere close to seeing its use banned? I am
not, remember, saying that a mode would become so unpopular or disliked
on a
scale such that it would be rare to find it openly being used. I am
saying,
however, that I believe the FCC would never regulate its ban.


Spark transmissions were outlawed (as well they should have been) so
the precedent exists.

But spark was a transmission technology, not a mode.

On a more immediate note, as relates to your discussion on AM phone,
I'd have to dig out some old material to get all the facts exactly in
order, but there was a petition (in the 70's?) which the I
***believe*** the FCC had moved to the stage of an NPRM to outlaw AM
transmissions on the HF amateur bands. The rationale was that AM was
(is?) wasteful of spectrum because SSB can convey the same message in
half the bandwidth oF DSB AM phone and without those awful sounding
hetrodyning carriers. The proposal narrowly missed being adopted,
only because of a huge hue and cry from thousands of AM-forever hams
(who drew ARRL into the fight on their side). Today you're hard
pressed to find any remaining AM-ers on the band, and if the petition
were re-introduced it might well be adopted due to lack of organized
opposition. Most of the AM-forever crowd has moved to "forever".

Yet AM is still allowed.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:


Another problem is that some (many?) that favor code testing suggest that
by ending that testing it will lead to an end to code use. I don't
belive that at all and there are hundreds of examples of older
technology and skills that are still practiced today in other
fields even though such technology/skill is recognized as
no longer generally used/needed (e.g. archery, manual transmission
autos, etc.)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill:

One year ago, I traded in a perfectly good 2001 Toyota Corolla LE with
a 5-speed manual gearbox for a new 2003 model with an automatic
transmission. However, I still see the need for code testing in the ARS.
I own a few rifles and handguns, but wouldn't want to bet my life on my
proficiency with a compound bow. However, I still see the need for
code testing in the ARS. How do you explain that?

73 de Larry, K3LT

Bad judgement?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Now, I wouldn't expect to be able to have that sort of a relationship
with you, Dick ... you're not open-minded enough to accept that others
see things different than you. (You see, I accept that you like and

use

CW ... I disagree only with your propatation of the "Morse myths" and
your insistence that everyone should have Morse forced on them in
exchange for HF privs ... fortunately, most of the rest of the world
doesn't agree with you.)
Carl - wk3c

Carl:
I consider the use of the term "Morse myths" to be derogatory and
inflammatory. Thus, you have also failed to meet Mike's challenge.
73 de Larry, K3LT

Hw about morse fallicies, morse inaccuracies, erronious morse
claims? Which of these do you find acceptable?

It's easy enough to accept that those of you who have never had any use
for radiotelegraphy would view its stated attributes as mythical, and
for the lot of you that is indeed a proper description. You couldn't
communciate your way out of an emergency using Morse if the fate of the
planet DID depend on it!

I stand a better chance of helping someone else in life as a ham
without knowing any code than waiting for that unlikly
need for CW to actually be used.

And should the time come when CW is caleld for, you and "someone" both
suffer the consequences of your lack.

We'll all keep that in mind, big beeper. Now you take off your
aluminum foil hat and quit browsing the National Enquirer at
the market newsstand.

Odds are always against it
happening. So were the odds against planes being flown into WTC. But it
happened.

Love that stretch of the imagination! Gosh, if you go back into the
FAA reports to the public, at least one of the terrorists used a
civil aviation band radio with voice! Gasp.

I have perxonally seen the need arise for emergency
communications where there were NO communications available and when
HF CW could have easily been used, if it had been planned for.

That was during the big earthquake in Missouri, senior?

I wasn't making the plans.

Maybe you should have been...assert yourself, senior, DEMAND
that "CW" be available for EVERY emergency!

As for the fate of the planet,
when is the sequal coming out to ID4?

Whatever it is, I didn't see the first three and have similar lack of
interest in the fourth.

No? Tsk, tsk. Saving the planet is very important.

Them pesky space aliens might be hiding behind the moon right
now, waiting to attack! Ya gotta be able to Save All Mankind
with your trusty code key and that super secret Morsemanship!

LHA

In article .net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

Carl:

I consider the use of the term "Morse myths" to be derogatory and
inflammatory. Thus, you have also failed to meet Mike's challenge.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Larry,

I don't recall Mike appointing your the judge and arbiter ...

Carl:

In that case, consider my services to have been donated out of my own
generosity.

I guess I got what I paid for :-)

"Morse Myths" is, as you well know by now, simply a term
that refers to all of the patently false, old wives' tales, such as
"Morse gets through when nothing else will.",

This one is true.

Bluntly - baloney ... there ARE modes that will get through at
s/n ratios where Morse would be totally undetectable, let alone
decodable ... ignore the facts if it preserves your fantasy world
where Morse is all-important (the "legend in your own mind"),
but the rest of the world will pass you by without your even
understanding why ...

"Morse is essential
for emergency communications.",

Who said that? Provide correctly attributed quote.

Read any number of absurd pro-code-testing comments
filed with the FCC ...

"Morse acts as a 'lid filter' to
keep us from being overrun by the "mongul hordes' of CBers
who are lurking in the wings waiting to take over the ham bands."
etc.

I've never said that whatsoever -- in fact, on many occasions, I've gone
out of my way to note that a lot of the problems on HF phone are being
caused by 20-WPM code tested Extras.

I didn't say that YOU necessarily said that ... though you HAVE refered
to the "knuckle-draggers" and other terms that fall into a similar
category.

I reject your claim that the term "Morse Myths" is derogatory and
inflamatory.

Reject all you want, Carl, but the fact remains that it is. You have
taken
the low road, while claiming the opposite.

It is simply a term that refers in "shorthand" form to
a panoply of falacies that are often cited as "reasons why we MUST
keep Morse testing" ... none of which hold water and all of which
have been rejected by the FCC.

I have always presented well-reasoned, factual, and unemotional
arguments in support of code testing.

RTFLMAO!!!

Please don't hold me up to
the same light as those who may have transgressed in the manner
which you refer to above. Above all, please remember that by far,
the largest portion of the QRM in the code/no-code debate has been
from the NCTA side.

ROTFLMAO some more ...

Also remember that as one who has never
used the Morse/CW mode to an extent which would have allowed
you to gain useful proficiency in the mode, you are not qualified to
judge the value of this mode at all.

You are totally wrong on this assertion ... I know the code, had
"useful proficiency" (nearly 20 wpm at my peak), but haven't used
it in a long time ... I am certainly qualified to judge the value of the
mode (at least for my purposes, and also in more general terms).

I'm not sitting here trying to
argue technical topics with you, so don't you try to tell me that the
Morse/CW mode and testing aren't of value to the ARS. We are
not on each other's respective levels of expertise. Since I'm
more than willing to respect your technical expertise, don't presume
to challenge my qualifications to make judgments about CW and
code testing, because you don't know what your talking about.

Larry, I don't demean your "real ham-ness" because you are not
my equal on the technical plane, but you demean the "real ham-ness"
of anyone who is up to your "standards" of Morse prowess ...
I think you're arrogance and narrow-mindedness are showing again.

Carl - wk3c


One major problem that is being ignored is that these alleged 20 wpm Extras
are the multiple guess guys. Probably doing good to make it to ten WPM.
Just hunt, peck and hope.

One other 'minor' detail, is that they ALL were taught on 11 meters.

Tsk, tsk, tsk... :-)

Did you mean the 11 meter HAM band or what it was reallocated
to in 1958 and afterwards? :-)

I learned to communicate on HF over 5 years before 1958. :-)

How many real hams. Say those that were not infected by the CB crap do
these things? Dang few I would venture.

"Real hams" again, big tuff guy?

Working for the FDA now?

Unless they were like Polly and Billy Jack....Conditionals that were
Grandfathered in back in the early 60s.

Lets see some real figures. Not conjecture.

Let's see more of that "definition and purpose" of Real Hams as in 97.1,
you know, the part about "spreading goodwill" and all that... :-)

LHA

In article .net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

Spark was banned.

Were you very sad when that happened, Dan?

Gosh, on-off keying morse was the ONLY way that sparkies could
communicate anything back in the "good old days."

Wide band FM was banned from HF. For decades all we
could do was talk and do CW. It was years fighting to get SSTV allowed.
Then digital, other than RTTY was another long road.

Tell us all about "losing all those ham bands" after WARC-79... :-)

Most of the time the FCC simply didn't bother to authorize a new mode.

Nah...everything is beeping and voice yakking just on HF, right?

No problem, you probably think "spread spectrum" is an obscene
phrase. :-)

Thats how it works Hug and Chalk.

"Hugging and a Chalking" was a little ditty composed by a black
radio pianist on a Chicago radio station about 1950, had his own
quarter hour program. It was briefly popular in the midwest. You
were listening to Chicago radio stations back then, senior? :-)

LHA