"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*) debate.
The
minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met with
an
attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or called for.

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 ... 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."

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

OK, fine, your opinion is well stated.

Now consider that same logic applied to the written test.

It could be asserted with equal logic that being forced to learn
theory and other subjects a ham is not interested in just to gain
access to amateur radio
"soured" more people on radio theory than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked aspects of amateur radio
that they had not considered or known about before, but MANY simply
endured something they had no interest in to get past the test, then
"threw away the Handbook"

This isn't a straw argument. I've known hams who sold off their study
materials as soon as they passed the *written* tests.

Now some folks will say "But the writtens support the basis and
purpose of amateur radio as a technical service - there's even an ITU
recommendation" - etc. And of course all hams do need to know the
applicable regulations, safety and operating practices, so of course
the written test cannot be completely eliminated.

But has the existence of several tiers of written testing actually
made hams "more technical"? Does being tested on how to compute
complex impedances and Thevenin equivalents make a ham more likely to
build equipment, experiment with new modes, participate in public
service communication, be a VE and/or Elmer, and be a more friendly,
helpful amateur? Does such testing make a ham less likely to commit
rules violations?

From 1953 to 1968, US amateur radio had only two *effective* written
tests - the Novice and the General/Conditional/Technician. Yes, the
Extra existed, but it was a "prestige" license only, which granted no
additional operating privileges at all. The 20 question Novice got new
hams started, and the ~50 question General took care of the rest.

The reintroduction of "incentive licensing" in late 1968 was supposed
to push hams to be "more technical" by requiring two more written
tests beyond the General in order to get full privileges. But did that
result happen?

Some might cite the 20 wpm code test for Extra, but in fact the most
gain in privileges was made by upgrading to Advanced, which required
no additional code test.

After 1990 (13 years ago), medical waivers allowed those with problems
learning code past 5 wpm to get any class of amateur license on the
basis of the 5 wpm code test alone. And since restructuring, we're
down to just one additional written test beyond General for full
privileges.

Has any of that made US hams or ham radio in the US "more technical"
in the past 35 years? Or just the opposite? Does *forcing* someone to
learn a little bit about radio theory make them want to build radios?

Hans, K0HB, has proposed a 2 level system that would be very similar
to the old "pre-incentive" system. One easy test for newbies and a
full privs test for everybody else. And like the old system, the
newcomer license would not be renewable, so upgrading would
effectively be *required*.

At first I though it was a "looney-tune" idea (to use Hans' phrase),
but now I'm not so sure. Perhaps he is on to something.

FCC effectively reduced the number of written testing levels from 5 to
3 back in 2000. NCVEC is beginning to make noises that the Tech test
is "too hard", and they also note that their "dump Element 1" petition
is only a first step. Also, a look at the AH0A database shows a severe
drop in new Techs since the new Tech Q&A pool was effective in
mid-July.

If someone says we need less *written* testing and an *easier* entry
level test (with suitably reduced privs), how can they be refuted?

If someone says "The only reason you Extras want people to have to
pass all these *written* tests is because *you* had to!" - how can
they be refuted?

How can Hans' proposal be refuted? There's nothing in the theory part
of the Extra written that is required knowledge for the safe and legal
operation of an amateur station on any authorized band or mode. And
much of the regs in both the General and Extra exam are about what an
Extra can do that a General can't.

Quite a number of hams today think that "incentive licensing" was a
mistake. Quite a number of hams today think that the 1953-1968 era was
a "golden age" that was ruined by the class divisions and forced
learning/testing of incentive licensing.

Some people learn theory very easily, while for others it's a
difficult process. People who would make excellent hams but who aren't
good with numbers, science, and/or memorization of things like band
edges may be being kept out, or kept from full access, by the
*written* testing.

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.

Would anyone accept this argument, particlularly looking back over the
past 35 years?:

'In the absence of multiple levels of theory testing, there will be
progressively fewer hams who have been exposed to learning theory as a
result of the tests. Since the test requirement was the principle
motivation to learn the theory, the technical level of hams themselves
and of amateur radio in general *will* decline. Therefore, testing
and technical know-how are two closely interrelated concepts.'

Or how about this rebuttal:

Those who want technical knowhow in amateur radio are either unwilling
to expend
the effort to (or incapable of *politely*) encourage people to "give
the
theory a try and see if you like it." And, they are apparently
unwilling to
take "No thanks, not interested" for an answer. Thus, they continue
to
seek to have the FCC mandate an arguably counter-productive
"recruiting
program" for them ...

--

Which approach is more effective for getting hams interested in
technical subjects - the "honey" of demonstrations and examples, or
the "vinegar" of forced testing beyond the minimum necessary for safe
and legal operation of an amateur station?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

"Kim W5TIT" wrote

At any rate, so you're bringing up the scenario
that someone outside the FCC would bring up a petition to ban a mode.
Hmmmmmm, hadn't thought of that--but why? Why would anyone want to have a
mode banned? I mean, seriously, what would be gained?

As to "what would be gained", that obviously depends on who is
advancing the petition and what their agenda might be.

There's another more contemporary example than the AM situation. On
20M there is a small group of experimenters who are playing with
something they call "enhanced SSB". This is regular old SSB, but
these guys are enamored of excellent audio quality and spend a great
deal of time (and money) modifying their radios and microphone/audio
systems to gain the very best audio fidelity that they can manage.
This results in bandwidth usage greater than typical SSB (nominally
3KHz) but less than AM (nominally 6KHz).

This operation, although it consists of only a small number of
enthusiasts (perhaps less than 20 stations) and is situated on only
one small segment of the HF bands, has been the subject of many
complaints to the FCC (for occupying more bandwidth than necessary),
and Hollingsworth has gone so far as to make note of it in a speech at
a hamfest last winter. He warned that such use of the spectrum might
lead to FCC rule changes.

Now mind you, this "mode" uses less space than an AM signal conveying
the same information. It logically follows that if this "mode" is
banned for being spectrum-inefficient, then the
even-more-spectrum-inefficient DSB AM mode probably would fall to the
same regulatory action. (I'm not suggesting that FCC is always
logical, however grin.)

So back to your "Why would anyone want to have a mode banned?"
question. Ask yourself why people have targeted a few stations on
"enhanced SSB" (perhaps 4.5KHz wide), but do not complain about many
more DSB AM stations on the bands (perhaps 6KHz wide)? Could it be
that they simply have a personal agenda which is not evident from the
facts?

Now look at the persistent demeaning language here against Morse code
users, and it doesn't take much imagination to expect that a "no more
CW use" petition might show up at the Commission some day soon.

"Persistent demeaning language against morse code?!?"

That's quite biased, if not bigotted. If code-lovers want to be "in your
face" about their alleged "superiority in radio" for that singular ability,
and do so for years, and years before the Internet went public in 1991,
then I think your language use is both biased and quite "loaded."

The PCTA constantly want to equate elimination of the code test
with elimination of morse code as a mode. That shows two things:
unjustified paranoia by code-lovers; a necessity to claim an old
psychomotor skill in order to get them artificial status, rank, and
privilege in amateur radio.

Since NO OTHER RADIO SERVICE involved in communications has
retained morse codings as a primary mode of communications
interchange, long-time radio amateurs desiring retention of a code
test can only be seen in the light of demands that "others do as they
did" to love, honor, and obey morse code in order to have them
retain their rank, status, and privileges.

If a relatively small group of biased and bigotted old-timers insist
that elimination of a federal TEST for morse code ability is
"persistent demeaning language" in an open forum, publicly accessible,
then there isn't much hope of "consensus" among the whole and
certainly not conciliation.

There is only the capitulation of the majority to a minority's desire
to accept "persistent demeaning language" as truth.

That is a selfish demand by those no longer "superior."

LHA

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

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

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

Hmmmm, Jim/N2EY made that observation also. Then, I see the comment that
spark was a transmission method--not a mode. I think that's splitting
hairs, isn't it? I'm asking--I wasn't around for spark

The ONLY way a "spark" transmitter could send anything called
communications information was by on-off keying.

Since "morse code" was already in practice and was totally
on-off keying, it was adopted as The "radio code."

The adoption of a long-existing (since 1844) LANDLINE code
says absolutely nothing about its efficacy in radio communications,
ability to "work through" or much else. On-off keying was
adopted simply because it was the ONLY WAY POSSIBLE for
early, primitive radio to allow communications. It's just
practical applied physics. Nothing else.

Doesn't settle your question, I know, but then I've not been shy
about making a particular subject point... :-)

LHA

(Hans K0HB) wrote in message . com...
"Kim" wrote

At any rate, so you're bringing up the scenario
that someone outside the FCC would bring up a petition to ban a mode.
Hmmmmmm, hadn't thought of that--but why? Why would anyone want to have a
mode banned? I mean, seriously, what would be gained?

As to "what would be gained", that obviously depends on who is
advancing the petition and what their agenda might be.

I recall the rallying cry "No setasides for legacy modes!"

There's another more contemporary example than the AM situation. On
20M there is a small group of experimenters who are playing with
something they call "enhanced SSB". This is regular old SSB, but
these guys are enamored of excellent audio quality and spend a great
deal of time (and money) modifying their radios and microphone/audio
systems to gain the very best audio fidelity that they can manage.
This results in bandwidth usage greater than typical SSB (nominally
3KHz) but less than AM (nominally 6KHz).

Some of them have been found using as much as 9 kHz of the band.

This operation, although it consists of only a small number of
enthusiasts (perhaps less than 20 stations) and is situated on only
one small segment of the HF bands, has been the subject of many
complaints to the FCC (for occupying more bandwidth than necessary),
and Hollingsworth has gone so far as to make note of it in a speech at
a hamfest last winter. He warned that such use of the spectrum might
lead to FCC rule changes.

In part because of the time of day it was being done, and the
crowdedness of the band at the time.

But the main point was that transmitting audio frequencies above those
considered "communications quality" was "poor amateur operating
practice".

IIRC, anyway.

Now mind you, this "mode" uses less space than an AM signal conveying
the same information. It logically follows that if this "mode" is
banned for being spectrum-inefficient, then the
even-more-spectrum-inefficient DSB AM mode probably would fall to the
same regulatory action. (I'm not suggesting that FCC is always
logical, however grin.)

Excellent point! Indeed, spark was abandoned and eventually outlawed
in large part for being spectrum inefficient.

AM has repeatedly come under fire for the same reason. Besides the
additional spectrum used, there's also the heterodynes.

So back to your "Why would anyone want to have a mode banned?"
question. Ask yourself why people have targeted a few stations on
"enhanced SSB" (perhaps 4.5KHz wide), but do not complain about many
more DSB AM stations on the bands (perhaps 6KHz wide)? Could it be
that they simply have a personal agenda which is not evident from the
facts?

Another excellent point.

Perhaps they see a greater chance of success against a few stations
running "single wideband" than against the many who run AM.

Or perhaps they want to set a precedent. If they can get "single
wideband" banned for the "bad practice" of using more spectrum than
necessary....

AM defenders will say "But it's *not* the "same information" because
AM (DSB-with-carrier) quality is inherently better than SSB
(one-sideband-and-no-carrier) quality. But will that fly with FCC?

Now look at the persistent demeaning language here against Morse code
users, and it doesn't take much imagination to expect that a "no more
CW use" petition might show up at the Commission some day soon.

Perhaps I shall compile a list...

As you know, I don't think Morse testing is any longer a regulatory
necessity, but I am very much a CW-lover and have a low-level (but
growing) concern that the end of Morse testing is only a first step on
some peoples agenda.

Exactly my concern. Stranger things have happened.

73 es well said Hans de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


I would challenge the NCTA's to show some proof that those who believe
that the morse code test should be retained are in a technical backwater.

Justify requireing a knowledge or profeciency test on using an old fashioned
buggy whip before giving out an modern day automobile driver's license.

Clint

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

What it tells me is that not many here care to have a "non-degraded
"discussion.


Uh, not many here are *capable* of having a real discussion.

Kim W5TIT

Jim:

The truth is, only hams who know the Morse code have the capability
to fall back on the CW mode when other modes are unavailable.

True.

Now explain why hams know how to use "other modes" when there isn't
a profeciency test to MAKE them do it in the first place.

Clint

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

At any rate, so you're bringing up the scenario
that someone outside the FCC would bring up a petition to ban a mode.
Hmmmmmm, hadn't thought of that--but why? Why would anyone want to have
a
mode banned? I mean, seriously, what would be gained?

As to "what would be gained", that obviously depends on who is
advancing the petition and what their agenda might be.

There's another more contemporary example than the AM situation. On
20M there is a small group of experimenters who are playing with
something they call "enhanced SSB". This is regular old SSB, but
these guys are enamored of excellent audio quality and spend a great
deal of time (and money) modifying their radios and microphone/audio
systems to gain the very best audio fidelity that they can manage.
This results in bandwidth usage greater than typical SSB (nominally
3KHz) but less than AM (nominally 6KHz).


Hmmm, wouldn't Part 5 of Title 47 be the governing body for this? And, in
Part 5, there is the following:

PART 5--EXPERIMENTAL RADIO SERVICE (OTHER THAN BROADCAST)--Table of Contents
Subpart B--Applications and Licenses
Sec. 5.77 Change in equipment and emission characteristics.
(a) A change may be made in a licensed transmitter without specific
authorization from the Commission provided that the change does not
result in operations inconsistent with any term of the outstanding
authorization for the station involved.

Along with the above, this section goes on to define certain emission
standards, etc. I was just now trying to find the spec on emission
standards (rules?) as they apply to bandwidth. Correct me if I'm wrong--the
topic and rules of experimentation are way outta my league...no pun
intended. Would the above pertain to experimentation in the amateur bands?

By the way, someone might want to clue these folks in to the Clear Speech
speaker. I bought one for my darlin' a few Father's Days ago and--hey--it
is amazing!


This operation, although it consists of only a small number of
enthusiasts (perhaps less than 20 stations) and is situated on only
one small segment of the HF bands, has been the subject of many
complaints to the FCC (for occupying more bandwidth than necessary),


Well, at least more bandwidth than those complaining want to allow, right?
I mean, the topic of bandwidth, or any rule that says "as necessary" is
pretty arbitrary, vague at worst.


and Hollingsworth has gone so far as to make note of it in a speech at
a hamfest last winter. He warned that such use of the spectrum might
lead to FCC rule changes.


I think Hollingsworth interjects with personal opinion on a great many
things and likes to "threaten" with FCC rule changes accordingly. But, your
point is noted.


Now mind you, this "mode" uses less space than an AM signal conveying
the same information. It logically follows that if this "mode" is
banned for being spectrum-inefficient, then the
even-more-spectrum-inefficient DSB AM mode probably would fall to the
same regulatory action. (I'm not suggesting that FCC is always
logical, however grin.)


Well, no one is..."all" the time.


So back to your "Why would anyone want to have a mode banned?"
question. Ask yourself why people have targeted a few stations on
"enhanced SSB" (perhaps 4.5KHz wide), but do not complain about many
more DSB AM stations on the bands (perhaps 6KHz wide)? Could it be
that they simply have a personal agenda which is not evident from the
facts?


Gosh. That's a loaded question with lots of possiblities, including those
related to the culure and tradition of ham radio. Maybe folks feel better
about "attacking" something new than they do about "attacking" time-honored
traditions in ham radio? Then, there's what you said. Then, there's
personal differences.


Now look at the persistent demeaning language here against Morse code
users, and it doesn't take much imagination to expect that a "no more
CW use" petition might show up at the Commission some day soon.


Absolutely true. I can understand why there would be the expectation of a
CW ban being petitioned for. And, I would even fully expect one to
surface--even soon. BUT, I really never thought that the FCC would
entertain the idea to any end where the actual ban would take place. I
would be so compelled on this issue that I would actually file a comment on
it. And, I haven't been stirred by much to actually follow-through with a
comment.


As you know, I don't think Morse testing is any longer a regulatory
necessity, but I am very much a CW-lover and have a low-level (but
growing) concern that the end of Morse testing is only a first step on
some peoples agenda.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Well, I agree that it may be on some peoples' agenda. But, I sure do hope
the FCC wouldn't authorize such a thing.

Kim W5TIT

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , "Kim"

writes:

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
.com...
"Kim" wrote

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

Hmmmm, Jim/N2EY made that observation also. Then, I see the comment that
spark was a transmission method--not a mode. I think that's splitting
hairs, isn't it? I'm asking--I wasn't around for spark

The ONLY way a "spark" transmitter could send anything called
communications information was by on-off keying.

While that's true, there were other types of transmitters on the air even
before WW1. Arc transmitters and Alexanderson alternators were two types.
Transmitters using tubes were in use well before 1920.

The practical transmission of voice and music by radio was demonstrated as
early as 1906.

Since "morse code" was already in practice and was totally
on-off keying, it was adopted as The "radio code."

Was that a bad thing?

The adoption of a long-existing (since 1844) LANDLINE code
says absolutely nothing about its efficacy in radio communications,
ability to "work through" or much else.

Actually, the code used in radio is different than the code used in landline
work.

The efficacy of Morse code when applied to radio has been demonstrated many,
many times over the past century-plus. Radio amateurs continue to demonstrate
it every day.

On-off keying was
adopted simply because it was the ONLY WAY POSSIBLE for
early, primitive radio to allow communications. It's just
practical applied physics. Nothing else.

And it works very well.

Even after the invention of other methods of transmission, the use of Morse
code continued.

Doesn't settle your question, I know, but then I've not been shy
about making a particular subject point... :-)

What point is that?

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*) debate.
The
minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met with
an
attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or called for.

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 ... 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."

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

OK, fine, your opinion is well stated.

Now consider that same logic applied to the written test.

It could be asserted with equal logic that being forced to learn
theory and other subjects a ham is not interested in just to gain
access to amateur radio
"soured" more people on radio theory than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked aspects of amateur radio
that they had not considered or known about before, but MANY simply
endured something they had no interest in to get past the test, then
"threw away the Handbook"

Sorry, that cannot "be asserted with equal logic."

First of all, that analogy is reduced to the absurd.

Amateur radio IS involved with electronics technology and ALL
radio amateurs are responsible for their amateur stations'
technical requirements. Ergo, the regulatory tool of licensing
MUST concern itself with radio-electronics technical knowledge
to prove competency and responsibility to the Commission.

Radio-electronics technical cognizance is NOT on any trial.
What IS on trial is a test for one MODE of transmission, on-off
keying morse code.

This isn't a straw argument. I've known hams who sold off their study
materials as soon as they passed the *written* tests.

Irrelevant as to the subject of retention or elimination of the code
test for an amateur radio license.

Now some folks will say "But the writtens support the basis and
purpose of amateur radio as a technical service - there's even an ITU
recommendation" - etc. And of course all hams do need to know the
applicable regulations, safety and operating practices, so of course
the written test cannot be completely eliminated.

But has the existence of several tiers of written testing actually
made hams "more technical"? Does being tested on how to compute
complex impedances and Thevenin equivalents make a ham more likely to
build equipment, experiment with new modes, participate in public
service communication, be a VE and/or Elmer, and be a more friendly,
helpful amateur? Does such testing make a ham less likely to commit
rules violations?

Try stating your position instead of raising a number of questions
which do not take any side.

From 1953 to 1968, US amateur radio had only two *effective* written
tests - the Novice and the General/Conditional/Technician. Yes, the
Extra existed, but it was a "prestige" license only, which granted no
additional operating privileges at all. The 20 question Novice got new
hams started, and the ~50 question General took care of the rest.

1953 to 1968 was 50 to 35 years ago. Approximately 2 generations.

The reintroduction of "incentive licensing" in late 1968 was supposed
to push hams to be "more technical" by requiring two more written
tests beyond the General in order to get full privileges. But did that
result happen?

It was quite obvious to all that "incentive licensing" was really all
about gaining status, rank, privileges in an avocational, recreative
activity. THAT part of "incentive licensing" DID happen. It also
boosted the already-growing class distinction artificiality in U. S.
amateur radio.

Some might cite the 20 wpm code test for Extra, but in fact the most
gain in privileges was made by upgrading to Advanced, which required
no additional code test.

Incomplete summation or example.

After 1990 (13 years ago), medical waivers allowed those with problems
learning code past 5 wpm to get any class of amateur license on the
basis of the 5 wpm code test alone. And since restructuring, we're
down to just one additional written test beyond General for full
privileges.

Has any of that made US hams or ham radio in the US "more technical"
in the past 35 years? Or just the opposite? Does *forcing* someone to
learn a little bit about radio theory make them want to build radios?

Did it or didn't it? Are you making a speech or are you posing as
a lecturer at some seminar involving avocations?

Nothing in current or past FCC regulations REQUIRES "building
radios." The Commission allows the OPTION of doing so while
nearly all other radio services require type-accepted radio
transmitters.

The Commission is NOT REQUIRED to be supportive or booster
of any particular past or present-day specific activity or mode.

The Commission's ONLY lawful actions are to regulate ALL U.S.
civil radio and interstate electronic communications as well as to
mitigate interference matters.

Hans, K0HB, has proposed a 2 level system that would be very similar
to the old "pre-incentive" system. One easy test for newbies and a
full privs test for everybody else. And like the old system, the
newcomer license would not be renewable, so upgrading would
effectively be *required*.

If Hans kohb's proposal/petition is before the Commission, then ALL
are free to comment on it THERE.

At first I though it was a "looney-tune" idea (to use Hans' phrase),
but now I'm not so sure. Perhaps he is on to something.

FCC effectively reduced the number of written testing levels from 5 to
3 back in 2000. NCVEC is beginning to make noises that the Tech test
is "too hard", and they also note that their "dump Element 1" petition
is only a first step. Also, a look at the AH0A database shows a severe
drop in new Techs since the new Tech Q&A pool was effective in
mid-July.

If you wish "looney tunes" entertainment, then try to read RM-10808
seriously. It is proposed by none other than AH0A.

"Beginning to make noises" is a subjective observation of yours.

If you wish to have a written amateur test element set with more
difficulty, you are absolutely free to submit your proposal to the
Commission, have them issue an RM, and then cry in public
newsgroups later because your proposal does not meet enough
acceptance.

If someone says we need less *written* testing and an *easier* entry
level test (with suitably reduced privs), how can they be refuted?

Just say NO...and with some supporting evidence. That is what
the FCC Electronic Comment Filing System is for, senior.

If someone says "The only reason you Extras want people to have to
pass all these *written* tests is because *you* had to!" - how can
they be refuted?

The same as above.

How can Hans' proposal be refuted? There's nothing in the theory part
of the Extra written that is required knowledge for the safe and legal
operation of an amateur station on any authorized band or mode. And
much of the regs in both the General and Extra exam are about what an
Extra can do that a General can't.

What IS your problem, senior?

Do you NEED rank, status, privilege in a hobby activity to "prove"
yourself to the rest of the world?

Quite a number of hams today think that "incentive licensing" was a
mistake. Quite a number of hams today think that the 1953-1968 era was
a "golden age" that was ruined by the class divisions and forced
learning/testing of incentive licensing.

Some people learn theory very easily, while for others it's a
difficult process.

Theory is not for everyone.

People who would make excellent hams but who aren't
good with numbers, science, and/or memorization of things like band
edges may be being kept out, or kept from full access, by the
*written* testing.

Define "excellent hams" in terms other than your own standards
OR the emotionally-laden phraseology from Newington.

Amateur radio is an avocation, a recreational activity involving radio not
done for pecuniary reasons. There are NO federal regulations specifying
particular mindsets, imaginary group patriotism, or oaths of fealty to
certain organizations.

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.

Would anyone accept this argument, particlularly looking back over the
past 35 years?:

Why do you ask? Get to the point, senior.

'In the absence of multiple levels of theory testing, there will be
progressively fewer hams who have been exposed to learning theory as a
result of the tests.

Unproven subjective supposition.

Radio transmission IS a technological activity. The Commission does
NOT require any sort of high level of theoretical knowledge...and they
do NOT require a large number of questions on theory on any written
test. In fact, the Commission DOES NOT SPECIFY THE NUMBER
OF SPECIFIC QUESTION SUBJECTS on the written test.

Since the test requirement was the principle
motivation to learn the theory, the technical level of hams themselves
and of amateur radio in general *will* decline. Therefore, testing
and technical know-how are two closely interrelated concepts.'

Irrelevant and illogical. There is NO periodic "re-testing" for any
amateur radio license class. Pass it ONCE and it does not have
to be taken unless the decade-long renewal period has past.

You have NOT proved any "close interrelationships" since that is
not a subject, is not currently done, nor is it anything from "noises."


Which approach is more effective for getting hams interested in
technical subjects - the "honey" of demonstrations and examples, or
the "vinegar" of forced testing beyond the minimum necessary for safe
and legal operation of an amateur station?

It is not a requirement or function of the Commission to take on a
role of encouragement in anything but legal compliance with
regulations insofar as amateur radio is concerned.

The thread subject contains the words "Code Test." Try to stay
somewhat closer than a geosynchronous orbit distance from it.

Try concentrating on "Code Test" instead of misdirecting into far-field
irrelevant subjects.

LHA