"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Sohl" wrote

Yet AM is still allowed.


Yes, it certainly is. But for how long?

Good question, but it has been some 40+ years since SSB
pretty much took over as the HF mode...and there's still no
call for any ban of AM.

Riley Hollingsworth told a Richmond, Virginia hamfest last spring
(speaking of "enhanced SSB") that deliberately operating a wideband
mode in a crowded spectrum is "shortsighted and rude," may be ignoring
the "minimum bandwidth necessary" rule. Now if 4.5KHz-wide signals are
shortsighted and rude, then it logically follows that 6KHz-wide AM
signals containing the same information are even more shortsighted and
rude.

He also hinted that continued complaints "WILL (my emphasis) lead to
pressure on the FCC to revise the Amateur Service rules." Would you
expect DSB AM to survive such revision?

Not if such DSB AM was in any way a significant percentage
of use on the air. That sure doesn't seem to be the case at
all, however.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"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"

Yet no one has apparently made that pitch, and no
one is petitioning to end written tests either. Bottom
line, the requirement for some technical knowledge is
coupled to the freedom ALL US hams have to build,
modify and/or repair their own equipment...even if they
never want to. The knowledge is expected to help
hams stay within tolerences and signal characteristics
allowed because failing to do so can/will lead to
interference. Morse knowledge, on the other hand,
has no potential for harming others, causing interference,
etc.

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?


Jim,

If/when someone floats an RM to end written testing, then
I'll be one of the first in opposition. For today, the code test
is not, IMHO, in any way comparable. We'll just have to
agree to disagree on that because I ain't gonna waste any more
time arguing hypotheticals when those arguments aren't
even being made to the FCC.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bottom
line, the requirement for some technical knowledge is
coupled to the freedom ALL US hams have to build,
modify and/or repair their own equipment...even if they
never want to. The knowledge is expected to help
hams stay within tolerences and signal characteristics
allowed because failing to do so can/will lead to
interference.

When will you guys ever admit the fact that the present written, does none of
the above.

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , "Kim"

writes:

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
e.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.

Irrelevant. From ALL the available literature of old-time amateur radio
prior to 1920, THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of amateur radio
transmitters were of the "spark" type.

"Spark" transmitters can be modulated SOLELY by ON-OFF KEYING.

The sole surviving Alexanderson Alternator VLF RF generator is in
Grimeton, Sweden, and used once each year for a brief period in a
ceremony for Televerket, the Swedish government's telecommunication
works. A ceremonial event, not one for any actual communication.

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

ONLY with a rotary alternator with a WATER COOLED MICROPHONE.

Demonstration only, and then ONCE.

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?

Point of fact only. Do NOT "rewrite" what I wrote.

Morse code was developed for ON-OFF KEYING...on land lines.

"Spark" transmitters could communicate ONLY by on-off keying.

Morse code was first used commercially for communications in
1844. The first demonstration of radio as a communications medium
was 1896. That is a 52 year period allowing maturing of the ON-OFF
keying of telegraphy. Telegraphy by the Morse-Vail telegraph
system had spread worldwide by 1896.

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.

Totally irrelevant to the point. Early primitive radio could ONLY work
with an ON-OFF KEYING method.

Despite all the variant dialects of "morse codes," ALL work ONLY by
ON-OFF KEYING. ALL.

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.

Self-serving emotional exaggeration.

Radio amateurs worldwide continue to USE all the modes and modulations
allocated to them every day.

"Demonstration" refers to the first use of a method. That differs from USE.

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.

It does NOT work optimally compared to OTHER modes.

Radio as a communications medium is 107 years old. ON-OFF
KEYING of a radio frequency carrier is NOT a new concept nor is it
the best for communications.

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

Irrelevant. Refusal to change has many and varied reasons. Only some
of those refusals are relevant or applicable.

NO ONE is contending that ON-OFF KEYING was not the first.

Under the beginning subject thread, the subject was the CODE TEST.

You cannot explain or demonstrate or justify a reason for code test
retention JUST BECAUSE IT WAS THE FIRST MODE IN RADIO.

The first radio-as-a-communications means was 107 years ago.

All other radio services have either dropped morse code mode or
never considered its use when that radio service began.

Continued USE of morse code modes DOES NOT POSSIBLY ADVANCE
ANY STATE OF THE RADIO ARTS. In ANY radio service, including
amateur radio.

LHA

In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

"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, it seems to be wasted effort to lay out the technical reasons
for morse code mode communications disappearing on the world
radio scene.

The very first demonstrations of radio as a communications medium
was 107 years ago. In Russia and in Italy. Both demonstrators used
morse code mode with on-off keying. What was used 107 years ago
is NOT "state of the art" today.

USE of morse code mode is optional in the US radio amateur service.

Elimination of the morse code TEST for any amateur radio license is
not defacto elimination of its use, nor banning its use.

Retention of the morse code TEST only has validity as an EMOTIONAL
supplement to those already licensed in the amateur radio service who
are sufficiently proficient to use the mode.

Mike Coslo imagines himself as a sort of "devil's advocate" but is, by
all public evidence, little more than a PCTA who attempts to
masquerade his trolling and baiting by some odd self-defined role as
"arbiter" or "moderator."

This newsgroup is unmoderated.

LHA

(Len Over 21) wrote


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


Damn, Old Timer, you got it wrong again! In Boston, on Christmas Eve
of 1906, modulating a spark transmitter, Reginald Fessenden made a
holiday broadcast of a short spoken introduction, some recorded
Chistmas music, and played "Oh Holy Night" on a violin.

Obviously a "spark" transmitter was not limited to ONLY (your
emphasis) on-off keying.

Sunuvagun! Good luck on this one now.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

(Len Over 21) wrote

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.

Oh ****, you got it wrong again!

In Boston, on Christmas Eve of 1906, modulating a spark transmitter,
Reginald Fessenden made a holiday broadcast of a short spoken
introduction, some recorded Christmas music, and played "Oh Holy
Night" on a violin.

Obviously on-off keying was not the ONLY WAY POSSIBLE (your emphasis)
for early ("spark") radio to allow communications.

"Dear Mother Anderson, your son Leonard is failing in practical
applied physics. Perhaps he would benefit from a stint in the Army to
learn a useful trade."

Sunuvagun! Good luck on this one now.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

"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!


And, DICK, what modes would be your failure to communicate your way of an
emergency if the fate of the planet depends on it? I wish, for once, you'd
answer an honest question. I suspect it'll be the usual, though. Complete
silence because my question is not only one you can't answer (yeah, I'll
make the bet that you are *NOT* proficient in all available modes of ham
radio), and it's also one that makes a counter to the point you attempted to
illustrate, above.

So, DICK, what mode would be our shortcoming if we were all looking to you
to "save the planet?"

Kim W5TIT

In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"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"

Yet no one has apparently made that pitch,

Actually, some folks have made similar pitches.

Some time back, QCWA petitioned FCC to give full privs to all hams who held
General and Advanced licenses before Nov. 22, 1968 (the effective date of the
first phase of "incentive licensing". Hans, K0HB, has twice officially proposed
a simplified two-class system. The NCVEC folks are thinking of proposing
changes that go far beyond dumping Element 1 (see:

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/

Second item in the Table of Contents.

and no
one is petitioning to end written tests either.

As I wrote elsewhere, some written testing is needed to insure hams know the
rules, including safety precautions. What I'm talking about is the whole
concept of multiple license levels and "jump through the hoop" written tests as
a "hazing ritual" for more privileges.

Bottom
line, the requirement for some technical knowledge is
coupled to the freedom ALL US hams have to build,
modify and/or repair their own equipment...even if they
never want to. The knowledge is expected to help
hams stay within tolerences and signal characteristics
allowed because failing to do so can/will lead to
interference.

Of course! That's why the written tests cannot be totally eliminated. As I have
written elsewhere.

BUT (and it's a very big but), FCC says that almost all of the technical
knowledge a ham needs to know is already adequately tested by the 35 question
Technician test. That conclusion is inescapable from the fact that Techs are
allowed to use all authorized amateur modes, frequencies, power levels and
technologies above 30 MHz.

The only technical knowledge things that may not be adequately tested on the
Tech written are some HF specific items of propagation, and some regulations.

There's nothing inherently different about a 6 meter rig and a 10 meter rig, is
there? In fact, many modern rigs cover all ham bands from 160 through VHF! Why
is a Technician licensee qualified to design/build/repair/align/modify and most
of all operate a 6 meter rig but not a 15 meter rig - particularly when it's
the same rig?

Look at the FCC enforcement logs. Problems due to technical incompetence are
very few in the ARS, and those that do happen are not clustered on any
particular license class.

So why do we need all that written testing beyond Tech?

Morse knowledge, on the other hand,
has no potential for harming others, causing interference,
etc.

And that's a good thing! One more reason to learn the skills! ;-)

But we're not talking about Morse. We're talking about written testing beyond
the minimum needed to insure safe, legal operation of an amateur station.

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?


Jim,

If/when someone floats an RM to end written testing, then
I'll be one of the first in opposition.

It's already been done - see the QCWA petition. See the NCVEC thinkpiece linked
to, above. See Hans' proposal.

Waiting for an RM may be too late. Look at what happened with restructuring -
FCC proposed 4 classes of license but enacted 3. They proposed improved written
exams but instead cut back both the number and size of the written tests.

To be clear - I support a multi-level license structure and *better* written
tests at all levels - code test or no code test. But that's just my opinion.

The question remains - how can proposals like Hans' be refuted, other than "I
don't like it?"

What can be said in response to "You just want all hams to take a lot of
written tests because *you* had to take a lot of written tests"

For today, the code test
is not, IMHO, in any way comparable.

That's not the issue I'm talking about.

We'll just have to
agree to disagree on that because I ain't gonna waste any more
time arguing hypotheticals when those arguments aren't
even being made to the FCC.

But they are being made to FCC, as shown above. What reasonable, rational
arguments can we make to counter the above logic?

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

On the one hand, Morse is not used very much in emergency communication. On
the
other hand, it *is* still used occasionally, by hams, in emergency
communications. More important, there *are* times when it when it is the
only
available mode that would get through in the situation.
(Note that phrase "only available mode")

All of the above are documented facts.

The problem is, does the occasional use of Morse in emergencies mean that
*all*
hams *must* be tested on the mode? Some say yes, some say no, some say it's
a
piece of the reason. All based on personal opinion, nothing more.

Boil down any of the arguments on either side, and what you wind up with is
personal opinion.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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.

Absolutely true. But whether that is a reason to make every ham pass a code
test is a matter of opinion - some say yes, others say no.

Then its a good thing that the Germans and Japanese only captured
dittyboppers in WWII, otherwise these POWs would not have been able to
tap out messages.

You guys are rediculous. Absolutely.