no-coders are reluctant to subject themselves to being called
'knuckle-draggers" and "cb-plussers"???

Whats the problem Karl, does the truth HURT?

"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?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
. com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

I think I've taken the high ground

Carl, with all due respect, using abrasive and derisive terms like
"jumping through hoops" is not "the high ground". It is your same old
baiting and condescending rhetoric, seemingly calculated to be
inflamatory and divisive.

"jumping through hoops" is "abrasive and drisive" ???

Yes, it is. The image is not complimentary. Would you like the written
tests
described that way?

So are phrases like

"waste valuable time learning Morse"

I consider my time a very valuable resource as do many others.
Wy is a comment which describes time wwasted by people who
don't wish to expend it learning morse considered uncomplimentary?

"dinosaur/buggywhip technology"

Me thinks as the end approaches...the PCTA side is grasping
at straws. I suggest not playing in the political arena of change if
such phraseology offends.

Would you like your favorite modes described that way?

Sure wouldn't bother me. But then I've learned to disregard
most rheteroic anyway. 12 years as an elected official teaches
one to accept the heat or get out-of-the-kitchen.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"WA8ULX" wrote in message
...
no-coders are reluctant to subject themselves to being called
'knuckle-draggers" and "cb-plussers"???

Whats the problem Karl, does the truth HURT?

Actually, with friends like WA8ULX, the PCTA folks don't need any
enimies as such personal attacks discredit the PCTA position very well.

The reality is that personal attacks rather than comments
(acrimonius or not) about morse or any other mode are significantly
different. If I consider FORDS to be a crap automobile, that
is considerably different than calling FORD OWNERS "knuckle
draggers".

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote


Most of the avid CW ragchewers/contesters I've known over the years
(remember, I'm a long-time ham) have been more interested in the operating
activity (ragchewing, contesting, paper-chasing) than the technical side.
My experience has been that they have been less technically inclined than
a lot of the no-code techs I've met, less inclined to participate in public
service/emergency communications, and more inclined to just being "users"
rather than tinkerers ...


I thought the thread was about Pro Code Test folks, not Pro Code User
folks. Your "official position" is that you have nothing against
Morse use, only Morse testing, yet your diatribes invariably bring
into question the technical competence of CW contesters and DXers.
How about Phone contesters and DXers --- are they more technically
competent than CW contesters and DXers? If not, then your argument is
exposed as based on your own biases, not on the facts.

I don't support the continuance of Morse testing, but I damned sure
intend to continue to support USE of Morse.

All of that aside, your premise that contesters and DXers are below
average in technical inclination doesn't align very well with reality.
Perhaps you belong to the wrong clubs. Contesters and DXers are
historically at the forefront of pushing improved technology,
especially in receiver design, antenna design, and integrating
computerized technology into their station design. The only remaining
viable manufacturer of HF radios in the US is TenTec, a company
founded and run by avid DXers/contesters, and catering to their needs.
"Force 12", the current leader in HF antenna technology is owned by
avid contesters. DigiKey, the electronics distributor was founded by
fellow members of the University of Minnesota Contest Club, mostly
electrical engineering students. (They got into business designing
and selling electronic keyers, hence the name.) Ron Stordahl, N5IN,
was one of the founders and still heads the company which is a major
employer in the city where it is based. All this from an avid CW
contester and electronics engineer.

By the way, my company just completed successful field trials of SDR
(Software Defined Radio) technology. (See
http://www.adc.com/investorrelations...LEASEID=119340
) Many of the leading people involved in the project are hams who are
also (choke) CW (and Phone) contesters.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
http://www.adc.com
http://home.earthlink.net/~k0hb

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote


Most of the avid CW ragchewers/contesters I've known over the years
(remember, I'm a long-time ham) have been more interested in the
operating
activity (ragchewing, contesting, paper-chasing) than the technical
side.
My experience has been that they have been less technically inclined
than
a lot of the no-code techs I've met, less inclined to participate in
public
service/emergency communications, and more inclined to just being
"users"
rather than tinkerers ...


I thought the thread was about Pro Code Test folks, not Pro Code User
folks.

Hans ... read Mike's post ... *he* raised the issue of Morse USERS vs.
those who don't use Morse ... I merely related my personal experience
in that stated context.

Your "official position" is that you have nothing against
Morse use, only Morse testing,

I don't ... but I also don't agree with the claim that Morse users
are more technically astute than non-Morse users. That was what
I was addressing and it was responsive to the question/context.

yet your diatribes invariably bring

I don't think my relating my personal experience was a "diatribe."
Give it a rest Hans.

into question the technical competence of CW contesters and DXers.
How about Phone contesters and DXers --- are they more technically
competent than CW contesters and DXers? If not, then your argument is
exposed as based on your own biases, not on the facts.

No, my comment was not based on bias ... I clearly stated it was based
on my personal experience and "YMMV."

I don't support the continuance of Morse testing, but I damned sure
intend to continue to support USE of Morse.

Then we are in the same camp ...

All of that aside, your premise that contesters and DXers are below
average in technical inclination doesn't align very well with reality.
Perhaps you belong to the wrong clubs. Contesters and DXers are
historically at the forefront of pushing improved technology,
especially in receiver design, antenna design, and integrating
computerized technology into their station design. The only remaining
viable manufacturer of HF radios in the US is TenTec, a company
founded and run by avid DXers/contesters, and catering to their needs.
"Force 12", the current leader in HF antenna technology is owned by
avid contesters. DigiKey, the electronics distributor was founded by
fellow members of the University of Minnesota Contest Club, mostly
electrical engineering students. (They got into business designing
and selling electronic keyers, hence the name.) Ron Stordahl, N5IN,
was one of the founders and still heads the company which is a major
employer in the city where it is based. All this from an avid CW
contester and electronics engineer.

I didn't say *all* CW enthusiasts, contesters, and paper chasers were
non-technical ... I just related my own personal experience ... which
varies from yours. (sheesh ...)


By the way, my company just completed successful field trials of SDR
(Software Defined Radio) technology. (See

http://www.adc.com/investorrelations...LEASEID=119340
) Many of the leading people involved in the project are hams who are
also (choke) CW (and Phone) contesters.

And one of the founders of the company, who is a friend and colleague of
mine
now, is a no-code tech (I persuaded him to get into ham radio. He has NO
interest in Morse, but is a hell of a digital modes engineer.)

Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote

And one of the founders of the company, who is a friend and
colleague of mine now, is a no-code tech (I persuaded him to
get into ham radio. He has NO interest in Morse, but is a
hell of a digital modes engineer.)

That's quite a story, Carl, since the company was founded in 1935 by
Ralph Allison. That would put Ralph up in his 90's somewhere. Well,
it's good to know he's still in engineering and keeping up with the
latest trends. Give him best regards from everyone at ADC. We were
under the mistaken impression that he had passed on.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
http://www.adc.com/aboutadc/history/

Actually, with friends like WA8ULX, the PCTA folks don't need any
enimies as such personal attacks discredit the PCTA position very well.

And with people like you and Karl, Ham Radio doesnt have a chance to survive.

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

(snip) 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.


I think you're focusing on the wrong issue, Mike. When discussing the
retention of code testing, the real issue is how doing so futhers the basis
and purpose of Amateur Radio. The FCC has framed this several times. For
example...

"We are persuaded that because the amateur service is
fundamentally a technical service, the emphasis on Morse
code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not
comport with the basis and purpose of the service. We
note, moreover, that the design of modern communications
systems, including personal communication services, satellite,
fiber optic, and high definition television systems, are based
on digital communication technologies. We also note that
no communication system has been designed in many years
that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to
receive messages in Morse code by ear. In contrast,
modern communication systems are designed to be
automated systems. Given the changes that have occurred
in communications in the last fifty years, we believe that
reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a
licensing requirement will allow the amateur service to, as
it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons,
particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them
to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the
United States needs expertise." - FCC WT Docket No.
98-143 RM-9148 RM-9150 RM-9196

As you can see, none of this focuses on the individual people opposing or
supporting code testing. Instead, it focuses on what furthers the basis and
purpose of Amateur Radio. If others focused on the same, there would perhaps
be far less hostility in the discussion.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
link.net...

The issue isn't about USE it is about
the lack of any rational reason to retain code testing as a
license requirement now that the ITU mandatory code knowledge
requirment has ended.


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.

Until, (UNTIL, *until*) it is clearly understood that seeking the end of the
CW test is not the equivalent of seeking the end of CW as a mode, this
debate will never fall within the realm of "friendly" debate at all. I
think it's even hazardous to use the PCTA/NCTA labels.

Kim W5TIT