"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:

In article , "Kim"

writes:

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
thlink.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.

Not that I have observed, Kim.

But can you accurately say that *no one* wants to end Morse use?

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.


One of the problems is that some folks aren't clear that it is only the
*test*
they are against.

And you have to doubt the veracity of many of those who do.

And you make that statement based on what?... or is this
just another propoganda effort to "suggest" a conspiracy
of purpose or some other fiction in your mind?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
news
Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

I just saw another accusation of Pro-Coders as technically backwards.


Unfortuneately, extremist comments are present on both sides.


Yet some of the most progressive RF Engineers and Technicians I know
(who are Hams) are really enamored of Morse CW.


Nothing wrong with that. 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.

But that isn't my question or argument, Bill. It isn't really about the
test. I don't care if they make the taking the test punishable by
inprisonment.

My question was related to the statements that Pro coders are
technically backwards.




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.


It isn't that the individuals that want code retained are in a technical
backwater, but rather that their procode test arguments fail
as to any technical reason for retaining code testing. On that point,
don't take my word on it, read the FCC R&O on NPRM98-143
and you'll find every argument being put forth today has already
been made to the FCC and rejected by the FCC.


I would also challenge them to do it without being abrasive or
insulting.


Feel free to let me know if I fail that challenge.


You did just fine from the civility standpoint, but perhaps I didn't
make myself clear. This isn't about the test.


Just facts or intelligent informed opinions.


As above, for the facts and the ultimate opinion (the only
opinion that in the end means anything) can be found in 98-143 R&O.

Bill, it isn't about the test.


Pro coders can help by refraining from name calling too.


Agreed.


My statement is that there is no direct relationship.


Not sure what relationship you are referring to.

I'm alomost confused here Bill! I'm saying there is no direct
relationship between being Pro-Code and technical ability.

OK, I agree.

My point is that the arguments should and can be made
without regard to personal aspects of either side.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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

But can you accurately say that *no one* wants to end Morse use?

Can you name one?

Sure! Remember Mark Morgan, KB9RQZ, whose spelling was even worse than Bruce's?

Search the entire population of licensed hams and
I'm sure there's some here and there that would take that stance

And that's my point when someone says "*no one* wants to end Morse *use*."

...BUT,
that is not the position (just in case someone tries to suggest
otherwise) of NCI. We (NCI) oppose code testing. We (NCI) have no
problem with code USE.

That's been made clear.

But the name of the organization doesn't include "test" so there could be some
confusion.

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.

One of the problems is that some folks aren't clear that it is only the
*test*
they are against.

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.)

We don't know what will happen without a test.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Leo

writes:

An excellent idea. I for one would be very interested in seeing the
logic and rationale that folks have for keeping or retiring the code
test. By removing the emotion, personal opinion and bias from the
discussion, some quite interesting points may well be raised.

Unfortunately, it is pretty much impossible to remove personal opinion
from the
discussion. That's because every reason for keeping or removing the test
ultimately comes down to an opinion question.

For example, take the "Morse is needed for emergencies" reason.

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")


Absolutely, Jim! And, as an added commentary to the above, it would be my
hope that many in the EmComm interest of ham radio would push CW at every
chance they had. When I was in a position of leadership in EmComm, I always
pushed CW--and there was not portion of the group that moaned or forsaked
it. Everyone recognized its value, and the value that those who use and
understand it brought to the table.


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.


I say no. It is no reason for keeping CW as a tested element for licensing.
That is my personal opinion.


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

73 de Jim, N2EY


Exactly. If I am asked to explain my personal opinion, that is when it gets
ugly--although from my perspective it gets ugly from an intial onslaught of
insults and uglies from people who differ from my opinion. My return to
them is going to be in like manner--but *ONLY* toward the attitude they
display. I have no problem at all with anyone's opinion or beliefs on CW.
All are quite valid, and I think the trend only reflects majority *opinion,*
not display of force or argument from either side.

Kim W5TIT

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim"
writes:

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.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.

Not that I have observed, Kim.

But can you accurately say that *no one* wants to end Morse use?


Of course not. But I can accurately say that there is no need to roll
everyone who wants to see an end to the test element, into the "no CW use"
minority (note I said minority), either.


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.

One of the problems is that some folks aren't clear that it is only the
*test*
they are against.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Anyone, *anyone* who allows theirself (bad English) to get all in a huff
about CW use going away or being legislated out of ham radio is being
foolish. There are a few who have been proponents of seeing the end of CW;
and when I see those posts, I yawn and go on. There will never be an end to
CW use, and it would never be banned from use in the ham bands...it just
wouldn't. I think it would be unrealistic to think it would. And, if it
was based off a majority of users of the bands, I rest assured knowing that
most would not support an end to CW use. I think those who are in the
minority are there mostly for the shock value of it.

Kim W5TIT

"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.
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.


1) To use the test element as a reason to proliferate CW users is not
acceptable to me. The reason is because the test requirement is a
government sponsored requirement. If we use your expectation for the
requirement above, then I respond that the continuance of the mode of CW is
not the responsiblity of the government, nor should it be. The FCC, the
government, has decided that CW is no longer needed for its expectation and
interpretation of what the ARS is about. To argue with that is merely
spinning our wheels at this point--it's a done deal. So, if your basic
support of the CW test as a requirement for ham radio is that it will keep
people learning and using the mode, then I would wholehertedly disagree.

2) Using the statement you make, above: would you not also agree then, that
the choice by some people to stop short of HF privileges, simply because of
a CW test requirement, depletes the overall supply of HF, therefore CW,
users anyway? I'd rather dismiss the test requirement for CW and have HF
thrive and active for the ARS. The influence of good amateur radio
operators who appreciate the value, tradition, and history of CW will always
be a positive effect on the maintenance of the population of CW users.
Again, it is not up the government to be the arm of CW continuance.


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.

PCTA = Pro-Code Testing Agenda; NCTA = Anti-Code Testing Agenda.
Those terms are accurately descriptive of the intent of their respective
groups. Where is the "hazard" in honesty?

73 de Larry, K3LT


The hazard, Larry, is in the derogatory slams that have been bantered back
and forth while using those terms. The term "******" (excuse me, to anyone
who is offended by that word--me included) isn't derogatory until some
bigoted person uses it against another person, either. No hazard, at all,
in being honest.

Kim W5TIT

"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.



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.


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.

Kim W5TIT

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

Well, Hood Buddy, your rejection is hereby rejected!


Yeah. Hood Buddy is probably about right...

Kim W5TIT

"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

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:

In article , "Kim"

writes:


"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
thlink.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.


Not that I have observed, Kim.

But can you accurately say that *no one* wants to end Morse use?

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.


One of the problems is that some folks aren't clear that it is only the
*test*
they are against.



And you have to doubt the veracity of many of those who do.


The "veracity?" Did you look up that word before you used it? I am sure
that anyone who posts an opinion is being pretty genuine in their belief...

Kim W5TIT