I tell them to call me
by the affectionate name one of my girlfriends calls me, "Boo."

I heard she calls you BOY.

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

"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.

Agreed! Point is, however, that the "no one" statement is simply not correct.

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.

Not necessarily. Not after seeing the mode (not just the test) attacked the way
I have.

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.

That's *you* - not everyone.

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.

I hope you are right about that. Some of us are not about to "trust to the
kindness of strangers" however

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.

Not now, anyway.

I think those who are in the
minority are there mostly for the shock value of it.

Perhaps.

But not too long ago, the mere suggestion of *any* class of ham license with no
code test would have gathered almost no support. And the idea of the total
abolition of code testing would have been discarded with the claim that
*no-one* wanted all code testing to end.

They way to outlaw something is little by little. Remember your concerns about
the restrictions on privacy brought about by 'homeland security' responses?
Little by little....

There was a time when AM was king of the 'phone modes. Then SSB came a long and
took center stage, while AM was relegated to niche status. Most folks said
"No-one is against the *use* of AM"....

But that was not good enough for some, and proposals have arisen every so often
to effectively outlaw AM from the ham bands. HF ham bands, anyway. So far, none
of them have been successful.

Up until 20 years ago, the amateur power limit was 1 kW DC input to the stages
delivering power to the antenna. Then the rules changed to 1.5 kW PEP output.
For the AM folks, this was effectively a lowering of the power limit to about
half of what it had been before the change. For SSB folks, it was effectively
about a 50% raise of the power limit.

LIttle by little...

73 de Jim, N2EY

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.

Why
do hams know the Morse code? Because they had to learn it to pass
the code tests to become licensed or obtain upgrades.

That's one reason.

In the absence
of a code testing requirement, why will they learn it?

Here are some reasons:

- Morse is fun for many thousands of hams
- Lots of interesting DX on Morse only
- Morse gets through better than any analog voice mode and better than many TOR
modes
- Morse equipment for a given performance level costs less and is simpler than
any other mode
- Morse is usually aural, not visual, but doesn't require talking. It's a
unique way of communicating
- Morse takes up less, or far less, spectrum than almost all other modes.
- There is much less objectionable stuff to deal with in the parts of the bands
where Morse is usually used.

How will we
convince new hams to invest the time and effort to learn this useful
communications skill when they are not offered the incentive of
increased operating privileges?

Through the incentives of:

- improved performance of a given radio setup
- less crowded spectrum space
- a unique communications experience not available elsewhere
- rare DX
- spectrum conservation

There is also the element of putting the mode out there for others to see. As
in demonstrations at club meetings, hamfests, conventions, Field Day, etc.
"Sell" the mode the way the FM/repeater, PSK-31, APRS, packet and other folks
have been selling their modes for years.

If all a new ham ever sees is other, more experienced hams talking into mikes
and tapping keyboards, that's all the newbie will think exists.

Look at what the AM and vintage/military radio folks have done. They set up
demos at hamfests and other venues to show what it's all about. Why not the
same thing with Morse? Show 'em how it's done - plant the seed.

Or consider the QRP/homebrew/hiker folks. What's the most effective mode to
bring along on a backpack trip?

Elecraft has a new rig - the KX1. Amazing little box the size of a stack of
QSLs. Is there *any* non-CW rig of equivalent size/weight/power requirement
that will perform anywhere near as well?

You should see the looks on their faces at FD when they see the CW station
making QSOs at a rate better than the 'phone folks, yet using a more modest
setup and expending far *less* effort. When well over half the points earned by
a 4A+free VHF FD setup come from one fulltime and one part time setup running
CW, serious selling is happening.

I'm asking you because I don't have
the answers. I'm one of those hams who learned the code because
I wanted to be a ham, and the requirement was there.

That's you. It's not everybody.

Some will be sold on the mode regardless of whether or not there's a test.

Some will never be sold no matter what you do.

And some will be sold if approached in the right way.

Ony *after*
learning the code and becoming a reasonably proficient CW operator
did I become aware of it's benefits and advantages. Personally, I'm
grateful that the code testing requirement existed when I became a
ham. Had it not, I never would have become a CW operator...and
neither will most hams in the ECTA (Era of Code Test Abolition).

How do we know that for sure? Maybe you would have seen the light after getting
frustrated with other modes.

Here's an experience I had recently (post-restructuring):

Relatively new ham got started via the Tech route. Decided he wanted HF and
passed the required elements, including code, which was learned from CDs and
computer software.

But then he discovered that learning enough code to pass the test was a far
different thing from copying and sending live on the air in a real QSO.

Now remember, this ham had already passed all the code tests he'd ever need to
pass. He had all bands and modes open to him, and a nice HF station set up.
There was absolutely no requirement that he ever do any Morse code operating at
all, ever. Nor was there any requirement to spend more time and effort learning
to send and copy real-world off-the-air Morse.

But this ham *wanted* to use the mode, based on its merits alone. With a small
amount of help and encouragement, he learned the skills of on-air copy,
sending, abbreviations, procedure, etc.

I had the privilege and honor of being his first CW QSO. Since then he's had
many more, his skills have improved, and he's on the way. CW SS is a few
weekends away.........

And this ham is the kind who will share what he has learned with others and
repeat the cycle. Test or no test.

--

Sure, not every new or old ham will be "sold". But we don't need every ham.
Just enough hams. And a positve image.

Does that answer the question?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:


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.

Agreed! Point is, however, that the "no one" statement is simply not
correct.


Let's recall that you are far more into definition than I am, Jim. When I
say "no one" it may not mean *everyone* but it means enough to be counted as
no one. I believe that the number of folks who wish to see an end to CW in
the bands of the ARS are so miniscule that the projection of that ever being
a reality is moot.


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.

Not necessarily. Not after seeing the mode (not just the test) attacked
the way
I have.


I've seen it attacked also. But I've never for a moment given it any kind
of merit--the mode simply would never be banned from the ARS. Has any mode
ever been banned? Sure, rules have changed; rules pertaining to power
limits, rules pertaining to test requirements, rules pertaining even (I
believe) to *where* in the bands that different modes are allowed or not.
But I doubt a mode would ever be banned, once implemented and in place.


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.

That's *you* - not everyone.


I can't imagine anyone giving merit to the thought that a mode would be
banned. Maybe I am being unrealistic. Using history as a perspective of
measurement; I don't see it ever happening.


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.

I hope you are right about that. Some of us are not about to "trust to the
kindness of strangers" however


I think I believe it enough that I'll eat my sock (the right foot sock) if
it ever happens.


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.

Not now, anyway.


My term "most" includes those people who now and in the future have any kind
of romantic thought about the ARS. And, I think most do. There are the few
who would see an end to something they don't like. But, given the desire
and will of most ARS folks, CW--nor any mode for that matter--will
disappear. Now, if I am wrong about history just let me know and I *may*
change my belief.


I think those who are in the
minority are there mostly for the shock value of it.

Perhaps.

But not too long ago, the mere suggestion of *any* class of ham license
with no
code test would have gathered almost no support. And the idea of the total
abolition of code testing would have been discarded with the claim that
*no-one* wanted all code testing to end.


I can see requirements changing, etc. But, I cannot see the FCC ever
saying, "OK, no more ______ as a legal mode in the ARS."


They way to outlaw something is little by little. Remember your concerns
about
the restrictions on privacy brought about by 'homeland security'
responses?
Little by little....


I have never doubted that the government would do as they have done. I
daresay they were doing under different guises for many years now. Nothing
different there. It's all about expectation. The expectation that the FCC
would ever ban a mode is minimal for me.


There was a time when AM was king of the 'phone modes. Then SSB came a
long and
took center stage, while AM was relegated to niche status. Most folks said
"No-one is against the *use* of AM"....


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.


But that was not good enough for some, and proposals have arisen every so
often
to effectively outlaw AM from the ham bands. HF ham bands, anyway. So far,
none
of them have been successful.


And, I don't think they ever would be.


Up until 20 years ago, the amateur power limit was 1 kW DC input to the
stages
delivering power to the antenna. Then the rules changed to 1.5 kW PEP
output.
For the AM folks, this was effectively a lowering of the power limit to
about
half of what it had been before the change. For SSB folks, it was
effectively
about a 50% raise of the power limit.

LIttle by little...

73 de Jim, N2EY


I do see things changing in the ARS, but not related to the outlawing of a
mode.

Kim W5TIT

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) 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!

LHA

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

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

Only in your mind, Tatoo.

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.

Again, only in your mind, Tatoo.

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.

Tatoo has his stash up in the bell tower while looking for de blane.

Back here in the Real World (not on Fantasy Island), poor Tatoo
would have to contend with all the long-ago, much more qualified
in many more aspects of Real World communications in all other
radio services have either: Never considered on-off morse in the
first place; dropped on-off morse as a required mode; relegated it
to an optional mode, good only for things like automatic ID.

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.

Carl lives in the Real World. So do I. Try visiting it some time.

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.

Hmmm...the Radio God has spoken! :-)

Hey, Larrah, you should have lent your "qualifications" to the US
Army way back when the USAF was part of it. The ACAN (Army
Command Administrative Network) was organized to NOT use
morse code for long-distance primary communications...a couple
years after WW2 was ended.

Now get back up in the bell tower, de blane is coming soon.

LHA

"WA8ULX" wrote in message
...
I tell them to call me
by the affectionate name one of my girlfriends calls me, "Boo."

I heard she calls you BOY.



Ain't it amazing Bruce? This Texas Twit keeps sticking that foot deeper in
her mouth everytime.

Hug and Chalk is going strong.

Dan/W4NTI

"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."

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." 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 ...

73,
Carl - wk3c


Poor no code goofballs. They still haven't figured it out. We don't want a
bunch of unqualified, ten four screaming, under educated, individuals
poluting up the spectrum.

We were doing just fine when we had 250K licensed. In fact the QRM is just
as bad on HF as it was then. The only difference is the folks on the air
actually KNEW SOMETHING.

Dan/W4NTI

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

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

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

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.

Dan/W4NTI

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:


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.

Agreed! Point is, however, that the "no one" statement is simply not
correct.


Let's recall that you are far more into definition than I am, Jim. When I
say "no one" it may not mean *everyone* but it means enough to be counted
as
no one. I believe that the number of folks who wish to see an end to CW
in
the bands of the ARS are so miniscule that the projection of that ever
being
a reality is moot.


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.

Not necessarily. Not after seeing the mode (not just the test) attacked
the way
I have.


I've seen it attacked also. But I've never for a moment given it any kind
of merit--the mode simply would never be banned from the ARS. Has any
mode
ever been banned? Sure, rules have changed; rules pertaining to power
limits, rules pertaining to test requirements, rules pertaining even (I
believe) to *where* in the bands that different modes are allowed or not.
But I doubt a mode would ever be banned, once implemented and in place.


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.

That's *you* - not everyone.


I can't imagine anyone giving merit to the thought that a mode would be
banned. Maybe I am being unrealistic. Using history as a perspective of
measurement; I don't see it ever happening.


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.

I hope you are right about that. Some of us are not about to "trust to
the
kindness of strangers" however


I think I believe it enough that I'll eat my sock (the right foot sock) if
it ever happens.


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.

Not now, anyway.


My term "most" includes those people who now and in the future have any
kind
of romantic thought about the ARS. And, I think most do. There are the
few
who would see an end to something they don't like. But, given the desire
and will of most ARS folks, CW--nor any mode for that matter--will
disappear. Now, if I am wrong about history just let me know and I *may*
change my belief.


I think those who are in the
minority are there mostly for the shock value of it.

Perhaps.

But not too long ago, the mere suggestion of *any* class of ham license
with no
code test would have gathered almost no support. And the idea of the
total
abolition of code testing would have been discarded with the claim that
*no-one* wanted all code testing to end.


I can see requirements changing, etc. But, I cannot see the FCC ever
saying, "OK, no more ______ as a legal mode in the ARS."


They way to outlaw something is little by little. Remember your concerns
about
the restrictions on privacy brought about by 'homeland security'
responses?
Little by little....


I have never doubted that the government would do as they have done. I
daresay they were doing under different guises for many years now.
Nothing
different there. It's all about expectation. The expectation that the
FCC
would ever ban a mode is minimal for me.


There was a time when AM was king of the 'phone modes. Then SSB came a
long and
took center stage, while AM was relegated to niche status. Most folks
said
"No-one is against the *use* of AM"....


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.


But that was not good enough for some, and proposals have arisen every
so
often
to effectively outlaw AM from the ham bands. HF ham bands, anyway. So
far,
none
of them have been successful.


And, I don't think they ever would be.


Up until 20 years ago, the amateur power limit was 1 kW DC input to the
stages
delivering power to the antenna. Then the rules changed to 1.5 kW PEP
output.
For the AM folks, this was effectively a lowering of the power limit to
about
half of what it had been before the change. For SSB folks, it was
effectively
about a 50% raise of the power limit.

LIttle by little...

73 de Jim, N2EY


I do see things changing in the ARS, but not related to the outlawing of a
mode.

Kim W5TIT



Spark was banned. 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.

Most of the time the FCC simply didn't bother to authorize a new mode.
Thats how it works Hug and Chalk.

Dan/W4NTI