In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article , "Andre Sarkissian"
writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote:
In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:
You seem to be telling us that amateurs should not have any values,
standards
or practices except those necessary to prevent amateurs from interfering
with
users of other radio services.

Absolutely. "Here are your bands, have a nice
day" would be
a very free, open, and enjoyable environment

That's CB.

Andre,

Thank you for clarifying Len's answer perfectly. It's quite clear that he
wants
amateur radio to be nothing other than a multiband version of cb.

Try not to strain yourself putting words into others' messages.

Don't get all passionate about your piquish puerile parsonage.

You were much better on the pulpit with your old Sermons On
The Antenna Mount.

I'm not at all interested in joining the Archaic Radiotelegraphy
Service.

Tens of thousands of radio people feel exactly the same way.

What did YOU do back in 1958 when U. S. Class D Citizens
Band was created?

NO test whatsoever back then, but licensed it was.

YOU've had 45 years to correct things. Doesn't appear that
YOU did anydamnthing except snap your suspenders and
look down at others from a safe distance.

Go back to Electric Radio and console yourself with state of
the art of antique radio and "designing your own gear" by
building kits.

LHA

Better yet, why bother?

Wait until the code test requirement is removed, and they
won't have to learn something they may never need to
or want to, or have the desire to do.

Clint


--


"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
Every one in awhile, I like to remind some here of what it is we're
actually talking about. Kinda like to get the big picture out there
for any potential newbies whom might be fooled into believing the
"barrier" argument that characterizes the Element 1 requirement as
being forced to "jump through hoops."

Step 1. Preparation requires that one listen to a training CD or tape
(ARRL, W5YI, etc.) to learn the sound of two or three characters per
day. There are 43 letters, numbers, punctuation marks, and Pro-signs
in all that one must memorize. Approx. two 20 min. sessions per day is
more than enough to be "reasonably" prepared to pass Element 1 after
approx. one month. (Only have time for one 20 min. session per day?
.make it two months.)

Step 2. Visit some of the websites that have sample CW QSO's.
Familiarize yourself with the format of a simple CW QSO, i.e. RST,
QTH, name, rig, antenna, etc.

Step 3. Just take the test. (And if, for some reason, you don't
pass.take it again.)

Behold the much-feared behemoth:

__________________ BT _R R_T 58_ 589. Q_H IS _HI_ADEL_HIA, _A. BT NA_E
HR IS _OHN ES A_E IS 35 Y_RS O_D. W_ HR IS CLO_DY. RI_ IS _EN_OO_. BT
AN_EN_A IS _I_OL_E.

Five minutes of very clear CW is piped into your headphones at 5-wpm,
not 13-wpm, and not 20-wpm. In the example above, N0CW has missed both
callsigns and pretty much a character or two from almost every word.
But if s/he uses just a little common sense combined with the "few
minutes" s/he's given at the end to fill in the blank, it becomes
quite clear that putting together a string of 25 correct characters is
actually quite easy. Particularly so because numbers, punctuation
marks and pro-signs count as 2 each.

N0CW DE KN0WCW BT UR RST 589 589. QTH IS PHILADEPLPHIA, PA. BT NAME HR
IS JOHN ES AGE IS 35 YERS OLD. WX HR IS CLOUDY. RIG IS KENWOOD. BT
ANTENNA IS DIPOLE.

Funny thing happened the other day. My father asked me what all the
hubbub was about re. the code. (Apparently, I had left my QST in the
car and he decided to peruse away.) I explained that some folks
consider Morse code antiquated and feel that there are better, more
modern, modes in use today. I went on to include that some also feel
that it's unfair to make newcomers "jump through hoops" to become
ARO's, thus constituting a "barrier" to some, otherwise qualified,
potential hams.

So Dad pondered for a moment and furled his 77 yr. old eyebrows and
said. "They're right, Morse code IS antiquated." My jaw dropped, "say
it ain't so!" (E tu Brute?!) He then asked me about the licensing
structure and I explained the three-tier system presently in place.
"You've gotta keep the code test in place though." Ok, now I'm a tad
confused. "Why, if it's antiquated?" I asked.

"Values, my boy.values. Just ask yourself if this is what you want to
teach your own children? Should they apply this logic to other aspects
of their lives as they grow up? How about an aspiring Engineer, why
should s/he be forced to learn history? How about an aspiring history
teacher, why should s/he learn physics? There's a bunch of different
analogies than can be applied, some good and some not so good, but
there's one common thread.values. Knowledge is NEVER wasted and
"requiring" one to attain a "reasonable" level of knowledge to enjoy
increased privileges.whether it be in the ARS, the workplace, or life
in general is fundamental to nurturing a sense of values. Let that
decay and the result will be obvious.like the recent Regents exam
fiasco. Don't lower the bar across the board; help raise the
individual's standards. It appears to me that there already exists a
no-code exam and 5-wpm seems quite reasonable.so what's all the hubbub
about?"

Then I remembered why I chose my callsign.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

Thats what all the No-Coders want,they will not admit it, but thats what
there
shooting for.

Nope.

What YOU guys won't admit is that you refuse to seperate the issues of
removing the morse code from testing requirements and removing morse
code from the air. The former issue has all the backers and the strength
of numbers; the latter does not.

however, you guys know that your side of the fence is doomed so your
trying to mischaracterize the NCTA by hoping to make everybody forget
the "T" in the word, and thus draw hams into the argument that may not
otherwise have an opinion, or be against you.

Just like I said before, nasty socialist politicians unfairly use races of
people in politics in the form of the race card to draw minorities to
thier camp as they need the extra help in thier weak argument; you guys
are, likewise, using the "they want to remove ALL code from the bands!"
argument to draw code loving hams to your side when they may not have
a problem with removing code testing.

I'm a code using ham, i've had to pass morse code tests to get my
license, but I likewise DO see code test removal as a step in the right
direction.

Sorry, but your attempt to control the debate by defining the words
and controlling the language (an old debate folly) has failed.

Clint
KB5ZHT

I just had a great QSO in the Extra part of 80cw with a 84 year old guy.
Really enjoyed it. I was running my 40 year old Hallicrafters gear and had
a blast with it.

And I came here. Bye....back to CW.

Dan/W4NTI

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message
...
Better yet, why bother?

Wait until the code test requirement is removed, and they
won't have to learn something they may never need to
or want to, or have the desire to do.

Clint


--


"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
Every one in awhile, I like to remind some here of what it is we're
actually talking about. Kinda like to get the big picture out there
for any potential newbies whom might be fooled into believing the
"barrier" argument that characterizes the Element 1 requirement as
being forced to "jump through hoops."

Step 1. Preparation requires that one listen to a training CD or tape
(ARRL, W5YI, etc.) to learn the sound of two or three characters per
day. There are 43 letters, numbers, punctuation marks, and Pro-signs
in all that one must memorize. Approx. two 20 min. sessions per day is
more than enough to be "reasonably" prepared to pass Element 1 after
approx. one month. (Only have time for one 20 min. session per day?
.make it two months.)

Step 2. Visit some of the websites that have sample CW QSO's.
Familiarize yourself with the format of a simple CW QSO, i.e. RST,
QTH, name, rig, antenna, etc.

Step 3. Just take the test. (And if, for some reason, you don't
pass.take it again.)

Behold the much-feared behemoth:

__________________ BT _R R_T 58_ 589. Q_H IS _HI_ADEL_HIA, _A. BT NA_E
HR IS _OHN ES A_E IS 35 Y_RS O_D. W_ HR IS CLO_DY. RI_ IS _EN_OO_. BT
AN_EN_A IS _I_OL_E.

Five minutes of very clear CW is piped into your headphones at 5-wpm,
not 13-wpm, and not 20-wpm. In the example above, N0CW has missed both
callsigns and pretty much a character or two from almost every word.
But if s/he uses just a little common sense combined with the "few
minutes" s/he's given at the end to fill in the blank, it becomes
quite clear that putting together a string of 25 correct characters is
actually quite easy. Particularly so because numbers, punctuation
marks and pro-signs count as 2 each.

N0CW DE KN0WCW BT UR RST 589 589. QTH IS PHILADEPLPHIA, PA. BT NAME HR
IS JOHN ES AGE IS 35 YERS OLD. WX HR IS CLOUDY. RIG IS KENWOOD. BT
ANTENNA IS DIPOLE.

Funny thing happened the other day. My father asked me what all the
hubbub was about re. the code. (Apparently, I had left my QST in the
car and he decided to peruse away.) I explained that some folks
consider Morse code antiquated and feel that there are better, more
modern, modes in use today. I went on to include that some also feel
that it's unfair to make newcomers "jump through hoops" to become
ARO's, thus constituting a "barrier" to some, otherwise qualified,
potential hams.

So Dad pondered for a moment and furled his 77 yr. old eyebrows and
said. "They're right, Morse code IS antiquated." My jaw dropped, "say
it ain't so!" (E tu Brute?!) He then asked me about the licensing
structure and I explained the three-tier system presently in place.
"You've gotta keep the code test in place though." Ok, now I'm a tad
confused. "Why, if it's antiquated?" I asked.

"Values, my boy.values. Just ask yourself if this is what you want to
teach your own children? Should they apply this logic to other aspects
of their lives as they grow up? How about an aspiring Engineer, why
should s/he be forced to learn history? How about an aspiring history
teacher, why should s/he learn physics? There's a bunch of different
analogies than can be applied, some good and some not so good, but
there's one common thread.values. Knowledge is NEVER wasted and
"requiring" one to attain a "reasonable" level of knowledge to enjoy
increased privileges.whether it be in the ARS, the workplace, or life
in general is fundamental to nurturing a sense of values. Let that
decay and the result will be obvious.like the recent Regents exam
fiasco. Don't lower the bar across the board; help raise the
individual's standards. It appears to me that there already exists a
no-code exam and 5-wpm seems quite reasonable.so what's all the hubbub
about?"

Then I remembered why I chose my callsign.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

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

(Len Over 21) writes:

Amateur radio isn't the military. It isn't a workplace. It isn't a
guild
or craft or union or association of professionals.

Which means that the methods and standards of the military, the workplace,
the
guild/craft/union or professional associations don't apply to amateur
radio.

Even under such an argument, the role and purpose of amateur
test requirements must be justified by more than just tradition, values and
other vague and subjective aspects.

It's a HOBBY.

It's an avocation. Meaning it's done for its own sake.

But however someone chooses to describe it, does the fact that amateur
radio
isn't the military, a workplace, a guild or craft or union or association
of
professionals mean that there is no need for amateur radio to have values,
and
standards? That seems to be your main message here.

The message is the same as that stated by the FCC in R&) for 98-143...
Rules must be justified.

(SNIP)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

I just had a great QSO in the Extra part of 80cw with a 84 year old guy.
Really enjoyed it. I was running my 40 year old Hallicrafters gear and had
a blast with it.

And I came here. Bye....back to CW.

Dan/W4NTI

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message

Some folks just can't cut it on newsgroups. Say goodnight, Dan.

"Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out"... (courtesy of
L. Roll)

(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Bert Craig) writes:

(snip of excellent description of the 5 wpm code test)

Here's another way for those unfamiliar with Morse to look at it:

Imagine a test where the person being tested has to listen to a series of words
spoken at a slow rate (one word every 2.4 seconds) and write down the the first
letter of the word spoken. The same word is used for each occurrence of a
particular letter. So a person being tested would hear something like
"Table....History...Imagination....Salamander..... ...Imagination...Salaman
der......Nexus...Oval...Table
.......History.....America......Raster.....Dominio n......(etc.)

and when the letters were written down, a simple message would be spelled out.
Person being tested could go back and make corrections, too.

What a wonderful analogy. It almost makes you want to go out and
learn the code.

That's all the Morse test is - except

Ah, a condition.

that instead of words, there are series of short and long tones.

And there it is. If only our alphabet were two letters long, which
could be substituted with short and long tones.

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

Amateur radio isn't the military. It isn't a workplace. It isn't a
guild
or craft or union or association of professionals.

Which means that the methods and standards of the military, the workplace,
the
guild/craft/union or professional associations don't apply to amateur
radio.

Even under such an argument, the role and purpose of amateur
test requirements must be justified by more than just tradition, values and
other vague and subjective aspects.

With all due respect, Bill,

Isn't that statement really a subjective opinion? I mean, when you get
right down to it, almost everything in the test process is there or is
not there because of someone's subjective opinion that it's
"reasonable" or "necessary".

It's a HOBBY.

It's an avocation. Meaning it's done for its own sake.

But however someone chooses to describe it, does the fact that amateur
radio
isn't the military, a workplace, a guild or craft or union or association
of
professionals mean that there is no need for amateur radio to have values,
and
standards? That seems to be your main message here.

The message is the same as that stated by the FCC in R&) for 98-143...
Rules must be justified.

(SNIP)

Sure - that's the easy part. The tough part is "what constitutes
justification?"

And the point I was making still remains valid. Since amateur radio is
not the military, a workplace, a guild or craft or union or
association of professionals, its requirements should not be governed
by those groups.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:


With all due respect, Bill,

Isn't that statement really a subjective opinion? I mean, when you get
right down to it, almost everything in the test process is there or is
not there because of someone's subjective opinion that it's
"reasonable" or "necessary".

It's all an opinion, Jim. Those who believe they are blessed with the
"facts" in this issue are practicing self delusion.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

With all due respect, Bill,

Isn't that statement really a subjective opinion? I mean, when you get
right down to it, almost everything in the test process is there or is
not there because of someone's subjective opinion that it's
"reasonable" or "necessary".

It's all an opinion, Jim.

My point exactly. And those opinions change over time. From the early '30s to
1951, FCC thought 3 license classes was the right number. Then they went to 6,
then to 5, then back to 6, then back to 5, then back to 6 yet again. Then in
1999 they decided 3 is the right number.

The more things change...

73 de Jim, N2EY

Those who believe they are blessed with the
"facts" in this issue are practicing self delusion.