"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

(snip) If one wants or needs to make other
than local contacts then yes code is
necessary. (snip) If the choice is to turn
off the radio or use code then I'd say that
code is indeed necessary whether or not
it is an emergency.


I think you missed the point. Other than the emergency or public services
we offer, any contact whatsoever is an avocation, not a necessity.
Therefore, any mode needed to facilitate that would also not be a necessity.

OK, fine.

Then SSB, AM, FM, RTTY, PSK-31, etc. are all non-necessities.

And the same can be said for any particular technologies used by hams.
For example, there is no absolute necessity to use a PLL-type
synthesized rig. It's just an operator choice.

If one wants to use code during those periods, one can do so by learning
code on his/her own.

If one wants to use any other mode or technology, one can do so by
learning
it on his/her own.

It is not necessary for the goals and purposes of the
Amateur Radio Service at this point to mandate that learning through a
testing requirement.

Then it logically follows that it is not necessary for the goals and
purposes of the Amateur Radio Service at this point to mandate that
learning through a
testing requirement.

In fact, except for the most basic of rules and regulations, your
argument leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is not necessary
for the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service at this point
to mandate *any* learning through a testing requirement.

Can you prove otherwise?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

..... any mode needed to facilitate that would also not be a necessity.

I'll be participating in the CQWW CW RadioSport event this weekend from
W0SOC, and later from W0AIH. It is a necessity that I know Morse in order
to participate.

With warm personal regards,

de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote

..... any mode needed to facilitate that would also not be a necessity.

I'll be participating in the CQWW CW RadioSport event this weekend from
W0SOC, and later from W0AIH. It is a necessity that I know Morse in order
to participate.

With warm personal regards,

de Hans, K0HB

Hans,

Please give me an idea of what freqs you'll frequent. Having just moved into
our new QTH, I have nothing substantial really set up yet, however, I'd love
to toss a wire up in one of the trees and let the autotuner in the K1 handle
the rest. (Don't know if 5 Watts'll do it, but am more than game to try.)
Take care and have a Happy Thanksgiving. :-)

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Bert Craig" wrote

Hans,

Please give me an idea of what freqs you'll frequent. Having just moved
into
our new QTH, I have nothing substantial really set up yet, however, I'd
love
to toss a wire up in one of the trees and let the autotuner in the K1
handle
the rest. (Don't know if 5 Watts'll do it, but am more than game to try.)

Look for W0SOC Friday evening and all day Sunday on whatever bands are open
to DX.

Look for W0AIH all weekend on every band 160-10 (less WARC AND 60M).

But since this is a DX event, WA2SI is a zero-point QSO.

73, Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote

In fact, except for the most basic of rules and regulations, your
argument leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is not necessary
for the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service at this point
to mandate *any* learning through a testing requirement.

Jim,

If you want people to quit making fun of you, quit posting such laughable
reductio ad absurdum arguments.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

In fact, except for the most basic of rules and regulations, your
argument leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is not necessary
for the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service at this point
to mandate *any* learning through a testing requirement.

Jim,

If you want people to quit making fun of you, quit posting such laughable
reductio ad absurdum arguments.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Given some of the things I've read on the internet I'm not so sure that it
is a reductio ad absurdum argument. We may actually be heading inexorably
in that direction.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

(snip) If one wants or needs to make other
than local contacts then yes code is
necessary. (snip) If the choice is to turn
off the radio or use code then I'd say that
code is indeed necessary whether or not
it is an emergency.


I think you missed the point. Other than the emergency or public
services
we offer, any contact whatsoever is an avocation, not a necessity.
Therefore, any mode needed to facilitate that would also not be a
necessity.
If one wants to use code during those periods, one can do so by learning
code on his/her own. It is not necessary for the goals and purposes of
the
Amateur Radio Service at this point to mandate that learning through a
testing requirement.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

A. I was discussing the USE of code itself not the testing. So the last
two sentences in the above paragraph are not relevant to this discussion.

B. No you missed the point. My point is that if you want to communicate
then code can sometimes be necessary. I was not discussing emergency
coms.
I was discussing the pursuit of my hobby. I believe in minimizing the
impact that propagation has on MY choice of when to participate in that
hobby. The "choice" of turning off the radio simply because of not
knowing
code is not really a choice and is unacceptable.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I presume YOU mean it is "unacceptable" to YOU. It is perfectly acceptable
to me and many others. It is, clearly, a personal choice and that is as it
should be. It is the type of thing I am Thankfull for on
Thanksgiving...i.e.
we live in a country that allows for such individual opinions and choices.

Cheers and don't eat too much tomorrow :-) burp
Bill K2UNK

"KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

DO you really think it's mock indignation?

No other explanation is believeable.

HAW! That's a good one!

Doesn't all that mock indignation begin to remind you of Jonathan
Harris' role as "Dr. Smith" on the old TV show "Lost In Space"?

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

(snip) If one wants or needs to make other
than local contacts then yes code is
necessary. (snip) If the choice is to turn
off the radio or use code then I'd say that
code is indeed necessary whether or not
it is an emergency.


I think you missed the point. Other than the emergency or public
services
we offer, any contact whatsoever is an avocation, not a necessity.
Therefore, any mode needed to facilitate that would also not be a
necessity.
If one wants to use code during those periods, one can do so by
learning
code on his/her own. It is not necessary for the goals and purposes of
the
Amateur Radio Service at this point to mandate that learning through a
testing requirement.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

A. I was discussing the USE of code itself not the testing. So the
last
two sentences in the above paragraph are not relevant to this
discussion.

B. No you missed the point. My point is that if you want to
communicate
then code can sometimes be necessary. I was not discussing emergency
coms.
I was discussing the pursuit of my hobby. I believe in minimizing the
impact that propagation has on MY choice of when to participate in that
hobby. The "choice" of turning off the radio simply because of not
knowing
code is not really a choice and is unacceptable.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I presume YOU mean it is "unacceptable" to YOU. It is perfectly
acceptable
to me and many others. It is, clearly, a personal choice and that is as
it
should be. It is the type of thing I am Thankfull for on
Thanksgiving...i.e.
we live in a country that allows for such individual opinions and choices.

Cheers and don't eat too much tomorrow :-) burp
Bill K2UNK

I was simply countering the argument that code itself is unnecessary. As
long as there are people who do not want to turn off the radio when
conditions are poor, code will continue to be necessary for those people.
Yes it is unacceptable to me to be so constrained.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

In fact, except for the most basic of rules and regulations, your
argument leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is not necessary
for the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service at this point
to mandate *any* learning through a testing requirement.

If you want people to quit making fun of you, quit posting such laughable
reductio ad absurdum arguments.

So far the only people I see "making fun" of Jim Miccolis are
those who cannot adequately argue the topic being debated, Hans.
There ARE those who make an arguement that the Amateur Radio
license should be nothing more than an expensive permit. It's been
archived here, Hans, and remains an "on-the-fringe" concept, but worse
ideas have made it into law.

As you are well aware, part of the FCC's Basis and Purpose of the
Amateur Radio Service is an expectation of technical learning. We are
effectively eliminating much of the "skill" reqirements, so how hard a
stretch is it to see some element of society arguing to eliminate any
technical knowledge, too...?!?!

73

Steve, K4YZ