"Kim W5TIT" wrote in
:

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
news
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"Alun" wrote in message
...
It just so happens that I don't
like CW, in the sense of I have no desire to use it. That should
be OK too, but for some reason it bothers you. Why?

No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not
to use it. They have made that decision from a position of
knowledge and experience. This is radically different from a person
judging it and saying they will never use it when they do not have
that knowledge and experience to draw on.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Right on the money, Dee. Larry pointed this out earlier, but not as
eloquently as you.

73 de Bert
WA2SI



It fascinates me that you won't accept someone's plain and simple truth
that they don't like CW--even if they don't have experience with
it--because you reason that they need to have "knowledge and
experience" with it. Well, I know people who are quite well-versed in
CW who don't like it, people who haven't ever even tried it and don't
like it, and people who have taken and passed a 5wpm test and don't
like it. I also know people from those same three categories that do
like CW operation.

It's pretty much as simple as folks who do or don't like most other
things in life. Either ya like it or ya don't.

Kim W5TIT




I think that you have hit upon a very important point there, Kim. A good
analogy might be not liking an item of food that you haven't tried,
because it looks disgusting on your plate. If you eat some you might like
it, or not, but there are probably all kinds of other things that contain
the same nutrition. These guys are like a parent telling a child that they
have to eat their brocolli. But they aren't my parents and I don't like
brocolli, or CW. I take vitamins, and work phone.

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
Well, I
know people who are quite well-versed in CW who don't like it, people who
haven't ever even tried it and don't like it, and people who have taken
and
passed a 5wpm test and don't like it. I also know people from those same
three categories that do like CW operation.

It is impossible to tell if you like CW if you've never tried. Reading the
ingredients on a recipe will not tell you how it tastes.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

And yet you say code is "necessary"? As an unqualified blanket
statement that is laughable.

Nope it is not laughable. There are many necessary things in life that
people do not do. They choose for reasons of their own to omit them.
Annual physicals are a "necessary" item for people of middle age and
older but I know quite a few people who do not get them. Keeping one's
weight under control is "necessary" but there's a lot of us carrying
more weight than we should.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



So, let me get this straight, you are saying it's necessary for me to use
CW, and comparing not doing it with failing to get a physical. I don't
think that argument will hold water. The consequences of not using CW are
what, exactly?

No I did not say it is necessary for you to use code only necessary for
people to learn it before deciding its usefulness for them. If one doesn't
know it, one can't make an enlightened decision. Thus it is a necessary
part of amateur radio whether or not it is used by any particular
individual.

The consequences of not using code are simple and that is having to cease HF
communications earlier than those who do use code when propagation falls
off. Regardless of the relative magnitude of this consequence it is
nevertheless a consequence.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Alun wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in
:


N2EY wrote:


In article , Mike Coslo
writes:



KØHB wrote:




On the contrary, my plan puts newcomers dead center in the mainstream
of amateur radio, with all the same privileges of EVERY other
licensee, just

at


a more modest power level of 50watts.

How are you going to enforce that?


Same way all the other power limits are enforced.

I imagine you're being a bit glib about that. If a ham is running
way
too much power at the KW end of the scale, there will be possibilities
of TVI or RFI. There will be a local discernable problem with other
hams too.

But the difference between 50 and 100 watts? Not all that much that is
detectable. For this plan to work, (work means compliance) the
equipment manufacturers will have to throttle their transcievers to 50
watts.

- Mike KB3EIA -




It would be a better plan to make the limit 100W, i.e. base it on the
equipment, not vicea versa.

BINGO! All plans have to incorporate some history and what is going on
at the moment. If a new ARS was to be made from nothing starting right
now, there would be no problem whatsoever dictating that the maximum
power for the so called class B license is to be 50 watts, or 48.7654
watts for that matter. But for years now, the standard max power for
most HF rigs has been 100 watts.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Alun
writes:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
igy.com:


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


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


"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
I personally don't have the desire to "take advantage of" CW. I
haven't been interested in CW since I was first introduced to it
and found it nothing more than a necessary evil--a means to an
end--to licensing in amateur radio. I also found it uniquely
lacking in any pertinent application to the process of amateur
radio, overall.

I believe you have previously stated that once you tried HF, you
did not care for it and have since stayed primarily with VHF FM.
There's nothing wrong with that. However, those who work a lot
of HF are really shortchanging themselves if they are unable to
use CW.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I work a lot of HF, relatively speaking, and I have considered
wiring up a key from time to time, but decided against it.
Shortchanging myself? I don't think so. I'm happy to stay on phone.
Now, I have met people who don't like phone, and I'm fine with
that. It just so happens that I don't like CW, in the sense of I
have no desire to use it. That should be OK too, but for some
reason it bothers you. Why?

No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not
to use it. They have made that decision from a position of
knowledge and experience. This is radically different from a person
judging it and saying they will never use it when they do not have
that knowledge and experience to draw on.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

And yet you say code is "necessary"? As an unqualified blanket
statement that is laughable.

Nope it is not laughable. There are many necessary things in life that
people do not do. They choose for reasons of their own to omit them.
Annual physicals are a "necessary" item for people of middle age and
older but I know quite a few people who do not get them. Keeping one's
weight under control is "necessary" but there's a lot of us carrying
more weight than we should.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

So, let me get this straight, you are saying it's necessary for me to use
CW, and comparing not doing it with failing to get a physical. I don't
think that argument will hold water. The consequences of not using CW are
what, exactly?

It is unhealthy for Dee's state of mind not to love CW. :-)

LHA

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

Considering the power levels, the number
of frequencies and bands, the overall
safety considerations, (snip)

You're avoiding my question, Dwight.

No, you just don't like the answer given.

Would you accept "it's obvious" as an answer to "why a code test"?

Nobody would accept "it's obvious." :-)

Didn't think so.

If anything, I'm ignoring a
fanciful, long-winded, exchange that cannot add anything of real substance
to the discussion about Morse code testing (see below).

Your methods of misdirection are doing quite well. You can make
up all kinds of fanciful, long-winded exchanges about OTHER
alleged improprieties...and that directs folks attention away from
the "necessity" of a code test.

That was your whole purpose anyway (visible to all who can read).


Since you keep asking this, do you
have a point to make, Jim?

Yes.

The point is that some folks apply a double
standard when deciding which tests to keep
and which to get rid of.


The only double standard that exists is not having the same testing for
all operating modes.
Unless there is a justification to do otherwise, either
have skill testing for all modes or no skill testing for any mode.

I disagree. Would you have skill testing for modes that few hams use,
like EME or TV, on an equal par with those that are widely used, like
voice and Morse?

This is NOT about "skill testing for modes that few hams use."

This is about the CODE TEST.

There is
no longer any justification today for a unique test solely for Morse code.

I disagree. YMMV.

In the end, it's simply an opinion question.

No, it's about CONTROL. It's about keeping the SAME standards
(forever) that YOU had to meet...even when those standards won't
apply to you or your privileges.

Where is all the morse code use in all the public safety agencies
and distress-emergency communications means elsewhere in the
larger world of radio? GONE. Only some radio amateurs use it.

You will argue that other radio isn't the "same" as amateur radio.
The only bolster for that argument is your previous rationalizations
which are a disguise for requiring all in the future to do just as you
did in the past. That's the "control" part. That's keeping the OLD
standards because, if the old standards are reduced or gone, you
don't have any claim of "superiority" over others in amateur radio.

That opinion is consistent with recent FCC published statements.

Does that mean FCC is always right?

Was FCC right when they required 20 wpm for full privs and no waivers?

No. It only means that, LONG AGO, the FCC gave into ARRL
demands, lobbying, and pressure. Way back, before Internet, the
ARRL was a mighty influence in DC. No longer.

As such,
the unique Morse code test should be eliminated.

And perhaps it will be - someday.

Amateur radio is the last hurrah for morse code.

The Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society (ARS) will be no more than
a memory...and countless articles of "the old days" in amateur
magazines when the editors of same can't publish technical
articles about "advancing the state of the amateur radio art."

Not willing to accept that, you ignore the obvious double standard and
instead try conjure up an imaginary double standard relating to the written
tests.

Nope.

I simply point out that the same arguments used against the code test
can be used against most of the written tests.

Your "pointing" only points to subjects NOT under discussion and
you refuse to "point" to the subject.

But most people support the written tests as they are for opinion
reasons, nothing more.

Then make your "point" to the VEC QPC. They are the ones who
make up the written questions. They also generate the code test
source.

The "14 petitions" are almost exclusively about the CODE TEST.

No such double standard exists. Those written tests, and their
contents, serve a valid purpose today.

What valid purpose do the General and Extra written tests serve? Why
is *all* of their content necessary to operate HF beyond the small
sample of privileges granted to Novices and Tech Pluses?

Your "pointing vector" is not in the same direction as it should be.

Try to stay focussed on the CODE TEST.

None here, including you, have said
otherwise.

I've simply used the same arguments against them as are used against
the code test.

You have misdirected mightily.

The same cannot be said about the Morse code test.

Sure it can. I've done it.

You've done everything. :-)

With all that in mind, I have no desire to engage in a fanciful discussion
about the contents of the written tests, especially when that discussion
cannot possibly lead to a valid point - no conflict or double standard
exists concerning the written tests. As such, I've ignored the rest of your
message and have instead addressed the specific point you've acknowledged
trying to make.

You choose to ignore it because you don't have a definitive
counterargument. You cannot prove that most of the content of the
writtens, particularly the General and Extra writtens, are
*necessary*.

Tsk, tsk, you are still misdirecting.

The subject is the CODE TEST and the 14 petitions.

You want to argue written questions because you have NO
counter argument to keep the CODE TEST...in this millennium.

IOW, you know that if the same criteria of "is it necessary?" were
applied to most of the written questions, the answer would be the same
as you get for the code test.

Your misdirection is getting absurd. This isn't about the written
questions. It is about the CODE TEST.

Hello? Earth to Jimmie, come in, spaceman spoof...find any aliens
ready to invade earth that can be destroyed through using morse
code for communications? :-)

If you are so all-fired concerned about the writtens, why don't you
contact the VEC QPC? Or file a petition with the FCC on the
amateur writtens. FCC will accept lots of things. They did with the
14 PETITIONS now closed for comment.

LHA

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote


And how are we going to take care of the "shack on a belt" crowd. A
awful lot of hams are quite happy with their Technician licenses.


And under my plan they are free to keep their Technician license.

And new people that intend to operate in this fashiion will have a very

different set up.

A forced upgrade with absolutely no advantage for a person
that only does public events, and uses the local repeater once
in a while is not going to be very popular with them.


I don't propose to force them to upgrade. Technicians are perfectly free
to
renew their current license.

So you are saying that present licenses will continue with the ten year

operating cycle? This is beginning to look like there will be 5 classes
of license in the end.



And of course, how ya gonna enforce that 50 watt limit? Enacting
unenforceable laws is a great way to breed disrespect for laws.


There are currently many examples of limited power in the rules. How do we
enforce the current 50W limit which exists for EVERYONE on some HF
frequencies? How do we enforce the current 200W limit in the Novice
sub-bands? How did we enforce the old 75W limit for Novices? How did we
enforce the old 50W limits on 160 meters? How do we enforce the current
200W limit on 30 meters? How do we enforce the 50W PEP limit on
219-220MHz?
How do we enforce the current Novice 5W limit on 23 cm? How do we enforce
the current 25W limit for Novices on 1.25 cm? As a matter of fact, how do
we enforce the current 1.5KW limit? Are you suggesting that FCC discard
all these limits because they breed disrespect? What a 'novel' idea!!!!
(I
quit using the word 'stupid'.)

Just because an idea is bad, doesn't mean it isn't repeated, eh? BTW,
you forgot ro add the ERP power limit on 60 meters. Rolling back the
output power to 50 watts when most HF transcievers will do 100 watts is
simply not going to work (if you want it to work that is)

Perhaps it is just as easy to detect someone running at 100 watts as it

is at 3kilowatts?

But okay, perhaps you have the evidence of all the Technicians that
have been injured by using 100 watts of RF power? What is the basis for
50 watts? Is it safety? Or is it arbitrary?

It is all about injury to Hans' pride that all don't rush over and
celebrate his Grande Plan. :-)

LHA

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

(snip) Again keep in mind that I have said
Morse is necessary. While I happen to
believe that testing should be maintained that
is NOT the point I am debating at this time
and you keep trying to drag it back to testing.
I am stating that Morse code itself is necessary.


We wouldn't be having this discussion if it were not for the code testing
debate, Dee. That is why this mode is being discussed as opposed to some
other mode or discussions about the weather. I've acknowledged that Morse
code is enjoyable, entertaining, useful, and perhaps even necessary for you
to make some of the contacts you want to make. But we're not just talking
about you or the contacts you want to make. Your communications are
recreational or avocational in nature, not a necessity. And, as long as your
communications are not necessary, your use of Morse code in those
communications is not necessary.

Dwight, amateur radio is a SERVICE...to the nation in times of need
and "everyone knows" that ONLY morse code can get through when
nothing else can, ergo it is "necessary" to have it. That's why all the
other public safety and distress-emergency communications users and
providers still use morse code.

This brings us back to the code testing debate. If Morse code is not
necessary to meet the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service today,
Morse code testing should be eliminated. The _use_ of Morse code not an
issue here. You will still be able to use that mode when you find it
necessary to make the contacts you want. Others will still be able to learn
code if they want. But the test itself, as a license requirement, should
end.

The TEST and the USE cannot be separated, Dwight. It is "necessary"
to keep the test forever and ever so that there will be this "pool of
trained operators (in CW)" to help earth survive on the next invasion
of spacefaring aliens.

:-)

LHA

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
news
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"Alun" wrote in message
...
It just so happens that I don't
like CW, in the sense of I have no desire to use it. That should be
OK
too, but for some reason it bothers you. Why?

No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not
to
use
it. They have made that decision from a position of knowledge and
experience. This is radically different from a person judging it and
saying
they will never use it when they do not have that knowledge and
experience
to draw on.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Right on the money, Dee. Larry pointed this out earlier, but not as
eloquently as you.

73 de Bert
WA2SI



It fascinates me that you won't accept someone's plain and simple truth
that
they don't like CW--even if they don't have experience with it--because
you
reason that they need to have "knowledge and experience" with it.

I don't know what's so fascinating about it, Kim. It stands to reason that
to make an "educated" decision regarding anything, one should be...well,
somewhat educated on the subject. That includes some practical experience.
One certainly need not be an expert, and appropriately, the 5-wpm Element 1
test is not an expert level test.

Well, I
know people who are quite well-versed in CW who don't like it,

Educated decision.

people who
haven't ever even tried it and don't like it,

That's why we have the no-code Techician license.

and people who have taken and
passed a 5wpm test and don't like it.

Again, an educated decision. What's the point?

I also know people from those same
three categories that do like CW operation.

I seem to have found them...on the bottom of 40. Interestingly enough, I've
even heard interested folks who've yet to pass Element 1 practice their code
(Legally) on CB ch. 14 using 100mW Part 15 devices.

It's pretty much as simple as folks who do or don't like most other things
in life. Either ya like it or ya don't.

....And that's certainly fine by me, Kim. However, many of these anti-code
folks are about to diminish the value (As a whole.) of a hobby I dearly
love...despite having a very generous chunk of no-code RF real estate.

I've had the advantage of seeing this whole code vs. no-code debacle unfold
before me through the eyes of a relatively unbiased newbie. If you remove
the passion and whining from both sides of the equation, it becomes very
clear what the issue is really about...because it damn sure ain't that 5-wpm
code exam.

Kim W5TIT

73 de Bert
WA2SI

In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

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

And yet you say code is "necessary"? As an unqualified blanket
statement that is laughable.

Nope it is not laughable. There are many necessary things in life that
people do not do. They choose for reasons of their own to omit them.
Annual physicals are a "necessary" item for people of middle age and
older but I know quite a few people who do not get them. Keeping one's
weight under control is "necessary" but there's a lot of us carrying
more weight than we should.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

So, let me get this straight, you are saying it's necessary for me to use
CW, and comparing not doing it with failing to get a physical. I don't
think that argument will hold water. The consequences of not using CW are
what, exactly?

No I did not say it is necessary for you to use code only necessary for
people to learn it before deciding its usefulness for them. If one doesn't
know it, one can't make an enlightened decision. Thus it is a necessary
part of amateur radio whether or not it is used by any particular
individual.

Wow, a Morseodist Believer! Morse code is NECESSARY!!!!

Can anyone spell "Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society?" :-)

The consequences of not using code are simple and that is having to cease HF
communications earlier than those who do use code when propagation falls
off. Regardless of the relative magnitude of this consequence it is
nevertheless a consequence.

Really? You should have channeled the U.S. military and, in particular,
the Army Command and Administrative Network (ACAN) way back in
1943 or so when it was formed.

I had three years of direct experience on HF at ACAN's station ADA
back a half century ago. It did ALL its long-distance communications
(over 200 thousand messages a month) on HF, trans-Pacific. Only
ONE time (late 1955) was there ever a total radio blackout for three
hours...which disrupted everyone on HF radio in middle Pacific due to
a solar storm. Otherwise ADA was on-the-air 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week on HF. Not one circuit was "CW" or used morse code.

Maybe today's sunspots are ever so much "stronger" than they used to
was? :-)

There's lots of ham bands on HF, Dee. You and anyone else are all
free to use whatever band you want if your license privileges allow.
"QSY" is the trick...or are you rock-bound on only one band?

beep, beep

LHA