Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#211
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#212
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#213
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#214
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 - |
#215
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#216
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#217
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#218
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#219
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#220
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The 14 Petitions | Policy | |||
Responses to 14 Petitions on Code Testing | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Dx |