"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Bert Craig" wrote in
:

"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Bert Craig" wrote in
et:


"Alun" wrote in message
...
What is annoying is that a skill test is foisted on those who don't
have the desire to use the skill.

Alan, I'm gonna let you in on a secret...although I know that you're
already aware of it. Preparing for and passing the 5-wpm Elemnt 1
test does NOT leave one ready to use the skill OTA. It only gives
one a taste so that one may make an educated choice as to whether or
not they wish to persue CW any further.


5 wpm is certainly too slow to prove much, but it only still exists at
that level as a residual requirement to meet the old s25.5, which has
since been changed so that no code test is required atall. If the FCC
truly thought that a CW test was necessary, the speed would be higher.

Agreed, I was pointing out a very beneficial secondary benefit. It
"requires" one to place themselves in a position from which to make an
educated decision.

As I mentioned in another post, the mode is really not the
issue...the having to really learn it is. Do away with the published
Q&A pools and watch the whining escalate.

Well, I think that the real issue is that it's a different kind of
test.

Exactly.

Also, if
I hear CW on my frequency I may be able to read it with some
difficulty, but if I hear RTTY or PSK31 there is no chance.

You may have just touched on a selling point for CW.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

Whilst that is true, the point I was making is actually that since I
can't read RTTY or PSK by ear, and they are legal modes, it doesn't
help all that much that I can read CW (albeit not terribly well, since
I never use it).

73 de Alun, N3KIP

I understand the point you were making. If I could just ask you why you
bothered to take the code test(s)?

73 de Bert
WA2SI

To get all the _phone_ frequencies

Ah, good...for increased privileges. Obviously, noted by your class of
license, you did NOT find this to be an insurmountable hurdle. After all,
nobody forced you to either upgrade your ticket or aim for the General or
Extra right from the starting gate. You *wanted* more *privileges* and these
were a sufficient *incentive* for you to decide to make the effort to *earn*
them. That's not being forced to do anything, Alun. Them's good
old-fashioned values...and the basis for a principle that I'd be glad to see
my kids apply to ALL of their endeavors in life.

This whole issue is not really over the Morse code test. It's about ANY
requirement that causes an applicant to really have to expend some mental
elbow grease and/or impede his/her path toward instant gratification. Like I
said before, pull those published Q&A pools and make 'em learn the subject
matter and actually apply the principles and theory to pass the
writtens...and witness the whine factor grow. Preparing to pass the 5-wpm
Exam cannot even be called cerebral, it's rote memorization. The faster
speeds become purely reflex oriented. Nobody's thinkin' when they copy
hi-speed Morse.

So all this blather about "jumping through hoops" and "barriers" is a bunch
of hot air. Folks have just figured out a way to gain a *privilege* in a
perceived easier fashion, collectively whine. It stands a great chance
too. After all, the Gov't. agency they must cajole shares their goal, less
work. So with great glee, their proponents espouse "the FCC doesn't agree
that Morse is necessary." The "regulatory" angle is just that, an angle. If
you ignore the angle, you realise that it was never about Element 1 in the
first place.

Why must our beloved hobby/service be reduced to the lowest common
denominator?

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Hans K0HB" wrote:

Nope, not at all. Under my proposal you'd
be free to keep renewing your Technician
(what a misnomer!) license until you assume
room temperature.


Why is that a misnomer, Hans? Is that (you don't like "Technician" as the
name for this license) the real reason behind your attempt to change the
names of the various licenses? Regardless, I've read about Technicians in
your proposal. That still doesn't change any of my previous questions or
comments about how potential newcomers will be affected by the changes
suggested in that proposal.

By the way, since we're discussing why here, perhaps you can explain why
your proposal is needed at all. Exactly what are you trying to accomplish
with the proposal and what evidence do you have that would suggest that
need?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Bert Craig" wrote in
:

"Alun" wrote in message
...
"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.

Slight difference, Alun. Nobody's forcing anybody to learn code. There
exists a no-code Technician license for those who do not wish to have
to pass the 5-wpm code exam.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

Not really true.

Very true, Alun...very true.

No HF privileges with that licence, as we all know.

As with most things in life, increased *privileges* requires increased
effort. The ARS is but a microsm or society as a whole. Despite the efforts
of some to reduce it to "just a hobby" status, the values and principles we
learn in our "avocations" will likely carry over into the other aspects of
our lives. Many here were first licensed as children or young adults, that's
no accident.

The kids of today are referred to as the Nintendo generation, kinda hard to
compete with. However, in our quest to gain quantity, we appear to be
courting a slightly older prospective ham...products of the newer "I want it
now" society. So what can we do, villify the "speed bump" of our licensing
structure in an effort to remove any "barriers." I kinda liken it to kids
that are graduating HS with a 5th, 6th, or 7th grade reading level. Gee,
how'd they get through? Check out the recent regents debacle. Not enough
kids pass, it must be to hard...so we'll throw 'em a curve. See the cycle
there. Had someone had the courage to NOT throw some of these kids their
earlier curves in the first place, their Regents scores would be higher.

What does this have to do with amateur radio? Human nature. What we learn to
do as we practice our avocation early in life, we tend to apply to other
aspects later in life. Still believe this is about a 5-wpm Morse code test?

Why must we reduce our beloved hobby/service to the lowest commen
denominator?

73 de Bert
WA2SI

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

100 W of RF is little, piddly stuff to what I'm used to...like 15 KW up-
close-and-personal on HF, including walking around in antenna
fields of many and varied HF emitters...and 40 KW PEP HF stuff in
antenna fields in 1955. Most of us being personal with such powers
weren't suffering ill effects and almost all of us weren't licensed in
any "classes." We got the messages through.

I have no doubt whatsoever that your proximity to high RF sources
has made you the "man" you are today, Lennie.

No doubt what so ever!

Steve, K4YZ

PS: Perhaps this is why we hear you talking about child rearing but
never hear about YOUR child-rearing experiences???

SR

"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) So what it comes down to is that
a little serious skill-learning is required to
use Morse on the air, except for a very
few people who have learned Morse
elsewhere. I think that plain, simple fact
bothers some of the most vociferous
and abusive anti-code-test folks.


That fact, as you call it, ignores other very real facts. Few people today
(especially boys and men) have not learned code, or at least played around
with it, at some point in their lives. When we were kids, many of us sent
messages to friends using flashlights or walkie-talkies with code printed on
the side. Many other games and toys over the years have featured messages,
secret or otherwise, sent by Morse code. Others learned code in groups like
the Boy Scouts. Still others learned it in the military. In reality, most
adults today are familiar enough with code to know whether they have any
real interest in it. Clearly, those with no interest are not exactly highly
motivated to study up for a license exam. But the fact that some have no
interest in code, and would freely choose not to learn it, really seems to
bother some of the "most vociferous and abusive" pro-code folks.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote:

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


I didn't offer "it's obvious" as an answer. Instead, I wrote...

"Considering the power levels, the number
of frequencies and bands, the overall safety
considerations, the desirability of proper
operation when using the various operating
modes, and the importance of the rules
associated with all that, the necessity of the
written exams is clearly obvious."


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?


Those modes are already on equal par with voice (written with no skills
test). What you haven't explained is why that shouldn't be the case with
Morse.


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.


Nonsense. But you're darn fool, or think I'm one, if you expect me to get
into a point-by-point discussion with you about the several hundred
questions in the question pool to prove otherwise. Enough said.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Len Over 21" wrote:

(snip) 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.


LOL. Those darn aliens have had their eyes on Earth for some time now.
Luckily, CW keeps us well prepared for any stunt they might try. I've even
heard of a secret Air Force project to study the effects of CW on captured
aliens. ;-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
Really? You mean all those things I did
to get a properly operating station (putting
coax and connectors together, water-
proofing, antenna tuning, SWR tests,
ground radials, masts, guy wires, wiring a
microphone, equipment grounding,
lightning protection, RF exposure level
estimates, and so on) wasn't really needed
and didn't really require any skills to do
properly? (snip)

Soldering requires some modest skill but one
can hire that done if desired. The other items
are necessary but no skill is required just
taking the time to do it. (snip)


If you truly believe there is no skill involved to do those things
properly, I suspect you haven't done most of them (at least not properly).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Bert Craig" wrote in
t:

"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Bert Craig" wrote in
:

"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Bert Craig" wrote in
et:


"Alun" wrote in message
...
What is annoying is that a skill test is foisted on those who
don't have the desire to use the skill.

Alan, I'm gonna let you in on a secret...although I know that
you're already aware of it. Preparing for and passing the 5-wpm
Elemnt 1 test does NOT leave one ready to use the skill OTA. It
only gives one a taste so that one may make an educated choice as
to whether or not they wish to persue CW any further.


5 wpm is certainly too slow to prove much, but it only still exists
at that level as a residual requirement to meet the old s25.5,
which has since been changed so that no code test is required
atall. If the FCC truly thought that a CW test was necessary, the
speed would be higher.

Agreed, I was pointing out a very beneficial secondary benefit. It
"requires" one to place themselves in a position from which to make
an educated decision.

As I mentioned in another post, the mode is really not the
issue...the having to really learn it is. Do away with the
published Q&A pools and watch the whining escalate.

Well, I think that the real issue is that it's a different kind of
test.

Exactly.

Also, if
I hear CW on my frequency I may be able to read it with some
difficulty, but if I hear RTTY or PSK31 there is no chance.

You may have just touched on a selling point for CW.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

Whilst that is true, the point I was making is actually that since
I can't read RTTY or PSK by ear, and they are legal modes, it
doesn't help all that much that I can read CW (albeit not terribly
well, since I never use it).

73 de Alun, N3KIP

I understand the point you were making. If I could just ask you why
you bothered to take the code test(s)?

73 de Bert
WA2SI

To get all the _phone_ frequencies

Ah, good...for increased privileges. Obviously, noted by your class of
license, you did NOT find this to be an insurmountable hurdle. After
all, nobody forced you to either upgrade your ticket or aim for the
General or Extra right from the starting gate. You *wanted* more
*privileges* and these were a sufficient *incentive* for you to decide
to make the effort to *earn* them. That's not being forced to do
anything, Alun. Them's good old-fashioned values...and the basis for a
principle that I'd be glad to see my kids apply to ALL of their
endeavors in life.


I think you're missing the point. I took _code_ tests to get _phone_
subbands. There's no logic in that. Never was, even from the beginning.

This whole issue is not really over the Morse code test. It's about ANY
requirement that causes an applicant to really have to expend some
mental elbow grease and/or impede his/her path toward instant
gratification.

No, it's about learning code skills to use other modes.

Like I said before, pull those published Q&A pools and
make 'em learn the subject matter and actually apply the principles and
theory to pass the writtens...and witness the whine factor grow.
Preparing to pass the 5-wpm Exam cannot even be called cerebral, it's
rote memorization. The faster speeds become purely reflex oriented.
Nobody's thinkin' when they copy hi-speed Morse.

So all this blather about "jumping through hoops" and "barriers" is a
bunch of hot air.

Learning an unrelated skill is a prime example of "jumping through hoops"
(your phrase, not mine)

Folks have just figured out a way to gain a
*privilege* in a perceived easier fashion, collectively whine. It
stands a great chance too. After all, the Gov't. agency they must
cajole shares their goal, less work. So with great glee, their
proponents espouse "the FCC doesn't agree that Morse is necessary." The
"regulatory" angle is just that, an angle. If you ignore the angle, you
realise that it was never about Element 1 in the first place.


It has always been about the code test. No angles. If you think it's just
a bid to reduce the requirements in general, then you just couldn't be
more wrong.

Why must our beloved hobby/service be reduced to the lowest common
denominator?

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Bert Craig" wrote in
t:

"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Bert Craig" wrote in
:

"Alun" wrote in message
...
"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.

Slight difference, Alun. Nobody's forcing anybody to learn code.
There exists a no-code Technician license for those who do not wish
to have to pass the 5-wpm code exam.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

Not really true.

Very true, Alun...very true.

No HF privileges with that licence, as we all know.

As with most things in life, increased *privileges* requires increased
effort. The ARS is but a microsm or society as a whole. Despite the
efforts of some to reduce it to "just a hobby" status, the values and
principles we learn in our "avocations" will likely carry over into the
other aspects of our lives. Many here were first licensed as children
or young adults, that's no accident.

The kids of today are referred to as the Nintendo generation, kinda
hard to compete with. However, in our quest to gain quantity, we appear
to be courting a slightly older prospective ham...products of the newer
"I want it now" society. So what can we do, villify the "speed bump" of
our licensing structure in an effort to remove any "barriers."

If you admit that you view the code test as a "speed bump", then you are
admitting it's not relevant, but just there to slow down the traffic. You
view that as desirable, and I don't, which is one of the differences
between us.

I kinda
liken it to kids that are graduating HS with a 5th, 6th, or 7th grade
reading level. Gee, how'd they get through? Check out the recent
regents debacle. Not enough kids pass, it must be to hard...so we'll
throw 'em a curve. See the cycle there. Had someone had the courage to
NOT throw some of these kids their earlier curves in the first place,
their Regents scores would be higher.

What does this have to do with amateur radio?

Very little. It's like saying that allowing people to get a licence
without a code test will affect their knowledge of RF.

Human nature. What we
learn to do as we practice our avocation early in life, we tend to
apply to other aspects later in life. Still believe this is about a
5-wpm Morse code test?


Yes. No hidden agenda here.

Why must we reduce our beloved hobby/service to the lowest commen
denominator?

73 de Bert
WA2SI