In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"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. ;-)

...probably at "Area 51." :-)

I just hope everyone in "the pool" can stand all the chlorine necessary
to keep it sanitary... :-)

For anyone wanting serious thinking (a novel concept in here), there's
always Brooks AFB in San Antonio, the USAF School of Aerospace
Medicine. So far, the folks at Brooks haven't touched on aliens, not
even the green-card types.

LHA

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"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.

I was in the U.S. military for 8 years. Never learned any morse code,
never had to.

I used real walkie-talkies and handie-talkies (AN/PRC-8 and AN/PRC-6,
respectively). Never needed any morse code proficiency to use those.

I even transmitted on HF with many KiloWatts of RF power, never had
to use any morse code proficiency thing for that.

The only "code" I learned as a kid was deciphering "secret messages"
sent over a radio show (Captain Midnight?) which amounted to "drink
Ovaltine." :-)

In reality, most
adults today are familiar enough with code to know whether they have any
real interest in it.

Morse code manual telegraphy is 159 years old. It shows up in old-
time movies and TV shows, especially Westerns.

Clearly, those with no interest are not exactly highly
motivated to study up for a license exam.

Sloth! Abomination unto the god of ham!

Clearly such infidels have NO reason for existance!

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.

Antichrist = anticode? :-)

LHA

"Alun" wrote in message
...
"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.

It's not about the code Alun, it's about the effort.

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.

No, there's no hidden agenda. If you take away the passion and whining from
BOTH sides of the equation, it becomes obvious that the code test is really
not the issue. It's the effort. If the writtens were made more difficult and
the published Q&A pools eliminated, the whining would then continue. The
common denominator...the effort involved.

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

Oops, my bad. That should read "common." Gotta pay more attention. hihi

73 de Bert
WA2SI

Like I said before, Alun. It's ok to just agree to disagree. Take care.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Well, no matter what Hans believes on this, power level enforcement or
even
monitoring just can't be done--unless there'd be a whole lot more dollars
and effort going to it and we all know that's not going to happen.

Kim W5TIT

While enforcement might prove difficult, the implementation
of a power limit would, I believe, not be violated by the
majority of hams. Those of us that were Novices at one time
lived with a 75 watt limit. Did some novices violate
that? Probably, but by and large, most stayed within the
legal limit.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bert Craig" wrote in
et:

"Alun" wrote in message
...
"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.

It's not about the code Alun, it's about the effort.

I think the effort would be better placed doing something else.


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.

No, there's no hidden agenda. If you take away the passion and whining
from BOTH sides of the equation, it becomes obvious that the code test
is really not the issue. It's the effort.

It's the misplaced effort

If the writtens were made
more difficult and the published Q&A pools eliminated, the whining
would then continue. The common denominator...the effort involved.


You can chose to beleive that it's about the effort, but it isn't

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

Oops, my bad. That should read "common." Gotta pay more attention.
hihi

73 de Bert
WA2SI

Like I said before, Alun. It's ok to just agree to disagree. Take care.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

I was in the U.S. military for 8 years. Never learned any morse code,
never had to.

You were never in the Amateur Radio Service. That is the focus
of this Newsgroup. Your service in the Armed Forces is not.

I used real walkie-talkies and handie-talkies (AN/PRC-8 and AN/PRC-6,
respectively). Never needed any morse code proficiency to use those.

Neither of those radios were commonplace in the Amateur Radio
Service. That is the focus of this Newsgroup. Army surplus is not.

I even transmitted on HF with many KiloWatts of RF power, never had
to use any morse code proficiency thing for that.

You did not require Morse Code proficiency since radio clerks
didn't require it. Again you try to analogize your military service
with Amateur Radio. They are not comparable.

The only "code" I learned as a kid was deciphering "secret messages"
sent over a radio show (Captain Midnight?) which amounted to "drink
Ovaltine."

Most of your "practical experience" in any phase of radio comes
from the 1950's and 1960's. Amateur Radio has long since left those
decades.

You should too.

Morse code manual telegraphy is 159 years old. It shows up in old-
time movies and TV shows, especially Westerns.

The "telegraphy" demonstrated on those old movies was not the
Morse Code employed by the Amateur Radio Service in the 21st century.
Please try and look past YOUR past, Lennie.

Lennie, do you have ANYTHING constructive to offer this forum,
other than to try and continue beating a long since expired horse?

Steve, K4YZ

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

They KNOW what is best for amateur radio...and that is a maintenance
of morse code proficiency forever and ever.

A morse code test for amateur radio licensing has "always" been in
the regulations (91 years) and it must always be there.

You are once again making assinine assertions unsubstantiated by
facts, Lennie.

Why do you keep doing this in the face of facts to the contrary?

Is looking like an idiot in public your intent?

If so, carry on. You are succeeding. Superbly, even.

Messaging sometimes goes down to the "lowest common
denominator" in writing...

The lowest common LennieFactor would seem to be "swing at
everything, you'll hit something"

Putz.

Steve, K4YZ

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

(snip) I want added test material for the
advanced licenses to fill the vacuum left
by the departure of Morse Code testing.
I don't want the additions as a way of
keeping people out - indeed if there are
some more questions, it is just a matter
of studying a little more. I want it to show
that we are not just getting rid of things,
and thereby simply making things easier
to get a ticket. (snip)


Several have said that, but I just don't see what can be added that
wouldn't fundamentality change the nature of the Amateur Radio Service. As I
see it, this is an amateur activity designed with three basic goals in
mind - provide some radio services to others (public service), some benefit
to the participants (recreational radio activities), and a mild introduction
to the field of electronics. Since the first two (and international
goodwill) don't seem to be a consideration, I'll ignore those for now.

This leaves the last and a question about how far that should be taken.
Most are not clear at all about that. Some seem to suggest we add content to
more closely fit a college degree program. If so, do we add science,
history, social studies, general math, politics, language, art, economics,
health, and the other things colleges require? If not, can we honestly claim
the license is comprehensive training? But if we add those things, what
happens to the avocational nature of this activity?

I've looked over the current written tests. I just don't see where they're
lacking as far as the existing goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service are concerned.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Hans K0HB" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote


Why is that a misnomer, Hans?

Because it is misleading. "Technician"
implies an emphasis on technical training,
skills, and qualifications. (snip)


That's a tired, old, debate, Hans. One that I'm rather surprised would
still bother you. It's a "Technician" license in an "Amateur" Radio Service.
That hardly suggests an overwhelming degree of training, skills, or
qualifications. If you want to make those names into something more that
that, some would certainly object to "Extra" as an adverb meaning unusual or
exceptional. You're far from exceptional.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

some would certainly object to "Extra" as an adverb
meaning unusual or exceptional.

I agree that some would, which is why my proposal has simple alphabetic
characters to designate the two license levels.

You're far from exceptional.

K0CKB disagrees with you.

73, de Hans, K0HB