John Smith wrote:
... the amateur tests are a trivial problem to men with real
educations...

What about women with real educations?

Would you consider someone with a BSEE from the University of
Pennsylvania and an MSEE from Drexel University to have
"a real education"?

... the cw part

Is an amateur test. And is a trivial problem to people with
real educations..

makes as much sense as learning to play a "jew's
harp"--a lot of sense if you wish to, none if you don't...

Then why require someone with no interest in VHF-UHF to learn
those techniques in order to operate on HF? Why require
knowedge of FSK, PSK and other data modes to operate voice?
Why require knowledge of transistors and ICs to operate
vacuum-tube equipment?

IOW, why require anyone to learn anything about a subject they
are not interested in, just to get a license to do the things
they *are* interested in?

--

Perhaps what bothers some people the most about the code test
is that it isn't something most people already know. And it
isn't something that can be learned by reading a book, watching
a video, etc. It's a skill, not "book learning".

In learning the code, a Ph.D in EE has to start at the same place
as a grade-schooler. And the grade schooler may learn faster and
do better! Perhaps it is this characteristic of the test - its
ability to act as a Great Equalizer - that causes some to resent
it so much.

--

Warmest regards,
John

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
It was never about anyone stopping you from sending cw was it...

A few anticode folks have stated they want Morse Code *use* by hams to
end, not just the test. They are a small minority, but they do exist.

It is about stopping you from forcing others to learn cw when they
would
never use it...

Who is "forced" to learn Morse Code?

It's a requirement if someone wants an FCC-issued amateur license with
HF privileges, that's all.

Always when one is being forced to do something they do not wish to,
they should question everything in sight... just as you began when
you
thought someone was going to force you to quit...

The argument you present boils down to this: If someone doesn't want
to
use Morse Code in ham radio, they shouldn't be required to learn it
just
to pass a test (even a simple, basic test) to get a ham radio license.
Those who choose to use it can learn it on their own.

Is that about right?

The problem is that the same argument can be made against almost
everything
in the written tests. For example, if someone doesn't intend to use
certain
bands, why are they forced to learn the band edges of every band their
license allows? If someone doesn't intend to use more than a few watts
of
transmitted power, why must they learn all that RF exposure stuff?
Indeed,
if someone doesn't intend to homebrew, why are they *forced* to learn
all
that theory stuff?

Sure, the written tests look easy to someone with a background in
radio,
electronics, computers or other related fields. But to someone from an
unrelated field, they're not easy.

Suppose you met a retired gentleman who had been a radioman in the
military 50+ years ago. He'd always wanted to be a ham but never had
the time or resources. Now he finds that ham radio still exists, and
he wants in.

The gent can still do code well, and remembers the basics of theory
as it was 50+ years ago. He gets an HF receiver and listens to the
lovely Morse Code signals on the low ends of the HF bands.

But in order to join the folks on 7010 or 3520, he needs an Extra.
And the written test is full of stuff he's never seen before, and
that he will never use.

Why must he learn all that stuff he will never use just to pass the
tests?

Sure, the stuff is easy for *you*, but not for *him*.

... let's at least keep my comment about the drums straight...

Let's see...

Warmest regards,
John

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
... that almost makes me miss the ancient drums my
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-etc. ancestors
used
to
use to communicate with in the primordial jungles... I wonder if
we
could bring those back to?

Invalid analogy.

Drums for communication aren't in wide use.

Morse Code for communication is in wide use in ham radio. Doesn't
need to be brought back because it's right here.

... perhaps require the new licensees to beat out a fancy tempo
on
one
of those turkeys before we gave 'em a license!
evil-grin

Warmest regards,
John


Perhaps, John


But consider that some of us can send and receive cw faster than
most
folks can type.

Yup.

I know you may be good at "cut and paste", but that doesn't
necessarily cut
it LOL.

Sure, voice appears faster, but when you get names and addresses
that
are
hard to pronounce ....

Bingo.

For any message that needs to be written down, the speed limitation is
usually the writing speed of the receiving op. The fact that someone
can theoretically talks 150 wpm doesn't mean anything if the person
on the receiving end can only write legibly at 15 wpm.

Text modes are great if you have the hardware for them and if you
are in a situation where you can look at a screen to read them.

Not saying that CW is the best, but some folks better come up with
something
superior to AM and FM. There are a number of modes, but most folks
want to
"talk". That won't cut it for 85 watt moonbounce on 24 GHz.




73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
ps - when I talk send and receive cw faster than some folks type,
I'm
not
talking a nice, leisurely chat at 30 or 35 words per minute ...

Yup.

Good Morse ops can chat at speeds approaching those of voice ops
because
they use abbreviations and eliminate redundancies.

73 de Jim, N2EY

.... all the women I have ever tried to interest in radio... all have
declined doing anything towards getting a license... once they even see
a key and a code practice oscillator they look at me as if I am crazy
and ask, "You are kidding, right?"

Then they grab their net-to-phone and/or keyboard and being chatting
with canadians, so americans, mexicans, asians, aussies, brits, etc...

.... and at this point it is hard for me to pose a logical
argument--women are just smarter than men... you can't fool them...

John

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
... the amateur tests are a trivial problem to men with real
educations...

What about women with real educations?

Would you consider someone with a BSEE from the University of
Pennsylvania and an MSEE from Drexel University to have
"a real education"?

... the cw part

Is an amateur test. And is a trivial problem to people with
real educations..

makes as much sense as learning to play a "jew's
harp"--a lot of sense if you wish to, none if you don't...

Then why require someone with no interest in VHF-UHF to learn
those techniques in order to operate on HF? Why require
knowedge of FSK, PSK and other data modes to operate voice?
Why require knowledge of transistors and ICs to operate
vacuum-tube equipment?

IOW, why require anyone to learn anything about a subject they
are not interested in, just to get a license to do the things
they *are* interested in?

--

Perhaps what bothers some people the most about the code test
is that it isn't something most people already know. And it
isn't something that can be learned by reading a book, watching
a video, etc. It's a skill, not "book learning".

In learning the code, a Ph.D in EE has to start at the same place
as a grade-schooler. And the grade schooler may learn faster and
do better! Perhaps it is this characteristic of the test - its
ability to act as a Great Equalizer - that causes some to resent
it so much.

--

Warmest regards,
John

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
It was never about anyone stopping you from sending cw was it...

A few anticode folks have stated they want Morse Code *use* by hams
to
end, not just the test. They are a small minority, but they do
exist.

It is about stopping you from forcing others to learn cw when they
would
never use it...

Who is "forced" to learn Morse Code?

It's a requirement if someone wants an FCC-issued amateur license
with
HF privileges, that's all.

Always when one is being forced to do something they do not wish
to,
they should question everything in sight... just as you began
when
you
thought someone was going to force you to quit...

The argument you present boils down to this: If someone doesn't
want
to
use Morse Code in ham radio, they shouldn't be required to learn it
just
to pass a test (even a simple, basic test) to get a ham radio
license.
Those who choose to use it can learn it on their own.

Is that about right?

The problem is that the same argument can be made against almost
everything
in the written tests. For example, if someone doesn't intend to use
certain
bands, why are they forced to learn the band edges of every band
their
license allows? If someone doesn't intend to use more than a few
watts
of
transmitted power, why must they learn all that RF exposure stuff?
Indeed,
if someone doesn't intend to homebrew, why are they *forced* to
learn
all
that theory stuff?

Sure, the written tests look easy to someone with a background in
radio,
electronics, computers or other related fields. But to someone from
an
unrelated field, they're not easy.

Suppose you met a retired gentleman who had been a radioman in the
military 50+ years ago. He'd always wanted to be a ham but never
had
the time or resources. Now he finds that ham radio still exists,
and
he wants in.

The gent can still do code well, and remembers the basics of theory
as it was 50+ years ago. He gets an HF receiver and listens to the
lovely Morse Code signals on the low ends of the HF bands.

But in order to join the folks on 7010 or 3520, he needs an Extra.
And the written test is full of stuff he's never seen before, and
that he will never use.

Why must he learn all that stuff he will never use just to pass the
tests?

Sure, the stuff is easy for *you*, but not for *him*.

... let's at least keep my comment about the drums straight...

Let's see...

Warmest regards,
John

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
... that almost makes me miss the ancient drums my
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-etc. ancestors
used
to
use to communicate with in the primordial jungles... I wonder
if
we
could bring those back to?

Invalid analogy.

Drums for communication aren't in wide use.

Morse Code for communication is in wide use in ham radio. Doesn't
need to be brought back because it's right here.

... perhaps require the new licensees to beat out a fancy
tempo
on
one
of those turkeys before we gave 'em a license!
evil-grin

Warmest regards,
John


Perhaps, John


But consider that some of us can send and receive cw faster than
most
folks can type.

Yup.

I know you may be good at "cut and paste", but that doesn't
necessarily cut
it LOL.

Sure, voice appears faster, but when you get names and addresses
that
are
hard to pronounce ....

Bingo.

For any message that needs to be written down, the speed limitation
is
usually the writing speed of the receiving op. The fact that
someone
can theoretically talks 150 wpm doesn't mean anything if the person
on the receiving end can only write legibly at 15 wpm.

Text modes are great if you have the hardware for them and if you
are in a situation where you can look at a screen to read them.

Not saying that CW is the best, but some folks better come up
with
something
superior to AM and FM. There are a number of modes, but most
folks
want to
"talk". That won't cut it for 85 watt moonbounce on 24 GHz.




73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
ps - when I talk send and receive cw faster than some folks
type,
I'm
not
talking a nice, leisurely chat at 30 or 35 words per minute ...

Yup.

Good Morse ops can chat at speeds approaching those of voice ops
because
they use abbreviations and eliminate redundancies.

73 de Jim, N2EY

From: on Tues 14 Jun 2005 09:32

John Smith wrote:
It was never about anyone stopping you from sending cw was it...


Good Morse ops can chat at speeds approaching those of voice ops
because they use abbreviations and eliminate redundancies.

Oh, my, THAT old brag.

Tsk, tsk, , listen in on any large FAA-tower airport
and, especially, the voice communications out of an FAA Center.

No morse used there, but plenty of abbreviations with elimination
of redundancies. Word rates are above 150 WPM equivalent and
often approach 250 WPM equivalent. No "test" required to learn
the abbreviations in TRACON talk.

Tsk, if morse code was so "efficient" and "speedy," it would have
been prime use in the REST OF THE RADIO WORLD. It isn't. Other
than the ham hobbyists ("on the lower ends of the 'bands' HF")
and some long-established automatic ID keyers, the REST OF THE
RADIO WORLD has given up on morse code.

To attempt countering the above, you MUST trot out the hoary old
maxim that "this is amateur radio!" as if the hobby is somehow
exulted and revered BECAUSE of morse code testing...and you will
state that "because there are still morse users in amateur radio,"
"newcomers 'must' learn/test for that skill to talk to them." :-)

[such always seems to happen as a "reason" for being...:-) ]

That "reply" (yet to come but as certain as there is a tomorrow)
might be augmented by some kind of "need" to "be able to talk to
those in foreign lands who do not speak English." One of the
truly specious and bereft of logic statements ever made in here!

Go ahead and "chat" on anything via morse code...use its unique
ability to express subtleties of opinion, the timbre and tone of
the sound, and all the other body language clues available
through morse. :-) Other than IDs, location, "the rig here is"
and WX, there isn't much more to the "chat," is there?

Please continue to praise the military morse ops, ,
especially those of the USN. The USN is NOT a branch of the
military you were in. Indeed, you weren't in ANY branch of the
military. You "served in other ways."

wrote in message
oups.com...
Perhaps what bothers some people the most about the code test
is that it isn't something most people already know. And it
isn't something that can be learned by reading a book, watching
a video, etc. It's a skill, not "book learning".

In learning the code, a Ph.D in EE has to start at the same place
as a grade-schooler. And the grade schooler may learn faster and
do better! Perhaps it is this characteristic of the test - its
ability to act as a Great Equalizer - that causes some to resent
it so much.

It was never really about the actual test, but rather the effort required to
successfully prepare for the test.


--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384/CC #1736
QRP ARCI #11782

Snagged a TA2 and a 4X5 last night... IOW, the effort was well worth it.

Len:

Did I miss something here, if you know morse it gives you the ability to
speak and read french?

Hell, I know morse and still can't speak to the french, unless they
morse in english!!! Same with the Germans, Dutch, Spanish, etc....

ROFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John

wrote in message
oups.com...
From: on Tues 14 Jun 2005 09:32

John Smith wrote:
It was never about anyone stopping you from sending cw was it...


Good Morse ops can chat at speeds approaching those of voice ops
because they use abbreviations and eliminate redundancies.

Oh, my, THAT old brag.

Tsk, tsk, , listen in on any large FAA-tower airport
and, especially, the voice communications out of an FAA Center.

No morse used there, but plenty of abbreviations with elimination
of redundancies. Word rates are above 150 WPM equivalent and
often approach 250 WPM equivalent. No "test" required to learn
the abbreviations in TRACON talk.

Tsk, if morse code was so "efficient" and "speedy," it would have
been prime use in the REST OF THE RADIO WORLD. It isn't. Other
than the ham hobbyists ("on the lower ends of the 'bands' HF")
and some long-established automatic ID keyers, the REST OF THE
RADIO WORLD has given up on morse code.

To attempt countering the above, you MUST trot out the hoary old
maxim that "this is amateur radio!" as if the hobby is somehow
exulted and revered BECAUSE of morse code testing...and you will
state that "because there are still morse users in amateur radio,"
"newcomers 'must' learn/test for that skill to talk to them." :-)

[such always seems to happen as a "reason" for being...:-) ]

That "reply" (yet to come but as certain as there is a tomorrow)
might be augmented by some kind of "need" to "be able to talk to
those in foreign lands who do not speak English." One of the
truly specious and bereft of logic statements ever made in here!

Go ahead and "chat" on anything via morse code...use its unique
ability to express subtleties of opinion, the timbre and tone of
the sound, and all the other body language clues available
through morse. :-) Other than IDs, location, "the rig here is"
and WX, there isn't much more to the "chat," is there?

Please continue to praise the military morse ops, ,
especially those of the USN. The USN is NOT a branch of the
military you were in. Indeed, you weren't in ANY branch of the
military. You "served in other ways."

John Smith wrote:
It was never about anyone stopping you from sending cw was it...

It is about stopping you from forcing others to learn cw when they would
never use it...

So I guess you should never have to answer questions on the test about
RTTY, Packet, Amtor, SSTV, ect., ect., if you think you will never use
those modes. Or you shouldn't have to answer questions on theory such as
ohms law, if you never plan to build anything.
So how do you know that you will never want to operate those modes? Do
you want to take another test if you someday decide to operate another
mode? Should we have hams building and putting equipment on the air who
don't even know ohms law?
The fact is, all that is available to any licensed ham by virtue of
their license, so they should have some knowledge in these areas should
they ever want to persue them.

Always when one is being forced to do something they do not wish to,
they should question everything in sight... just as you began when you
thought someone was going to force you to quit...


No one is forceing you to do any of them, if fact, no one forced you to
get a license.

From: John Smith on Jun 14, 9:30 pm

Len:

Did I miss something here, if you know morse it gives you the ability to speak and read french?

Any "good" morseman KNOWS EVERYTHING! :-)

That's the ONLY skill they need...and some have said so. :-)

Hell, I know morse and still can't speak to the french, unless they
morse in english!!! Same with the Germans, Dutch, Spanish, etc....

Way back two centuries ago, Sam (Morse) and Al (Vail) revised
Morse's original code (all numbers) into something representing
ENGLISH letters, numbers, and some punctuation marks. That was
roughly in the 1840s. After radio was demonstrated in 1896
(in Italy and Russia) as a communications medium, the good
(and always CORRECT) morsemen claimed it was an "international
language." :-)

"CW gets through when anything else will..." - B. Burke

On 14 Jun 2005 09:32:03 -0700, wrote:

A few anticode folks have stated they want Morse Code *use* by hams to
end, not just the test. They are a small minority, but they do exist.

Sounds like the same "reasoning" as when my late mother was in the
nursing home and would complain that the aides were talking about
her. When I asked her what they were saying about her, she replied
"I don't know - I don't speak minority foreign language".

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 10:20:13 -0700, John Smith wrote:

.... absolutely not... I work with young men who take great pride in
their ability to pass difficult tests with ease... who are thankful for
their gifted IQ's...

.... but who see no reason to learn code... indeed, the courses which
they take, and their level of education make any amateur exam look
trivial...

Do they think that their sweat doesn't stink????

Wait 'till they hit the course or assignment that throws them back
into the mortal realm. We've all hit that point at one time or
another....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:21:00 -0700, John Smith wrote:

... all the women I have ever tried to interest in radio... all have
declined doing anything towards getting a license... once they even see
a key and a code practice oscillator they look at me as if I am crazy
and ask, "You are kidding, right?"

Tell that to our friend Claire who is the NCS of the Beaver State
(CW) Traffic Net - high-speed CW. And she's no dummy - retired PhD
in a specialized field of the biological sciences.

So much for generalizations.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane