.... the young person of today has a much great education than his/her
counterpart of even twenty years ago...

John

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
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

well my gawd, we already have one then--we sure as hell don't need
another! ROFLOL

.... they are rarer then hens teeth...

John

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
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

.... trust me, those cw'ers are going to grow very lonely--these new guys
have no use for code... they can scream and rant and rave and argue a
ridiculous point--just tune up grab your key and start finding out how
many out there are under 50... it ain't many!

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:
"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...


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...

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...

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

By the very nature of "testing" we are "forced" to do something we
generally don't want to do.

When I took my General, I had no intent on doing any RTTY operation
yet had to know RTTY theory and practice.

Good news is that now you don't HAVE to "learn" anything...Just
memorize those quesitons and answers...Whish is what gives me a good
laugh with the more arrogant NCT types (read that Lennie...)

They are "OK" with open pools and memorized tests, but they hate
memorized sounds...what's up with that? Sheesh...the FCC even delete
the requirement to demonstrate SENDING the Code.

There's no more work to memorizing the Code than there is to
memorizing the written questions...Unless you have a VALID medical
decicit.

... 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...

I do too...

They're called "lazy".

indeed, the courses which
they take, and their level of education make any amateur exam look
trivial...

"They" may, but since we have no milestones against which to know
those levels, we'll never know for sure.

In short: "I trust men wearing ski masks."

Steve, K4YZ

.... yep, too lazy to learn to send messages by primordial tribal drum
too ...

.... too lazy to learn how to play a jew's harp too ...

.... too lazy to take up knitting and crocheting too ...

.... yep, damn lazy bunch they are! ...

ROFLOL!!!!

John

"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...


John Smith wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...


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...

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...

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

By the very nature of "testing" we are "forced" to do something
we
generally don't want to do.

When I took my General, I had no intent on doing any RTTY
operation
yet had to know RTTY theory and practice.

Good news is that now you don't HAVE to "learn" anything...Just
memorize those quesitons and answers...Whish is what gives me a
good
laugh with the more arrogant NCT types (read that Lennie...)

They are "OK" with open pools and memorized tests, but they hate
memorized sounds...what's up with that? Sheesh...the FCC even
delete
the requirement to demonstrate SENDING the Code.

There's no more work to memorizing the Code than there is to
memorizing the written questions...Unless you have a VALID medical
decicit.

... 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...

I do too...

They're called "lazy".

indeed, the courses which
they take, and their level of education make any amateur exam look
trivial...

"They" may, but since we have no milestones against which to know
those levels, we'll never know for sure.

In short: "I trust men wearing ski masks."

Steve, K4YZ

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?"

With all due respect, perhaps your skill at getting them
interested needs some improvement....

Given your attitude towards Morse Code, you'd be as
effective as the chairman of the National Beef Council
trying to get people to be vegetarians..

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

Which takes no radio and no license. So it's not about Morse Code,
but about different interests.

... 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...

Not about fooling, but about what people are interested in.

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

Phil Kane wrote:
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.

.. . . then there was the legendary traffic handler Mae Burke W3CUL who
was a neighborhood housewife . .

So much for generalizations.

Gotta love it.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

w3rv

John,

You could make the same assertion about a driver's license. Memorize some
rules and take a road test.

Do you support eliminating motor vehicle tests? Perhaps only for college
educated folks?

Might it make sense to require folks to know where the band edges are, or
would you think it doesn't matter.

If you travel to the U.K., do you think it might be smart to understand that
they drive on the *left* side of the road rather than the right? Even if
you are a pedestrian?

I suspect you'd be upset if someone started transmitting on your Direct Tv
frequencies and killed your reception. There are rules and folks wishing
licenses are supposed to demonstrate some knowledge of those rules. These
rules do not require the calculus, yet even a college grad has to
demonstrate some knowledge of them.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


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

... the cw part 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...

Warmest regards,
John

wrote:



With all due respect, perhaps your skill at getting them
interested needs some improvement....

Given your attitude towards Morse Code, you'd be as
effective as the chairman of the National Beef Council
trying to get people to be vegetarians..

Wouldn't that be better the other way around, Jim? A vegetarian who
hates meat trying to get people to come to say a pig roast? ;^)


- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote:


Phil Kane wrote:

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.


. . . then there was the legendary traffic handler Mae Burke W3CUL who
was a neighborhood housewife . .


I can't imagine any person becoming a Ham because they simply want to
"chat with someone around the world".

In the first place most of my DX contacts are pretty terse, and don't
fulfill any "chatting needs". Not that I have chatting needs!

There certainly are women in Ham radio, and although a minority, they
are probably no more of a minority than women's representation in other
technical fields. This would mean that any problem is shared with those
other technical fields, and not a Ham radio specific problem.

- Mike KB3EIA -