Kelly:

Well, you certainly know enough that you wish to have your great
knowledge put forth--let's have a go at it...

What percentage of amateurs are women, it is 1% or 2% I have forgotten?

ROFLOL

John

wrote in message
ups.com...


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

.... oh, I love that argument!!! Let me see if I have it correctly,
either:

1) Women are too stupid for the technical fields.

2) We are no worse than any other technical field about baring women.

ROLL!!!!!

John

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...


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 -

N2EY:

I am afraid that task of inducting enough women is beyond me--no one has
ever succeeded...

Just what percentage of amateurs are women? Do you even know?

I bet you damn well know they are rarer then space aliens sightings!!!

ROFLOL!!!

John

wrote in message
ups.com...
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

I think first you would have to get a noticeable number of women into
ham radio--then argue if they are being treated fairly--at this point
they have been effectively banned!!!

John

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...


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 -

I just support removing code because no new hams are using it in any
meaningful numbers.

The new state of the art hams are interested in hooking a modem up and
interfacing the radio to the computer...

Hook up a code key and they loose interest immediately...

Now, a bunch of old guys who are computer illiterate have no choice than
to try to amuse themselves with a damn key...

John

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
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

John Smith wrote:
Kelly:

Well, you certainly know enough that you wish to have your great
knowledge put forth--let's have a go at it...

What percentage of amateurs are women, it is 1% or 2% I have forgotten?

You're such a total crock, you have no idea what the stats are.


ROFLOL

John

wrote in message
ups.com...


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

Kelly:

Now I really worry about you--you pose an argument which really starts
to define you as a fool!

Are you claiming I can't tune through all the ham bands in relatively
short order and be stuck numb with the fact that there are ALMOST NO
WOMEN to be heard?

Gesus man, you need some type of medication to even stay relevant!

John

wrote in message
ups.com...
John Smith wrote:
Kelly:

Well, you certainly know enough that you wish to have your great
knowledge put forth--let's have a go at it...

What percentage of amateurs are women, it is 1% or 2% I have
forgotten?

You're such a total crock, you have no idea what the stats are.


ROFLOL

John

wrote in message
ups.com...


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

Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:

. . . 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".

Whew, that brings up a tale Michael . . I know at least one ham who has
done just that for decades.

About the time WW2 ended I got into building crystal sets then I moved
into cobbling together simple tube-type receivers based on articles in
Pop Science and Pop Mechanics. The DXing bug had already bitten based
on my fascination with finding far off stations in the high end of the
AM BC band with the BC radios my folks had. The die was cast: I was
into radio big time but I was basically clueless about ham radio until
I eventually started SWLing and found scads of hams yakking on 75 & 40
AM.

I was also a Cub Scout around that point in time. One night there was a
civil defense drill which I discovered would include ham radio
communications and the Cub pack. That opportunity really rang my chimes
and I wormed my way into becoming a messenger boy for one of the
mobiles.

The ham and I motored around town passing traffic back and forth
amongst the hams and the simulated "disaster sites", etc. That was my
first exposure to hands-on ham radio. The ham was Gene Reynolds W3EAN
who went out of his way to answer my unending stream of questions that
night. I probably drove him nuts but I think he enjoyed it. There was
no turning back after that night, I was gonna become a ham.

A number of years later I ran into Gene again amongst the DXing and
contesting crowd around here. In addition to being a DXer Gene was also
a fundamentalist "radio missionary" who used his station to "take the
word" particularly to Russians by "chatting with someone around the
world" as you put it. Thousands of times! Check his bio in QRZ.com, I
think you'll enjoy it.

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!

It's also considered impolite to tie up dx stations with chats unless
they initiate them.

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.

Exactly. Let's hope this "Smith" clown has the same short attention
span others of his ilk have demonstrated in the past and wanders off
the list. He's even posting his mindless drivel in the Mech Eng and
dot.antennas NGs for gawd's sake. .

- Mike KB3EIA -

w3rv

(PS) Yo Micollis: Duty beckons. One of Gene's OLD and I mean *old*
dxing buddies is Nate W3CNP, the guy you sat with when he ran a few Qs
on 20CW at the last of our Clayton Park FD "experiences". Check his
particulars in QRZ.com. I ran into him a few weeks ago at K3PAQ's
memorial service, he's fine. Nate's ticket is floating in the grace
period. I got EAN set up to renew, now it's *your* turn, launch Nate on
his way. We need all the far-end geezers we can get properly licensed
to keep the average age up in the hobby.

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


They poop ice cream.... :-)

their gifted IQ's...

... but who see no reason to learn code...


I do too...

They're called "lazy".



I'd say that they weighed the task of learning code and decided
it wasn't worth their time. It's not like grammar or high school
where you have no choice but to learn the stuff some curriculum
committee decided you had to learn. So far I never had need for
Spanish or knowing about King Louie the 7th of France since
high school 33 years ago. As to code, it's "required" if you
want an HF capable ham license. Some people will decide not
to bother and go do something else.