Dee:

Well, you have me there, those TEN girls may be of that mind! ROFLOL...

John

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
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


I'd bet the Young Ladies Radio League could come up with a pretty good
estimate. Also the Buckeye Bells may be able to do the same.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

wrote in message
ups.com...
John Smith wrote:
I just support removing code because no new hams are using it in any
meaningful numbers.

I've seen plenty of new hams use Morse Code on the air. And plenty who
use other modes. What information do you have to show that "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...

Some are - some aren't.

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

Depends on how you present it. And the word is "lose"....

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

Well, that leaves me out, because I'm neither old nor computer
illiterate.



He does not realize that it was this "bunch of old guys who are computer
illiterate" who developed several of the digital modes and were some of the
earliest amateurs to interface computers and radios.

At work it is not the "bunch of old guys who are computer illiterate" who
cannot find their way around a computer but instead the new kids fresh out
of school. It's the kids who cannot seem to figure out how to use the
advanced features of the spreadsheets, wordprocessors, etc until someone
leads them by the hand through it. The "bunch of old guys who are computer
illiterate" are the ones who explore the software and become proficient in
its many features.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee:
"Physical skills?" You use this in reference to banging a key... you
josh right, the weakest woman in the world finds that no real task...

It is more akin to being able to whittle wood, throw a baseball or play
a musical instrument...

.... well, not even that, it is in a class all itself and deserves a
burial into history...

John

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
news

"robert casey" wrote in message
ink.net...


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".

That makes it a real PITA to people who are good at book
learnin' and not so hot at motor skills.

Conversely the written is a real PITA to people who are good at
physical skills but not at book learning. We've got a few around here
who breezed through the 5, 13, and 20 wpm code test but had to take
each of the writtens multiple times and they had studied hard each
time. They were not allowed to get out of the written or plead
diminished capacity or anything else. They had to do it.


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.


That makes ham radio that much harder to "sell" to the
PhDs and such people. Code is something that can be
outperformed by various signaling and signal processing
methods (JPL doesn't use Morse code to communicate with
their deep space probes).

Well those PHDs had to learn the simplest of basics in their chosen
fields when they started their journeys. There is "obsolete"
information in every field that is often required learning as part of
a basic understanding of the field.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
... the young person of today has a much great education than his/her
counterpart of even twenty years ago...

John


I don't know about that. Around here there are more and more dropping out,
even student's whose parents have college degrees.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"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

Dee:

Certainly everyone over 50 needs to step back and let the younger men
have a go--we are stagnated right now--I won't argue that point--it is
MUCH too obvious...

What "modes" are you using? I am using a 56k modem my son modified to
modulate a transmitter... any other person able to interface an old 56k
modem to their computer can get the data... now a nice 10mbs per second
mode would be nice, where is some cheap equipment?

John

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
John Smith wrote:
I just support removing code because no new hams are using it in any
meaningful numbers.

I've seen plenty of new hams use Morse Code on the air. And plenty
who
use other modes. What information do you have to show that "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...

Some are - some aren't.

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

Depends on how you present it. And the word is "lose"....

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

Well, that leaves me out, because I'm neither old nor computer
illiterate.



He does not realize that it was this "bunch of old guys who are
computer illiterate" who developed several of the digital modes and
were some of the earliest amateurs to interface computers and radios.

At work it is not the "bunch of old guys who are computer illiterate"
who cannot find their way around a computer but instead the new kids
fresh out of school. It's the kids who cannot seem to figure out how
to use the advanced features of the spreadsheets, wordprocessors, etc
until someone leads them by the hand through it. The "bunch of old
guys who are computer illiterate" are the ones who explore the
software and become proficient in its many features.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

wrote:
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.

I enjoyed the story, Brian. But I gotta break in here. What you have
described is the real reason that people become hams. You were bitten by
the bug, and it sounds like no one was going to stop you from becoming one.

I too was hooked early in life, although it took a long time to finally
get my ticket. I'm just P****d that I didn't get it years earlier.

The idea of "recruiting" people into the ARS is likely never going to
work - at least as far as snagging people that are thinking about a
hobby, but don't know what to pick up.

If you wanna be a Ham - you *know* it.


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.

Just did, and it was very enjoyable. I hope I run in to him on the air
sometime.


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. .

I noticed that.


- 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.

A local oldster was inquiring as to when his license expired, because
he couldn't find his F.C.C. Wallpaper. We help him figure it out. We
need to keep the geezers on the air. I love talking to them. I hope
someone is looking out for me when I'm 91!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dee Flint wrote:
"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 -



Actually I know more women in ham radio than women in engineering.

Me too, now that you mention it. During the PAQSO party, I have worked
quite a few women, including the twins from Erie County, PA. (sorry, I
don't recall the callsigns at the moment. They even work in tandem.
After working the first, she will ask you to standby to work the other
one. It's confusing the first time, but now I look forward to at as two
quick QSO's! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Dee:

Michael's own words:
"There certainly are women in Ham radio, and although a minority, ..."

What does that mean--they are being held out by the old farts? The women
too want no-code?

He is not claiming anything of the sort. Once again you see what isn't
there.


Just what is the reason he was claiming?


He is not claiming any reason but simply stating that the same factors that
cause women not to choose technical careers also cause them not to choose
technical hobbies. He has made no statement about what those factors may
be.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Dee:

That is another interesting statistic--most women in radio are the wives
of hams--there is certainly some interesting reasons behind that, I am
sure... I think it directly relates to "Good-Old Boy's Club" but them
accepting the wife, daughter, relative of a member of the club...

John


Most hams (male or female) got into ham radio because they were the
relatives and/or friends of hams. New hams get into the hobby by contact
with existing hams for the most part. My brother became a ham because I was
one.

I've not seen any "Good-Old Boy's Club" attitude at all. When I joined the
local club after moving to this area, I was single and none of the members
had ever met or talked to my ex. They accepted me immediately as a fellow
ham.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee:

That maybe and it may NOT be... I go with the later, you are correct...

.... and, you guess is NO better than mine--if you call it anything other
than a guess or "sticking up for him"--I'll call you a liar...

John

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Dee:

Michael's own words:
"There certainly are women in Ham radio, and although a minority,
..."

What does that mean--they are being held out by the old farts? The
women too want no-code?

He is not claiming anything of the sort. Once again you see what
isn't there.


Just what is the reason he was claiming?


He is not claiming any reason but simply stating that the same factors
that cause women not to choose technical careers also cause them not
to choose technical hobbies. He has made no statement about what
those factors may be.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE