On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 23:25:13 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly:

"ken foshee" wrote in
:

I'll agree with you 100%. I have a Tech license and enjoy the hobby very
much. I plan on upgrading to General once the code issue is settled. I
have always heard that "If you don't use it, you lose it". I have no
interest in the code so why should I not be allowed to enjoy Ham radio.
BTW, my CB license years back was KLW4194..


That's why you'll never be an asset to the ham radio service. You're too
lazy to be an asset.

Just what makes a person an "asset to the ham radio service"? That
sounds just as stupid as an "asset to the telephone service". Like it
or not, ham radio is just a means of communication that has world-wide
reach. Listen up, the "ham radio service" isn't some illustrious
organization. It's just a means for people around to world to chat
live. It can have great value in some emergencies, but most of it's
use is idle chatter.

wrote:
I wish it would keep all you "non antenna related" goofballs
out of the antenna newsgroup. Why don't you all get some
kind of life on a group that pertains to stuff like that. IE: misc..

I believe that r.r.a.policy was created to keep such
off of r.r.a.misc
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Denny wrote:

The Morse test neither helps nor hinders...

You are uninformed and only half-right. It does not help, it hinders.

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
I wish it would keep all you "non antenna related" goofballs
out of the antenna newsgroup. Why don't you all get some
kind of life on a group that pertains to stuff like that. IE: misc..

I believe that r.r.a.policy was created to keep such
off of r.r.a.misc
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

I believe that you are correct.

wrote in
ups.com:


Denny wrote:

The Morse test neither helps nor hinders...

You are uninformed and only half-right. It does not help, it hinders.



Yes, it hinders.

It keeps out the stupid and lazy. Individuals that really don't what to be
hams if it requires knowledge and skill to get a license.

Make them stay on CB and FRS. They're not an asset to the service.


And neither are you.

SC

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:50:31 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly:

wrote in
oups.com:


Denny wrote:

The Morse test neither helps nor hinders...

You are uninformed and only half-right. It does not help, it hinders.



Yes, it hinders.

It keeps out the stupid and lazy. Individuals that really don't what to be
hams if it requires knowledge and skill to get a license.

BULL****! Code is NOT KNOWLEDGE!!! I have NO problem learning
technical info that helps me use the radio properly. Code is not
needed to do that.

Get off your high-horse already.

Make them stay on CB and FRS. They're not an asset to the service.

CB and FRS don't have the range.

And neither are you.

Who the **** are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed,
arrogant PRICK! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up
and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING
to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain
what makes a person an "asset to the service"?

What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted
tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat,
spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?

Who the **** are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed,
arrogant PRICK! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up
and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING
to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain
what makes a person an "asset to the service"?

Jeez,
Chill out, eh?

What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted
tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat,
spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?


Waxing poetic now?

Yes it's obsolete. Yes, it's fun.

Should it be used to qualify? Let the FCC decide (soon).

If it is eliminated, will that change the "Service"? Maybe.

Will CW disappear? Probably not.
Historically, it defined ham radio, so it has a special place in the
hearts of very many hams. It's natural that they sort of cling to it.

Will CW's elimination be the end of ham radio? Of course not.
Ham radio will cease when all the hams die off. New hams are needed,
with or without code.

My personal hope is that a significant minority of these new hams will
take up CW and learn to enjoy this mode. It truly is a fun mode. I
hope people will WANT to learn it.

Compulsory things are seldom welcome,,,some are necessary. Is CW a good
requirement for ham radio? I guess it has probably outlived its day.

A requirement related to other digital modes would make a good
replacement. True?

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:27 -0400, jawod spake
thusly:




Who the **** are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed,
arrogant PRICK! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up
and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING
to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain
what makes a person an "asset to the service"?

Jeez,
Chill out, eh?

Sorry, but I get upset with people who make statements that are easily
taken as personal insults.

What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted
tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat,
spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?


Waxing poetic now?

Yes it's obsolete. Yes, it's fun.

I found it to be cold and impersonal.

Should it be used to qualify? Let the FCC decide (soon).

Here in Canada, they already have. I believe the FCC will soon.

If it is eliminated, will that change the "Service"? Maybe.

Probably not.

Will CW disappear? Probably not.
Historically, it defined ham radio, so it has a special place in the
hearts of very many hams. It's natural that they sort of cling to it.

Let them cling, they are free to do so.

Will CW's elimination be the end of ham radio? Of course not.
Ham radio will cease when all the hams die off. New hams are needed,
with or without code.

I totally agree.

My personal hope is that a significant minority of these new hams will
take up CW and learn to enjoy this mode. It truly is a fun mode. I
hope people will WANT to learn it.

I always found it to be boring.

Compulsory things are seldom welcome,,,some are necessary. Is CW a good
requirement for ham radio? I guess it has probably outlived its day.

A requirement related to other digital modes would make a good
replacement. True?

I completely agree. If you want to filter out the less serious, then
use a relevant method. Here in Canada, in order to get a no-code
licence, you must get at least 80% on the technical. And technical
prowess will always be important regardless of the mode of
communication.

Opus- wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:27 -0400, jawod spake
thusly:

Who the **** are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed,
arrogant PRICK! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up
and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING
to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain
what makes a person an "asset to the service"?

Jeez,
Chill out, eh?

Sorry, but I get upset with people who make statements that are easily
taken as personal insults.

"Stuff happens."

BTW, this "Jawod" signed a message on rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
as "AB8O." I found a blank on that call sign at QRZ.


Yes it's obsolete. Yes, it's fun.

I found it to be cold and impersonal.

I agree. Manual radiotelegraphy has NONE of the body language
or tone of voice or much of anything that is normal in everyday
person-to-person contacts. Using this monotonic form of
very early radio allows any user to be anything they want with
no real references to anything but the ability to send telegraphy.


Should it be used to qualify? Let the FCC decide (soon).

Here in Canada, they already have. I believe the FCC will soon.

If it is eliminated, will that change the "Service"? Maybe.

Probably not.

Heh heh...if the test is eliminated the expressed outrage,
anguish, and horror will be a horrendous wail never to be
silenced until the last code key is pried from cold, dead
fingers! :-)


Will CW disappear? Probably not.
Historically, it defined ham radio, so it has a special place in the
hearts of very many hams. It's natural that they sort of cling to it.

Let them cling, they are free to do so.

I'd say "clog" as in cholesterol clogging those "hearts."

"Jawod" uses "many" AS IF it were quantitative. Not so much
in the USA now. The US Technician class licensees now
number about 49% of all, twice as large a number as the
General class. I doubt they want to hear such facts.


Will CW's elimination be the end of ham radio? Of course not.
Ham radio will cease when all the hams die off. New hams are needed,
with or without code.

I totally agree.

In the USA the number of newcomers is not able to keep pace
with the expirations of licensees. That trend has been evident
for more than a year. [see www.hamdata.com] The majority of
new licensees are Technician class. Novice class, the
supposed traditional "beginner" license has been expiring at a
steady rate for years before the US changes in 2000.


My personal hope is that a significant minority of these new hams will
take up CW and learn to enjoy this mode. It truly is a fun mode. I
hope people will WANT to learn it.

I always found it to be boring.

"Jawod" and other morsemen think that all will "like" what they
like. They really don't understand what other citizens want.


Compulsory things are seldom welcome,,,some are necessary. Is CW a good
requirement for ham radio? I guess it has probably outlived its day.

A requirement related to other digital modes would make a good
replacement. True?

I completely agree. If you want to filter out the less serious, then
use a relevant method. Here in Canada, in order to get a no-code
licence, you must get at least 80% on the technical. And technical
prowess will always be important regardless of the mode of
communication.

That sounds fair. In general I've approved what Industry Canada
does on communications regulations...a bit more than what the
FCC does for US civil radio services.

wrote:
Opus- wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:27 -0400, jawod spake
thusly:

Who the #### are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed,
arrogant #####! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up
and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING
to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain
what makes a person an "asset to the service"?

Jeez,
Chill out, eh?

Sorry, but I get upset with people who make statements that are easily
taken as personal insults.

"Stuff happens."

BTW, this "Jawod" signed a message on rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
as "AB8O." I found a blank on that call sign at QRZ.

What a coincidence...I used QRZ's database search engine and found
a blank when I entered "Leonard H. Anderson".

Funny, eh...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ