On 2006-05-25, Slow Code wrote:


to be a ham now days, so licensing requirements have to be low in order to
help keep our numbers up. They won't work for a license.

I don't think that's entirely true. I'm working for my license.
Learning code, radio and antenna theory, SMT, and every other thing I
can think of. Got an ARRL Handbook ('91), a cheapo hand key, and a G.
West test book. Do I think code should be required? Yes. IMO,
knowing what I'm doing is what being a ham is all about. Knowing code
is part of that. In fact, with the possible spread of BPL, CW may
again become the only way to punch through. If I just wanted to press
a button and yap, I'd buy a CB or a cellphone.

nb

Slow Code wrote:
(Dave Platt) wrote in
:



Reading all you wrote, what you are basically saying is that no one wants
to be a ham now days, so licensing requirements have to be low in order to
help keep our numbers up. They won't work for a license.

well your posts do tend to show you can't read what anyone write
sc

assraped by an_old_friend wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
(Dave Platt) wrote in
:



Reading all you wrote, what you are basically saying is that no one wants
to be a ham now days, so licensing requirements have to be low in order to
help keep our numbers up. They won't work for a license.

well your posts do tend to show you can't read what anyone write

Oh, the irony!

Markie Morgan, kb9rqz, proves his illiteracy when he slobbered
in Message-ID: .com:
"Icertainly can so I am not ileiterate"

wrote:
assraped by an_old_friend wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
(Dave Platt) wrote in
:



Reading all you wrote, what you are basically saying is that no one wants
to be a ham now days, so licensing requirements have to be low in order to
help keep our numbers up. They won't work for a license.

well your posts do tend to show you can't read what anyone write

Oh, the irony!
irony just fear the oirignal post s sucha fossil

Slow,
Can you address any of my comments in my previous, or here ?


My arguement has always been for the quality of the hams.

OK. Given this, is it true that everything else is unimportant to you -
only the quality? [there always have been jerks around.]


You appreciate something more that you had to work to achieve, and respect
the rewards
it gives.

I think I can agree with this. Give a kid a car or whatever, and he's
more likely to treat it badly. Make him work for it and he appreciates the
value and shows the appropriate care with it..


Cheapening something makes it disposable.

Yea.... I understand that having to do the CW thing is more work and
more likely that the licence will be valued, but what about putting the
prospective ham through other, more rigorous hoops, like electronic theory,
emcom, etc. Why won't more modern "hoops" work the same way to bolster the
individual's respect for the service?

Ham numbers are declining.

I believe this is true, but what is you reason for stating this? Are you
glad this is happening or sad or indifferent?

73, Steve, K9DCI

"Steve N." wrote in
:



Slow,
Can you address any of my comments in my previous, or here ?


My arguement has always been for the quality of the hams.

OK. Given this, is it true that everything else is unimportant to you -
only the quality? [there always have been jerks around.]

So let's have more?



You appreciate something more that you had to work to achieve, and
respect
the rewards
it gives.

I think I can agree with this. Give a kid a car or whatever, and he's
more likely to treat it badly. Make him work for it and he appreciates
the value and shows the appropriate care with it..


Cheapening something makes it disposable.

Yea.... I understand that having to do the CW thing is more work and
more likely that the licence will be valued, but what about putting the
prospective ham through other, more rigorous hoops, like electronic
theory, emcom, etc. Why won't more modern "hoops" work the same way to
bolster the individual's respect for the service?

Yes, 85% passing score for writtens.


Ham numbers are declining.

I believe this is true, but what is you reason for stating this? Are
you
glad this is happening or sad or indifferent?

The numbers don't matter, quality does. Reasoning a service is good
because it has lots of members, CB should be great then, but it's like a
kindergarten.

sc

Slow Code wrote:
"Steve N." wrote in
:

Ham numbers are declining.

I believe this is true, but what is you reason for stating this? Are
you
glad this is happening or sad or indifferent?

The numbers don't matter, quality does.
number do Matter this line show you as a complete fool
Reasoning a service is good
because it has lots of members, CB should be great then, but it's like a
kindergarten.

it also suffering from ZERO danger of losing it freqs either

still nothing in your materail even suggests that CW testing is good
for the ARS

besudes you and your freinds have failed to convine the FCC of ithat

read the NPRM

if you can't sell even if it were the truth it would not matter

sc

"Slow Code" wrote in message
t...
"Steve N." wrote in
:

Slow,
Can you address any of my comments in my previous, or here ?

Unfortunately, it appears not too well..


is it true that everything else is unimportant to you -
only the quality? [there always have been jerks around.]

So let's have more?

...is not an answer to my question and this question provides no clue.
It implies I said that more jerks will result from those that will always be
there...I think. or that I want more...


You appreciate something more that you had to work to achieve, and
respect the rewards it gives.
...snip...
Yea.... I understand ... but what about putting the
prospective ham through other, more rigorous hoops, like electronic
theory, emcom, etc. Why won't more modern "hoops" work the same way to
bolster the individual's respect for the service?

Yes, 85% passing score for writtens.

OK, 85% is another kind of hoop. but Please answer my "Why" question.


Ham numbers are declining.

I believe this is true, but what is you reason for stating this? Are
you glad this is happening or sad or indifferent?

The numbers don't matter, quality does.

OK, so this seems to answer my other question. While I agree, that in
a perfect world I would also restrict licences to only those who have a
decent head on their shoulders...however, do _you_ trust _me_ to decide
whose head is good?

These are my last questions:
Do you believe:
1- CW and 85% on exams will prevent or seriously limit the number of
knuckleheads who sneek through?
2- That I am lying when I tell of some no-code techs that I personally know
are the most serious, level headed and law abiding hams I know?
3- That I am lying when I tell you that I also know some very good hams who
came up through CB and are just as law abiding when on the ham bands as
anyone, just as serious about being good citizens, do emergency prep work
and help others?

Reasoning a service is good because it has lots of members,

[ is incorrent reasoning] is what the implied completion of that sentence
is.

I agree. There have been and are some pretty wacko organizations.
....but...

CB should be great then, but it's like a kindergarten.
Is a gross generalization. How often do you listen? How many "CB'ers"
have you recently talked to?

I listen once in a while just to see what's going on and be able to speak
with first hand knowledge, and do hear some garbage, but I also hear of how
it has helped in aread and ther ewere no hams around to help. Also, some
areas have been worse than others,


1- I believe you have a limited view of CB [and no, I haven't been a "CB'er"
but I have carried a radio on a few, I think two long trips where I would
have trouble getting into repeaters for long periods.]. I have been helped
by "CBers".
2- what percentage of CB users are jerks?
3- What percentage of hams are jerks? then...
4- What percentage of jerks makes the service bad?

My suggestions
CW optional as it is now for *ALL* modes, but remove from the tests...except
possibly for Extra - my jury's still out on this.
85-87% on tests, but
Much more on propagation, antenna systems and emergency station operations
and emergency communications and laws.


Then some others in the "if I were Amateur Radio Service God" department...
Currency requiremets like pilots that include familiarity recent
developments.
Proof of license, and that you can understand, explain and operate at least
90% of the functions on a radio in order to buy.
If I wanted to be an old timer, I'd also require construction of
something...knowledge of the history of ham Radio.
Then being more modern, something like proficiency in software, digital
modes and satellite ops.
Gee, I should spend more time on these.... not. More important fish to
fry.

Sorry, guys, I just couldn't resist a little chain jerking here.
73, Steve, K9DCI

At lease I got sc to answer a few questions ... sort of.

Back in the day when I got my Advanced, my Tech class Elmer pointed out that
if you don't know the code, how do you know what repeater you're on?

Most automated identifications are still Morse code and it is still legal.

It is sad that Morse code is so under utilized. It is a testimony to the
lack of interest in the greatest tool for weak signal work. If you have no
interest in learning Morse code, than you affirm that your communications
capabilities should be limited to voice capabilities. Who in emergency
communications believes that their capabilities should be limited by a lack
of expertise? Perhaps they believe that emergency commumications should be
restricted to FRS? Rediculous!

Still, we see even avid DXers throw in the towel on a weak one when Morse
code would have cut through the pile-up in a heart beat. A friend in High
School made DXCC in 2 years on CW only, with a 100 watt radio and dipoles!

The fact remains that those who hate the code are clueless to its
effectiveness. Their only defense is ignorance. Sad!

AC6TK


wrote in message
oups.com...

N9OGL wrote:
Why??? Morse Code does not make you a better radio operator, On air
experiance does. This idea that morse code makes you a better operatror
is nothing more then a myth.

Todd N9OGL
General Class Operator

You only say that because you had to struggle to get the 5 wpm code
required now, Toad.

JB wrote:
Back in the day when I got my Advanced, my Tech class Elmer pointed out that
if you don't know the code, how do you know what repeater you're on?
you know byt eh freq and pl tone you have set

It is sad that Morse code is so under utilized. It is a testimony to the
lack of interest in the greatest tool for weak signal work. If you have no
interest in learning Morse code, than you affirm that your communications
capabilities should be limited to voice capabilities. Who in emergency
communications believes that their capabilities should be limited by a lack
of expertise? Perhaps they believe that emergency commumications should be
restricted to FRS? Rediculous!

Still, we see even avid DXers throw in the towel on a weak one when Morse
code would have cut through the pile-up in a heart beat. A friend in High
School made DXCC in 2 years on CW only, with a 100 watt radio and dipoles!

The fact remains that those who hate the code are clueless to its
effectiveness. Their only defense is ignorance. Sad!

AC6TK
butyou need to face facts it aint happening