"JB" wrote in message
...
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

You made good points until your last paragraph. I do not have the time nor
desire to learn the code. If I were to learn it long enough to pass the test
and never use it from day to day, then it will soon be forgotten. I think
that if a person wants to advance, code should be part of the process and
tested on a regular basis, but also have restrictions for those that do not
or cannot use code or the hobby will fade away. To do away with the code
would be wrong as it has it's uses, but to expect everyone to learn it keeps
fresh blood from entering into a noble but dying hobby.

"JB" wrote in :

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


Amen brother.

"DrDeath" wrote in
:

"JB" wrote in message
...
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

You made good points until your last paragraph. I do not have the time
nor desire to learn the code. If I were to learn it long enough to pass
the test and never use it from day to day, then it will soon be
forgotten. I think that if a person wants to advance, code should be
part of the process and tested on a regular basis, but also have
restrictions for those that do not or cannot use code or the hobby will
fade away. To do away with the code would be wrong as it has it's uses,
but to expect everyone to learn it keeps fresh blood from entering into
a noble but dying hobby.



No. If they're too lazy to learn CW they can stick with CB, FRS, Cell
Phones, and two tin cans with a piece of string in between.

SC

"Steve N." wrote in
:


"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.


Maybe you have a few CB buddies you'd like to see get licensed, and
dumbing things down will help, I don't know. Outcome based licensing. No
one wants to be a ham if they have to work a little harder for the license
and so no one wants to support having a good test to get one.

sc

"Slow Code" wrote in message
.net...
"DrDeath" wrote in
:

"JB" wrote in message
...
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

You made good points until your last paragraph. I do not have the time
nor desire to learn the code. If I were to learn it long enough to pass
the test and never use it from day to day, then it will soon be
forgotten. I think that if a person wants to advance, code should be
part of the process and tested on a regular basis, but also have
restrictions for those that do not or cannot use code or the hobby will
fade away. To do away with the code would be wrong as it has it's uses,
but to expect everyone to learn it keeps fresh blood from entering into
a noble but dying hobby.



No. If they're too lazy to learn CW they can stick with CB, FRS, Cell
Phones, and two tin cans with a piece of string in between.

SC

Then sit back and watch your hobby die off. If you don't have an entry
level, where are the new hams going to come from?

"Slow Code" wrote in message
.net...
(snipped)
Maybe you have a few CB buddies you'd like to see get licensed, and
dumbing things down will help, I don't know. Outcome based licensing. No
one wants to be a ham if they have to work a little harder for the license
and so no one wants to support having a good test to get one.

sc

Another self proclaimed superior ham perpetuating the myth that CBers are
too dumb to pass the test. Keep that rift between hams and CBers and your
hobby will die an agonizing death. You have yourself to blame.

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


"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.


Maybe you have a few CB buddies you'd like to see get licensed, and
dumbing things down will help, I don't know.

You sure don't! Also a very bad assumption and groundless..Also wrong,
not to mention irrelavant to my words and position. I said that I already
know *HAMS* who came from the CB side (only because they either told me
directly, or I overheard then discuss it on the air) ---whom I met as Hams.
They are top notch hams in every way.
I don't do CB, but have an old Morotola 40 CH AM unit because I want to
have as much communications capability to handle any eventuality in an
emergency. It would have been helpful in a serious malicious repeater
interference situation a number of years ago when I didn't have even 27 MHz
receive capability and it heloed solve and catch the perps.


Outcome based licensing.

You'll have to explain the meaning of this.

No
one wants to be a ham if they have to work a little harder for the license

False generalization " On one..." and "harder" than what?

This was dis proved by one of the posters responding to you who said
somethin like he wa looking forward to learning CW etyc... Unbeknownst to
you, there are people who do value things for their own sake and will enjoy
the feeling of self accomplishment..


and so no one wants to support having a good test to get one.

Well here *IS* one. I support a much harder test in the areas I previously
outlined. I *DO* agree that the CW hurdle can be one which makes us value
the license to a significant degree...HOWEVER, I believe it is not the ONLY
thing which can have this effect, as you appear to believe. I do do CW,
enjoy those contacts, marvel at the ability to QSO with any country /
language with it and feel ( alittle special being) part of an esoteric group
that knows it. However, it doesn't make me a better person simply because I
know it. My value derives from a deeper value.
Knowing that Hams were a VERY significant factor in communications for 9/11,
the SE Asia tsunami and Katrina makes me feel good and I bet there were many
code-less hams involved.

I'm a "techie" and would love to require everyone to build something and
explain something regarding electronics in much greater depth than on the
current tests. I also KNOW that this will not guatantee an all around
"good" ham. I also enjoy the diversity of those I meet on the air that
aren't Electrical Engineers or Technicians.

I think that if your position was valid there would haave been no jerk hams
in the past, when CW was on all tests.

Why was Knowledge of Morse there in the first place? Understanding this in
full context is, I believe, critical to cussions on this issue.

If you can't conceed that any of my points have any validity, than so be it.
It is your right. But I find you very closed minded and unable to
intelligently discuss a complex issue in a mature way. It is your right and
I'll also deffend your right to have your opinions. If for no other reason,
it allows me (and hopefully others) to more firmly and intelligently form
and understand mine.

73, Steve, K9DCI Always willing to show my true identity. and hopefuly
express thoughtful and well reasoned viewes along with correct and
understandable technicial explanations for others.