WHEN WILL THE CODE BE DROPPED?

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Dec. 08 2006,09:50)]And today in college we see the result of allowing kids to use the calculator as a crutch through high school.

More and more kids are failing freshman math courses and are simply not prepared for college math, because they were taught to depend on the calculator.
Have you got any data to back up this claim, or is it just an opinion? You post so much here that is just wrong that I highly suspect this as well.

Can you post a link to show that calculators are causing a problem with college students not passing courses?

Inqiring minds want to know.

Joe

[W0LC]

I suppose I never understand how individuals rationalize or compare knowing basic CW skills with another example similar to one posted above:

"Basic math is something you will use throughout your life. Everyone needs to know how to add, subtract, etc. And this is still taught.

What is not taught is sliderule, although it still is useful, and could produce a reasonable answer. Calculators have replaced sliderules in society."

CW hasn't been replaced by anything. In fact, CW was the cause of digital modes and to this day still demonstrates it is very effective in making higher QSO rates (ask any real contester or DXer); makes a contact much easier then voice (doesn't have the language issue, phonetics, voice frequency response limitations, etc.); uses far less bandwidth; not prone to loss of communication (Qso) during adverse conditions as compared to voice.

In fact, for the record, voice is far less effecient then CW or any digital mode as far as passing information.

The arguments are very weak indeed. It all boils down to "I don't want to" and not rational thought. CW is and will probably always be a very viable and useful mode as compared to outdated wide voice (SSB) signals. But if your mindset is "I dont' want to" then nothing will convince you of the facts.

It is all a matter of will and motivation.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (W0LC @ Dec. 08 2006,14:50)]I suppose I never understand how individuals rationalize or compare knowing basic CW skills with another example similar to one posted above:

"Basic math is something you will use throughout your life. Everyone needs to know how to add, subtract, etc. And this is still taught.

What is not taught is sliderule, although it still is useful, and could produce a reasonable answer. Calculators have replaced sliderules in society."

CW hasn't been replaced by anything. #In fact, CW was the cause of digital modes and to this day still demonstrates it is very effective in making higher QSO rates (ask any real contester or DXer); makes a contact much easier then voice (doesn't have the language issue, phonetics, voice frequency response limitations, etc.); uses far less bandwidth; not prone to loss of communication (Qso) during adverse conditions as compared to voice.

In fact, for the record, voice is far less effecient then CW or any digital mode as far as passing information.

The arguments are very weak indeed. #It all boils down to "I don't want to" and not rational thought. #CW is and will probably always be a very viable and useful mode as compared to outdated wide voice (SSB) signals. #But if your mindset is "I dont' want to" then nothing will convince you of the facts.

It is all a matter of will and motivation.
My comment was that it had been replaced "in society". If you think code hasn't been replaced "in society", give another example where code is used for communications purposes, other than the few people who are disabled and use it.

Most people don't kniow what a sliderule is, or what code is. They are both obsolete. The fact that hams still use it doesn't make it any less obsolete, just quaint.

A model T draws attention, so does a horse and buggy, or someone operating code. Remember Jay Leno? He even had the guys dress up in 1890's style telegraphers uniforms for his "quaint" contest.

It doesn't matter how good or efficient something is. It can still be obsolete. It can still be used by those who cherish using an antique mode, just as members of the SCA enjoy dressing up in medivial garb. But regardless of these things, how good, bad or obsolete something is, it is no reason to test people for it.

You claim that CW hasn't been replaced by anything. Planes and trains no longer use code. Ships and Western Union no longer use code. The Navy and military no longer use code. In fact, the only people that still use code are a group of hobbiests.

We call them hams.

Joe

[VE7NOT]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 08 2006,14:04)]In fact, the only people that still use code are a group of hobbiests.

We call them hams.
The Number stations, ndb beacons, British Columbia Ferries, identifiers on some commercial and government repeaters, submarine communication at times... etc etc etc

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (VE7NOT @ Dec. 08 2006,15:08)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 08 2006,14:04)]In fact, the only people that still use code are a group of hobbiests.

We call them hams.
The Number stations, ndb beacons, British Columbia Ferries, identifiers on some commercial and government repeaters, submarine communication at times... etc etc etc
Tell me about the BC ferries. An ID on a repeater isn't for communication, it's for ID. It's not really being "used" by anyone.

Can you specify anyone that still uses code for communication? What do the ferries do with it?

Joe

[VE7NOT]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 08 2006,14:17)]Quote[/b] (VE7NOT @ Dec. 08 2006,15:08)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 08 2006,14:04)]In fact, the only people that still use code are a group of hobbiests.

We call them hams.
The Number stations, ndb beacons, British Columbia Ferries, identifiers on some commercial and government repeaters, submarine communication at times... etc etc etc
Tell me about the BC ferries. An ID on a repeater isn't for communication, it's for ID. It's not really being "used" by anyone.

Can you specify anyone that still uses code for communication? What do the ferries do with it?

Joe
The ferries send quick transmissions via code at about 15wpm at times. It is done via computer- computer over their comn. frequency. Being in morse it can of course be done without computers. 95% of their communication is fm simplex on 155.910. However a small 5% is sent via morse code.

Sim

[w5alt]

Quote[/b] (VE7NOT @ Dec. 08 2006,18:08)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 08 2006,14:04)]In fact, the only people that still use code are a group of hobbiests.

We call them hams.
The Number stations, ndb beacons, British Columbia Ferries, identifiers on some commercial and government repeaters, submarine communication at times... etc etc etc
PEMEX maritime in the Gulf of Mexico ...

[K7JEM]

What freq is the CW using? Is it on the same channel, or HF?

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (w5alt @ Dec. 08 2006,15:31)]Quote[/b] (VE7NOT @ Dec. 08 2006,18:08)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 08 2006,14:04)]In fact, the only people that still use code are a group of hobbiests.

We call them hams.
The Number stations, ndb beacons, British Columbia Ferries, identifiers on some commercial and government repeaters, submarine communication at times... etc etc etc
PEMEX maritime in the Gulf of Mexico ...
So much code going on, it boggles the imagination.

[VE7NOT]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 08 2006,14:32)]What freq is the CW using? Is it on the same channel, or HF?
Same frequency.

[n0ov]

Personally, I don't think learning code is the issue.

It's the idea that you may have to spell something out, and that you may make a mistake that scares folks away from learning CW.

OK, back to your regularly sponsored code post http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[K0HWY]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 08 2006,17:04)]My comment was that it had been replaced "in society". If you think code hasn't been replaced "in society", give another example where code is used for communications purposes, other than the few people who are disabled and use it.
There are many things that are obsolete in ham radio versus society. In society today, the F word is as much a part of the English language as the word "the." Why then, is it not acceptable to use the word on the ham bands? Could it be that there's a difference between ham radio and society?

I hope the day never comes when we try to tie the two together, although it seems that eventually, we'll be there. "You don't need a license to get on the internet; why should you need one to be a ham?"

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 08 2006,13:29)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 08 2006,11:38)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 08 2006,09:53)]It's fascinating how much of the pro-code argument comes down to a need to feel a sense of accomplishment over something trivial.
Dunno Marty, it's apparantly not trivial enough for the no code whiners to do it.
Well, whining ain't gonna help either side, and there's as much whining coming from one as the other.

It'd be a lot better for the hobby if those who've already passed the test concentrated on getting their satisfaction out of what they're doing with their license and not worry about how hard it is or isn't for the next batch.

And the no-coders should shut up and either wait or pass the test, depending on how much they want HF access versus how much they don't want to pass the 5wpm.

The other side of my story is that I didn't bother to pick up my license until a few years ago because I wasn't interested in CW and I had plenty else to do with with my time. But I sure never whined about it.
We're not to far apart on that post.

[KC0NBW]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 08 2006,15:04)].

It is all a matter of will and motivation.
My comment was that it had been replaced "in society". If you think code hasn't been replaced "in society", give another example where code is used for communications purposes, other than the few people who are disabled and use it.[/QUOTE]
i thought it was the disabled people that couldn't learn morse code! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[W5HTW]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 08 2006,15:32)]What freq is the CW using? Is it on the same channel, or HF?
PEMEX has a nightly maritime net on 3700 khz. CW about 25 wpm, from fixed station to/from ships. Weather reports are machine sent, but ships report in with manual CW. It's all in Spanish, of course, but fairly good code practice.

Other maritime CW can be found in the 5 mhz range and the 10 mhz range. I would imagine most of this is third world nations, (it includes Korea, Panama, Honduras, and others I have not yet identified.) There isn't a lot of this, though, I readily admit. Last I heard was a couple of weeks ago on 5253 khz, hand sent maritime. I heard both sides of that contact, again in Spanish.

It's pretty hard to hear the PEMEX operation here, now that winter has set in and skip is out. But they are on from about 0230Z to around 0330Z, directly in our present Novice band. I haven't been able to hear them in about a month, though.

Ed

[k7nys]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 08 2006,07:15)]Quote[/b] (k7nys @ Dec. 08 2006,00:11)]Go on...keep the code....let's bring back the horse and buggy as well as the telegraph!.
Call: K7NYS Class: Technician

Yeah I am a Tech...what's your point? I could care less if they keep the code or drop it. I am learning CW little by little. When I desire to spend thousands of dollars to exchange name,QTH,and RST with someone on the other side of the world I will upgrade but until then I can shoot DX across the street with my 100Mw ht with a wet string for an antenna!. 73 all

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[k7nys]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 08 2006,15:34)]Quote[/b] (w5alt @ Dec. 08 2006,15:31)]Quote[/b] (VE7NOT @ Dec. 08 2006,18:08)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 08 2006,14:04)]In fact, the only people that still use code are a group of hobbiests.

We call them hams.
The Number stations, ndb beacons, British Columbia Ferries, identifiers on some commercial and government repeaters, submarine communication at times... etc etc etc
PEMEX maritime in the Gulf of Mexico ...
So much code going on, it boggles the imagination.
ndb BEACON??? I thought a NDB was a Non Directional Beacon and not a Non Directional Beacon Beacon...

I'm surpised the Extra Class hams didn't notice the goof...I guess that's one point for the NCT! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

--... ...--

-.- --... -. -.-- ...

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (k7nys @ Dec. 08 2006,19:57)]I'm surpised the Extra Class hams didn't notice the goof...I guess that's one point for the NCT! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Your award..

[k7nys]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 08 2006,20:33)]Quote[/b] (k7nys @ Dec. 08 2006,19:57)]I'm surpised the Extra Class hams didn't notice the goof...I guess that's one point for the NCT! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Your award..
Too funny, I nearly streaked my bloomers....I should frame that and hang it in our short bus!

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 08 2006,15:04)]You claim that CW hasn't been replaced by anything. Planes and trains no longer use code. Ships and Western Union no longer use code. The Navy and military no longer use code. In fact, the only people that still use code are a group of hobbiests.
Unless you can show telegraphy is not relevent to Amateur Radio, you lose this one too. We're talking about AR rules... not ship rules, or Western Union rules or Navy rules. Since CW is the second most popular mode, good luck on that.

[K0HWY]

Eh UZR ... don't get too worked up about all of this. Let me remind you to go back and read the original post that started this thread. That person's sole objective was to create what you see now. Forget about it and don't take any of this crap to heart.

[w4rlr]

Quote[/b] (k7nys @ Dec. 08 2006,20:49)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 08 2006,07:15)]Quote[/b] (k7nys @ Dec. 08 2006,00:11)]Go on...keep the code....let's bring back the horse and buggy as well as the telegraph!.
Call: K7NYS Class: Technician

Yeah I am a Tech...what's your point? I could care less if they keep the code or drop it. I am learning CW little by little. When I desire to spend thousands of dollars to exchange name,QTH,and RST with someone on the other side of the world I will upgrade but until then I can shoot DX across the street with my 100Mw ht with a wet string for an antenna!. 73 all #

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
I wouldn't get upset about other hams trying to prove a point solely based upon your license class. Being a Technician class operator does NOT mean you do not know code, does NOT mean you are anti-code, and #bringing up the fact that you (and I for that matter) are in the entry level amateur class only gives them the false sense of superiority they crave.

Remember that "Technician Plus" does not show up in the ULS database.

[wb4old]

Quote[/b] (kb0mmb @ Nov. 18 2006,21:00)]Im ready to take the test for General class and DO NOT have the time or desire to study the code..which I will NEVER use in 5 lifetimes...I enjoy talking on 2-70 cm and have NO desire to sit there and hit a little key all day!
So..when will it happen?
[/QUOTE] Just send in $22.50 to the FCC and you'll get your license in a few weeks .

For faster service $39.95 for General and $49.95 for Extra, QST, and a CBRRL patch send to: CBRRL newington, CT

[wb4old]

Remember that "Technician Plus" does not show up in the ULS database.

It shows on QRZ

[W0UZR]

Quote[/b] (K0HWY @ Dec. 08 2006,23:21)]Eh UZR ... #don't get too worked up about all of this. Let me remind you to go back and read the original post that started this thread. That person's sole objective was to create what you see now. Forget about it and don't take any of this crap to heart.
I can't now, someone deleted all my recent posts along with a couple of other peoples. I don't think I was too steamed or anything, I was just trying to make a point like everyone else. But maybe not.....

[k7nys]

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Dec. 08 2006,22:44)]Quote[/b] (k7nys @ Dec. 08 2006,20:49)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 08 2006,07:15)]Quote[/b] (k7nys @ Dec. 08 2006,00:11)]Go on...keep the code....let's bring back the horse and buggy as well as the telegraph!.
Call: K7NYS Class: Technician

Yeah I am a Tech...what's your point? I could care less if they keep the code or drop it. I am learning CW little by little. When I desire to spend thousands of dollars to exchange name,QTH,and RST with someone on the other side of the world I will upgrade but until then I can shoot DX across the street with my 100Mw ht with a wet string for an antenna!. 73 all

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
I wouldn't get upset about other hams trying to prove a point solely based upon your license class. Being a Technician class operator does NOT mean you do not know code, does NOT mean you are anti-code, and bringing up the fact that you (and I for that matter) are in the entry level amateur class only gives them the false sense of superiority they crave.

Remember that "Technician Plus" does not show up in the ULS database.
I'm not upset...just having fun with the Bickersons....I don't give a flying squirrel©2006 73

[KG4LHQ]

Why is what I put earlier deleted?

Thats about 1/2 Rude

[W0UZR]

Evidently it was a little too strong. Evidently mine was too. About 4/5 of mine are gone. I shouldn't have posted anyway and just ignored those people.

[w6dce]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Dec. 08 2006,08:57)]Quote[/b] (w6dce @ Dec. 07 2006,15:21)]Quote[/b] (K8HUR @ Dec. 07 2006,08:56)]Quote[/b] (kd4mxe @ Dec. 07 2006,06:51)]well I tell you some of these people #need to cheer up ,some #sound like #the world is comming to a end ,cheer up folks there could #not Be any test at all Bill kd4mxe http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
The world as we used to know it really is coming to an end. Just because society (especially in America) is becoming so decadent and lazy doesn't mean Amateur Radio has to go to hell in a handbasket along with it. It's not just an issue of losing exclusive CW space but the fact that more room is being made for "appliance operators" My main gripe is the people you hear on 2 meters for example, that couldn't sit down and pass the technical element of the no code Tech license. Makes one wonder about the legitimacy of the VE system. Like I stated originally. "Is this a case of you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."
This isn't about being lazy. #It is about progress and technology.

It's simple.. #in the 1800's people used to have to travel by horse. # Today tho, we use automobiles, trains, planes, skateboards and a variety of other modes of transportation. #Now the horse is still around, and plenty of people still ride them. #But it isn't required that one know how to ride a horse in order to pilot a plane or a car.

In the early 1900's morse code was a widely used mode of communication, but because of technology advances, now there are many more efficient modes of operation. #Using the same logic, there is no reason to require someone to know how to operate morse code even tho there are still plenty of people using it. #The fact is, there are so many different and more efficient modes of operation available, that morse code, like the horse is simply obsolete.
Likewise, long ago you had to use a slide rule, trig and log tables and a pencil and paper and do math problems by hand.

Now you have calculators and computers running MATLAB and other software to do the math for you.

Pen and paper to do math are now obsolete.

Therefore they should stop teaching math problems by hand in school because it's obsolete.

Give all the kids a calculator from early on and let them learn to use that instead of trying to learn an obsolete skill.

Do you agree?
Of course I do, In fact most classes, teachers allow students to use calculators in class.

[K0HWY]

With this kind of mentality, Morse code and basic mathematical skills aren't the only things that will be obsolete within the next 10 years. You can add thinking Americans to the list.

[W5HTW]

Gobs of pages, can all be summarized:

I don't wanna. Change the rules to suit ME.

Ed

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 08 2006,20:47)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 08 2006,15:04)]You claim that CW hasn't been replaced by anything. Planes and trains no longer use code. Ships and Western Union no longer use code. The Navy and military no longer use code. In fact, the only people that still use code are a group of hobbiests.
Unless you can show telegraphy is not relevent to Amateur Radio, you lose this one too. We're talking about AR rules... not ship rules, or Western Union rules or Navy rules. Since CW is the second most popular mode, good luck on that.
No, the original point was about sliderules being replaced. They have, except for a few die hard individuals, or groups of individuals that still use them and think they are great.

In a sliderule aficianado group, they haven't been replaced. In society at large, they have been. You can't find a sliderule in use today by 99.9% of the population that used to use them in school or engineering. In 1965, they were everywhere in high schools, colleges, and higher level courses. They were also widely used in business and engineering applications.

Morse code was also widely used in maritime, aeronautical, and railroad communications. It was also used in sending telegrams and news items. Almost every town, large or small, had a telegraph office, and someone that used code.

All of that is now gone. It matters not if it is used in ham radio, the rest of the world doesn't use it or need it. That is where new hams come from. When you tell them they have to learn an obsolete communications form, they just look at you funny. "Do I have to use this obsolete form of communications?", "No you just have to learn it." "Why?" "Look, don't be a slacker, just learn the code. There doesn't have to be a reason, it's just required. It's obvious to me that you aren't going to be much of a ham, if you keep asking these questions. Just do it, you'll be glad you did".

As far as relevancy to ham radio, a person can go his whole ham life and never have to or want to use the code. Many people do this, it is definitely not relevant to them. Even if the code has some relevancy, shouldn't the test reflect that? Shouldn't the test have as many questions and weight as say FM or SSB, which are arguably more popular?

Joe

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (K0HWY @ Dec. 09 2006,07:18)]With this kind of mentality, Morse code and basic mathematical skills aren't the only things that will be obsolete within the next 10 years. You can add thinking Americans to the list.
A thinking American would not be pushing a test about an obsolete mode of communication.

They would be pushing the mode, how much fun it is, etc. Just like someone who drives a model T for fun doesn't push everyone to get one, or demand that they start producing them again. He finds people that are truly interested, and encourages them to join in.

Joe

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Dec. 09 2006,07:56)]Gobs of pages, can all be summarized:

I don't wanna. Change the rules to suit ME.

Ed
And thats what will happen. Then all you pro-code whiners can petition the FCC to change it back, or up the requirement to 13 and 20 wpm. Yeah, thats the ticket.

I'm sure the FCC and ham community will back you up.

Joe

[W5HTW]

Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Dec. 09 2006,07:56)]Gobs of pages, can all be summarized:

I don't wanna. Change the rules to suit ME.

Ed
to reiterate

[ai4ep]

...so now is this thread finished ?

.....................problably not.

[W0UZR]

Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Dec. 09 2006,08:56)]Gobs of pages, can all be summarized:

I don't wanna. #Change the rules to suit ME.

Ed
EXACTLY !!!!

Don't forget,,,

"IT'S TOO HARD"

"I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO"

"REMOVE THE
BARRIER,
IT'S KEEPING ME OUT"

[W0UZR]

PS, Have you seen this much whining in your whole life?

[K7FE]

Quote[/b] (w0uzr @ Dec. 09 2006,08:47)]PS, Have you seen this much whining in your whole life?
Yes, in the last code, no code thread.

Terry, K7FE

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Dec. 09 2006,06:56)]Gobs of pages, can all be summarized:

I don't wanna. Change the rules to suit ME.

Ed
Countered by:

It sucked for me, so it has to suck for you.

[W0UZR]

~~~~~~~~~~~~The End~~~~~~~~~~




# # # # # # # # # # # # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/Skin/Default/images/t_locked.gif

[n0ov]

Time to call 1-800-WAA AAAA

[ab8ma]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 09 2006,17:21)]Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Dec. 09 2006,06:56)]Gobs of pages, can all be summarized:

I don't wanna. #Change the rules to suit ME.

Ed
Countered by:

It sucked for me, so it has to suck for you.
Roger. But it is worth it. I got KH8Q and I have no clue what I am doing. I cannot send very well ( Practice) and I cannot hear very fast ( 4 tries).

[W0UZR]

Quote[/b] (ab8ma @ Dec. 09 2006,13:55)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 09 2006,17:21)]Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Dec. 09 2006,06:56)]Gobs of pages, can all be summarized:

I don't wanna. #Change the rules to suit ME.

Ed
Countered by:

It sucked for me, so it has to suck for you.
Roger. But it is worth it. I got KH8Q #and I have no clue what I am doing. I cannot send very well ( Practice) and I cannot hear very fast ( 4 tries).
HMMM,,,

It looks like your ears are big enough to hear anything

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/avatars/uploaded_scan0003.jpg

[N4AUD]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 09 2006,11:10)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 08 2006,20:47)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 08 2006,15:04)]You claim that CW hasn't been replaced by anything. Planes and trains no longer use code. Ships and Western Union no longer use code. The Navy and military no longer use code. In fact, the only people that still use code are a group of hobbiests.
Unless you can show telegraphy is not relevent to Amateur Radio, you lose this one too. We're talking about AR rules... not ship rules, or Western Union rules or Navy rules. Since CW is the second most popular mode, good luck on that.
No, the original point was about sliderules being replaced. They have, except for a few die hard individuals, or groups of individuals that still use them and think they are great.

In a sliderule aficianado group, they haven't been replaced. In society at large, they have been. You can't find a sliderule in use today by 99.9% of the population that used to use them in school or engineering. In 1965, they were everywhere in high schools, colleges, and higher level courses. They were also widely used in business and engineering applications.

Morse code was also widely used in maritime, aeronautical, and railroad communications. It was also used in sending telegrams and news items. Almost every town, large or small, had a telegraph office, and someone that used code.

All of that is now gone. It matters not if it is used in ham radio, the rest of the world doesn't use it or need it. That is where new hams come from. When you tell them they have to learn an obsolete communications form, they just look at you funny. "Do I have to use this obsolete form of communications?", "No you just have to learn it." "Why?" "Look, don't be a slacker, just learn the code. There doesn't have to be a reason, it's just required. It's obvious to me that you aren't going to be much of a ham, if you keep asking these questions. Just do it, you'll be glad you did".

As far as relevancy to ham radio, a person can go his whole ham life and never have to or want to use the code. Many people do this, it is definitely not relevant to them. Even if the code has some relevancy, shouldn't the test reflect that? Shouldn't the test have as many questions and weight as say FM or SSB, which are arguably more popular?

Joe
When I went through USAF basic training, I had to learn to march and obey all the commands that are used to move troops about and get them where you want them. It is an anachronism and has been fairly useless to go through all those movements since the end of the Civil War. Soldiers don't march into battle in formations anymore, and in the Air Force you're probably not EVER going to go into battle (there's no AC and the food stinks) but we had to do it. Why did I have to do something that I would never use? That was obsolete a hundred years ago? That had no relevance to my job? Why, why why?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

I never got to whine about it and the guys with the Smokey Bear hats wouldn't have listened anyway.

If you REALLY want to be a ham, the code won't be an obstruction. It will be another challenge, like homebrewing and trying different modes. If you just want to be a plug-n-play operator so you can talk on a radio, there's FRS, MURS and CB.

[KD5NCO]

Audie N4AUD

Not very knowledgeable about why you had to learn how to march (drill and ceremony) and why it is just as relevant today as it was 59 years ago on Sept. 18, 1947 when the Air Force was formed out of the Army Air Corps

Army 231 years ago...14 June 1775
Navy 231 years ago...13 October 1775

Drill and Ceremony, Marching in formation is not an anachronism at all, but rather a very well developed method of instilling discipline, teaching attention to detail, creating teamwork, exercising command and control, and generating esprit de corps..some how you missed the point and obviously never gained the esprit...

Pity too because you missed this point also....commands help develop confidence, self-reliance, assertiveness, and enthusiasm by making the individual recall, give, and execute the proper commands.

I guess you never got deployed to a combat area either...fair amount of "formations" and moving Soldiers, Airmen, and Sailors from here to there in "formation" is necessary, expedient, safer, and instills unit coheasion...

Army Senior Non-com, retired, #Your Equating Marching in the Air Force as not relevant but some how Learning Morse code is.... does not make much sense...using your argument...Morse code is even less relevant...100 (231) years later!

References: AFMAN 36-2203

This manual includes most Air Force needs in drill and ceremonies, but it does not cover every situation that may arise. For unusual situations, using good judgment and taking into account the purpose of the movement or procedure can often provide the solution. (See AFR 900-6.)

1.1.2. Units or organizations required to drill under arms will use the procedures in US Army Field Manual 22-5, SECNAV 5060.22, or USAF Academy Cadet Wing Manual 50-5. The types of weapon used will determine the appropriate manual.

1.2.1. For the purpose of drill, Air Force organizations are divided into elements, flights, squadrons, groups, and wings. (The wing does not drill by direct command.)

1.2.2. Drill consists of certain movements by which the flight or squadron is moved in an orderly manner from one formation to another or from one place to another.

[W5HTW]

"Yeah, but I don't wanna do that. I wanna do it by my rules. Can't you rewrite the rules to suit me? "

"I donwanna"

"I donwanna"

Still very simple. "I don't care about anything else. I just want it my way."

"I donwanna do it the way it is. I want it changed so I can do it. Cause I can't do it the way hundreds of thousands of others did. Come on now, change it for ME!"


Ed

[KI4ITV]

I still like Heath's idea of filing for protection as a Historical hobby and service.
Change only happens to the unprotected.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[k7nys]

No Nativity Scene in Washington, DC this year!

The Supreme Court has ruled that there cannot be a Nativity
Scene in Washington, DC this Christmas season.

This isn't for any religious reason, they simply have not been
able to find three wise men and a virgin in the Nation's capitol.

There was no problem, however, finding enough asses to fill
the stable.

...And now you know the rest of the story.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 09 2006,08:10)]As far as relevancy to ham radio, a person can go his whole ham life and never have to or want to use the code. Many people do this, it is definitely not relevant to them. Even if the code has some relevancy, shouldn't the test reflect that? Shouldn't the test have as many questions and weight as say FM or SSB, which are arguably more popular?
You're obfuscating again. Yes a person can go their entire time on AR and never use CW, but that is not applicable to CW's relevence in AR. Why? Because someone could go their entire time in AR using QRP so why should the test have RF Safety Questions? They might only use 2m FM so why do they need to know the bandplan for HF? They may never build or repair a radio so why do they need to know OHM's law?

The test is a demonstration of minimum skill level, not a menu where you choose your preference. Take a second and gather your thoughts OM, you've been talking foolishness lately.

[kd4mxe]

(foolishness) #yes #when I look at some of these post #on page 22 #I see a #lot #of foolishness, # cry #cry #, folks if you like crying so much drop a 10 pound hammer on your toe at least you will have a good Reason to cry then ,Bill kd4mxe http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[KD5NCO]

Well Charlie...I might suggest that you "Take a second and gather your thoughts OM, you've been talking foolishness lately" also.

Your thoughts of the test as a "demonstration of minimum skill level" (for Receiving Morse Code by ear) could well apply equally to many of the other modes.

In fact it would make more sense to have a hands on skills test for the Technicians who want to experiment with Ghz freqs or do high power EME work...

Nope..the FCC did not see ...nor did any test question committee see... the need to expand the Technician test beyond the current 35 questions. Yet we are trusted with high power , home brew, and extreme distance propagation beyond what HF offers. Funny, for all this freedom and elbow room, we did not have to prove an antiquated skill to enjoy these generous and broad spectrum privileges (pun intended)

When are you going to accept that the Element 1 Test is going to be gone and move on with your life?

Every single new ARS member starting the day after the new R&O takes effect can not be lumped into your narrow view of what is, or is not, a "real" Ham.

And by now you should be painfully aware that all of us so called gimme gimme, lazy, dumbed down Technicians do not give a tinkers damn what you think.

You have spent the last 5 years railing on this subject! #To what end? #The Morse Code test element is going away. Not much you have ever said changed many if any minds on that fact. You stubbornly refused to see the relevance side of this issue... I think K7JEM and a BUNCH of other long time code tested Amateurs who see the logic of eliminating Element 1 are much more mature and pragmatic then you seem to be...

Hey just my humble no code Technician opinion OM.

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif well. I guess he told all of us.

Guess I will just sit under the porch and bark. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[kd4mxe]

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Dec. 09 2006,19:41)]http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif #well. #I guess he told all of us.
ai4ep-Guess I will just sit under the porch and bark. :p----------------------------------------------------------------------( ah you dont mean that , you will not Be under that porch 30 min Before you will Be out doing it again http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif ---you have done got use to doing it now ,and it will Be hard to stop you ,73 Bill kd4mxe http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 09 2006,17:59)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 09 2006,08:10)]As far as relevancy to ham radio, a person can go his whole ham life and never have to or want to use the code. Many people do this, it is definitely not relevant to them. Even if the code has some relevancy, shouldn't the test reflect that? Shouldn't the test have as many questions and weight as say FM or SSB, which are arguably more popular?
You're obfuscating again. Yes a person can go their entire time on AR and never use CW, but that is not applicable to CW's relevence in AR. Why? Because someone could go their entire time in AR using QRP so why should the test have RF Safety Questions? They might only use 2m FM so why do they need to know the bandplan for HF? They may never build or repair a radio so why do they need to know OHM's law?

The test is a demonstration of minimum skill level, not a menu where you choose your preference. Take a second and gather your thoughts OM, you've been talking foolishness lately.
If its a test of minimum skill level, as you suggest, and as it should be, it should be comparable with the questions used for the other modes.


All of the questions on the test are things you may or may not ever need, just like any other test you take for any other class. Questions on other modes are two or three per test. You can miss all of them and still pass the overall test. This is non-debatable, as it is true and easily checked out.

The code test is not that way. Fail it, and you cannot get a general license, no matter how well you did on the written. If the code had the same weight as other modes in the test, there would be no reason for a change, a person would be able to pass while only knowing little or nothing about that mode.

It is the absurd "weight" given the code test that is the problem, not the code itself. It was "weighted" this way in the early 1900's. That weight was changed in 1990 and again in 2000, but it is still overly heavy in the code category.

So, there should be questions about the code on the test, just not a whole element that can effectively derail a person's progression in the hobby. The FCC agrees with this and will soon be dropping the code requirement. There will likely be more code questions on the written test, after the code proficiency part is dropped. This is how it should be. More of a level playing field for all modes.

Joe

[K0HWY]

Quote[/b] (kb0mmb @ Nov. 18 2006,23:00)]Im ready to take the test for General class and DO NOT have the time or desire to study the code..which I will NEVER use in 5 lifetimes...I enjoy talking on 2-70 cm and have NO desire to sit there and hit a little key all day!
So..when will it happen?
Swat the hornet's nest and run like hell. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Good job!

Now, just sit there and wait. We'll let you know when it happens.

[N4AUD]

KD5NCO
I do know EXACTLY why I was required to learn drill and ceremony, and I actually enjoyed it. That was my best imitation of someone who wants access to HF in the amateur bands but whines about code. Surprised you didn't understand that.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KD5NCO @ Dec. 09 2006,21:40)]And by now you should be painfully aware that all of us so called gimme gimme, lazy, dumbed down Technicians do not give a tinkers damn what you think.
"Tinker's dam" is the correct metaphor. The dam was a tiny clay molding that was used to keep liquid metal confined; once used, it was discarded. Hence, it has become a metaphor for something worthless.

Had you studied your code in order to legitimately upgrade, you would know this sort of thing.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[KD5NCO]

Audie N4AUD formerly K1ALK

Here is what you said earlier;

"When I went through USAF basic training, I had to learn to march and obey all the commands that are used to move troops about and get them where you want them. #It is an anachronism and has been fairly useless to go through all those movements since the end of the Civil War. #Soldiers don't march into battle in formations anymore, and in the Air Force you're probably not EVER going to go into battle (there's no AC and the food stinks) but we had to do it. #Why did I have to do something that I would never use? #That was obsolete a hundred years ago? #That had no relevance to my job? #Why, why why?

I never got to whine about it and the guys with the Smokey Bear hats wouldn't have listened anyway. #

If you REALLY want to be a ham, the code won't be an obstruction. #It will be another challenge, like homebrewing and trying different modes. #If you just want to be a plug-n-play operator so you can talk on a radio, there's FRS, MURS and CB."

Your claim that this is parody or sarcasm is lost on me. #

However, in the spirit of comradeship; I take you at your word and apologize for my mean spirited remarks...

Thanks for your service

However this remark by you causes a thought from me.

"If you just want to be a plug-n-play operator so you can talk on a radio, there's FRS, MURS and CB.""

I know there are literally thousands of current Advanced, General and Extra Class FCC licensees that have been ARS members for decades and they exclusively own/use store bought and factory serviced Transceivers. Hundreds of them only rag chew on SSB Phone on the 160, 80, and 40 meter bands. #A majority of these fellow Amateurs have no desire to ever remove the covers and do any component level work in any of their transceivers, tuners, or amplifiers. In fact there are many of them that only emplace store bought pre-tuned antennas.

Are you suggesting these fully vetted peers of yours need to stop being members of the ARS fraternity and conduct all their future communications on land line, internet, cell phone, FRS, MURS and CB?

Just as there already exist thousands of so called "appliance operators" already on HF. There are also thousands of no-code Technicians who home brew, tinker, experiment, and manually emplace antenna arrays that are significantly more complicated than many simple loop or dipole wire antennas typical at most HF stations.

Are you aware that there are solid state Kenwood, Yaesu, and Icom (to name just a few) rigs out there that have been in service for over 20 years and never need the cover removed?

I have a Drake TR4 that is over 30 years old and has not had a thing done inside it, ever. It still loads, tunes, and transmits just fine. #I do have a complete set of replacement tubes for it. #But when the day comes to do a complete service and alignment, I may choose to send it off to someone who has all the proper skills and test gear to professionally do any service, even though I have all the skill and ability to do this myself. #My constraints on this decision would be time, money, and desire.

Being as I am a mere Technician this decision might have some, perhaps you, look down their nose at me. I wonder if a 40 year time in service Advanced or General would have the same derogatory attitude conveyed to him or her from a fellow fraternal member?

73

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (KD5NCO @ Dec. 09 2006,18:40)]Well Charlie...I might suggest that you "Take a second and gather your thoughts OM, you've been talking foolishness lately" also.

Your thoughts of the test as a "demonstration of minimum skill level" (for Receiving Morse Code by ear) could well apply equally to many of the other modes.
Look who's back from the dead! AB8RO junior. Over your embarrasment from last time? LOL!!! Let's hear your "I was here all the time but had more important things to do" post...


For you I know I have to break it down REALLY simple so:

1. You're being lazy and you're uninformed. If you would have read before you made a post, you'd know that I have accepted the rules change will happen. I am the kind who, although I buy a new car from a dealer, still would call the salesman on any lies he was trying to tell.

2. I had hoped that you were perhaps off taking 4th grade reading while you were in hiding. Your point about "apply equally to many other modes", in fact, confirms what I was saying to JEM.

Go back to the training-wheels posting area dood. But before you go, here's a picture I snapped of you when you came into this thread:

[N4AUD]

KD5NCO
Thanks for your service too, OM!

I was trying to be sarcastic, but I'm probably not a good enough writer to convey that in a post.

I was trying to say, though perhaps badly, that I had to do something that at the time made no sense but did have a purpose. I don't look down on NCT's, I used to be one. I just think that the code test has a purpose as well, and I don't hear a lot of people complaining about learning code AFTER they've done it, just before.

They probably will do away with code testing, and I think it will be a serious mistake, but it's not my decision.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 09 2006,23:17)]If its a test of minimum skill level, as you suggest, and as it should be, it should be comparable with the questions used for the other modes.


All of the questions on the test are things you may or may not ever need, just like any other test you take for any other class. Questions on other modes are two or three per test. You can miss all of them and still pass the overall test. This is non-debatable, as it is true and easily checked out.

The code test is not that way. Fail it, and you cannot get a general license, no matter how well you did on the written. If the code had the same weight as other modes in the test, there would be no reason for a change, a person would be able to pass while only knowing little or nothing about that mode.

It is the absurd "weight" given the code test that is the problem, not the code itself. It was "weighted" this way in the early 1900's. That weight was changed in 1990 and again in 2000, but it is still overly heavy in the code category.

So, there should be questions about the code on the test, just not a whole element that can effectively derail a person's progression in the hobby. The FCC agrees with this and will soon be dropping the code requirement. There will likely be more code questions on the written test, after the code proficiency part is dropped. This is how it should be. More of a level playing field for all modes.

Joe
I don't usually copy an entire post, but lookie at this gem. I ask the reader to notice the issue we were discussing was whether not being interested in a mode was reason to not be tested on it. His response was a rambling post about how you can miss some questions on the written test and still pass but you have to pass the code test to get your upgrade.

Concentrate Joe. You've been jabbering on and you're stepping on your feet lately. The issue is whether not wanting to use a mode was justification for not being tested on it, not the comparitive anaysis of written versus demonstrated skills.

[kd4mxe]

Quote[/b] (KD5NCO @ Dec. 09 2006,18:40)]Well Charlie...I might suggest that you "Take a second and gather your thoughts OM, you've been talking foolishness lately" also.

Your thoughts of the test as a "demonstration of minimum skill level" (for Receiving Morse Code by ear) could well apply equally to many of the other modes.

In fact it would make more sense to have a hands on skills test for the Technicians who want to experiment with Ghz freqs or do high power EME work...

Nope..the FCC did not see ...nor did any test question committee see... the need to expand the Technician test beyond the current 35 questions. Yet we are trusted with high power , home brew, and extreme distance propagation beyond what HF offers. Funny, for all this freedom and elbow room, we did not have to prove an antiquated skill to enjoy these generous and broad spectrum privileges (pun intended)

When are you going to accept that the Element 1 Test is going to be gone and move on with your life?

Every single new ARS member starting the day after the new R&O takes effect can not be lumped into your narrow view of what is, or is not, a "real" Ham.

And by now you should be painfully aware that all of us so called gimme gimme, lazy, dumbed down Technicians do not give a tinkers damn what you think.

. You stubbornly refused to see the relevance side of this issue... I think K7JEM and a BUNCH of other long time code tested Amateurs who see the logic of eliminating Element 1 are much more mature and pragmatic then you seem to be...

Hey just my humble no code Technician opinion OM.
kd5nco-You have spent the last 5 years railing on this subject! To what end? The Morse Code test element is going away. Not much you have ever said changed many if any minds on that fact--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------( well sir do you mean to tell me these whiners have not change your mind at all , well they are doing it for nothing then,could you just give them a little something , they have Been doing a lot of whining to get nothing for it ,oh well you cant win them all ,73 Billkd4mxe http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kd4mxe]

oh no the attached Image man has struck again ,Bill kd4mxe http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 10 2006,07:33)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 09 2006,23:17)]If its a test of minimum skill level, as you suggest, and as it should be, it should be comparable with the questions used for the other modes.


All of the questions on the test are things you may or may not ever need, just like any other test you take for any other class. Questions on other modes are two or three per test. You can miss all of them and still pass the overall test. This is non-debatable, as it is true and easily checked out.

The code test is not that way. Fail it, and you cannot get a general license, no matter how well you did on the written. If the code had the same weight as other modes in the test, there would be no reason for a change, a person would be able to pass while only knowing little or nothing about that mode.

It is the absurd "weight" given the code test that is the problem, not the code itself. It was "weighted" this way in the early 1900's. That weight was changed in 1990 and again in 2000, but it is still overly heavy in the code category.

So, there should be questions about the code on the test, just not a whole element that can effectively derail a person's progression in the hobby. The FCC agrees with this and will soon be dropping the code requirement. There will likely be more code questions on the written test, after the code proficiency part is dropped. This is how it should be. More of a level playing field for all modes.

Joe
I don't usually copy an entire post, but lookie at this gem. I ask the reader to notice the issue we were discussing was whether not being interested in a mode was reason to not be tested on it. His response was a rambling post about how you can miss some questions on the written test and still pass but you have to pass the code test to get your upgrade.

Concentrate Joe. You've been jabbering on and you're stepping on your feet lately. The issue is whether not wanting to use a mode was justification for not being tested on it, not the comparitive anaysis of written versus demonstrated skills.
I am pointing out that we test on many modes that the applicant may or may not have an interest in, and it is correct to do so. It is even correct to have questions about code and CW, even if you never intend to use them. That was a part of my post, if you care to read it.

I have never said there should be NO questions regarding the code, as I think there should be. There should also be questions about FM, SSB, and digital modes too. And all of these questions should be well balanced in the "weight" given them.

So let me be perfectly clear. THERE SHOULD BE QUESTIONS ABOUT MODES, RULES, AND BANDEDGES THAT YOU NEVER INTEND TO USE. THAT IS A PART OF HAM RADIO, JUST AS CODE IS. KEY WORK IS "PART", IT IS NOT THE WHOLE THING.

I hope that is clear. My post was meant to convey one important fact: The test for code is too heavily weighted, and can cause a person to not be allowed on HF simply for that one small deficiency. The lack of knowledge of any other mode will not necessarily cause this.

Joe

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
I saw a new thread of something to the effect of " Woo-hoo, another GENERAL " , with ag4yo as the " topic starter ".

So ( of course ) I figgered that Charlie had actually ( finally ) passed the minimum standards to become a GENERAL class license holder.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

Nope, wrong again, he started the thread, but it was about some others who had passed those " oh-so-easy" tests.

;)

Sorry Charlie.

[KD5NCO]

Audie N4AUD

"I don't hear a lot of people complaining about learning code AFTER they've done it, just before"

There is nothing wrong with what you say except that it is not 100% accurate relating to current Amateurs who are code tested and have access to HF privileges. #

Just because you have not met a wide divergent spectrum of Amateurs, does not mean that you can categorically claim that ALL code tested Amateurs have the opinion you are claiming.

I personally know dozens of General and Advanced class who do not currently have any Morse Code skill and probably never will again. It is true that they all had to learn the code to gain License class and privilege.

However, there are FCC licensed Amateurs that communicating via CW International Morse Code is NOT fun and holds no grip on their personal enjoyment of Amateur radio.

I know dozens of currently licensed Amateurs who hold general and higher class license that envy the idea that some new blood can "join" without the grief and angst of learning a communication method they are not interested in. #I have had more then a few of them say to me " I sure wish I could have gotten my license without learning Morse Code"

You and Charlie and a lot of other Amateurs tend to hold the "I had to do it, it is a great mode, I like it, so every one else needs to do this too" idea.

Nobody is disputing that CW and Morse code can be fun and interesting. #Very few, if any, of the no-code proponents think that Morse code should be banned or abolished.

In fact a majority of the no-code camp would love to see this issue transform from a "You have to do it because I did" to a "You should do it because; it is challenging, fun, and immensely helps in many of the nostalgic or technical aspects of the Hobby/Service.

We simply object that it should be mandated as a skill one has to prove before being granted Privilege on HF spectrum below 30Mhz.

The other claim that is false is that there is some mass of unlicensed American citizens who are whining and complaining that they can not get into the ARS because of the Morse code test.

This is patently False. The petitioners for the reduction of the code tests a decade ago, and now in 2003 for the elimination of the test completely, are all, 100% long time code tested and HF privilege holding Licensees. #The recent petitions to the FCC requesting the rules change came from the ARRL, NCI, and the VECs. #There is not one private citizen or No Code Technician initiated petition in the bunch.

When folks like you or Charlie make statements or implications that citizens who desire HF access (without a code test) are "lazy", "whiners", or "dumbed down"... Well, All that is accomplished is internal divisive anger and hate...

Certainly counter productive to growing the ranks of Morse Code skilled ops for the future. #Especially in a future where the FCC eliminates the test and the only way to foster an interest in Morse Code will come from internal salesmanship. #Salesmen who call their potential customers derogatory names to their faces loose a LOT of sales

In the circle of Older Amateurs I hang out with (all over 50 and most General or Advanced class)...There is some gentle chiding for me to get off my ass and just do it.. There is an equal amount of my Elmers and friends who say to "Stick to your guns"-- "It is about time (the test was dropped)"-- "Sure wish I did not have to waste all that time struggling to get 13WPM to upgrade"--"Don't listen to Jerry, he is just fussing with you, he really hates Morse code"...

Are you aware that the owner of this web site is just one of a LONG list of old time Extra Class Amateurs who support the elimination of the Code test for access to HF?

[KC9HJX]

Very nice post, Fred. Seems to be quite accurate.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/Skin/Default/PostIcons/icon5.gif

[N4AUD]

I didn't know that the owner of the website is an Extra who opposes code testing, nor should that make a difference in my posts. He and I simply have a difference of opinion on the subject. As do you and I as well.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 10 2006,08:03)]So let me be perfectly clear. THERE SHOULD BE QUESTIONS ABOUT MODES, RULES, AND BANDEDGES THAT YOU NEVER INTEND TO USE. THAT IS A PART OF HAM RADIO, JUST AS CODE IS. KEY WORK IS "PART", IT IS NOT THE WHOLE THING.

I hope that is clear. My post was meant to convey one important fact: The test for code is too heavily weighted, and can cause a person to not be allowed on HF simply for that one small deficiency. The lack of knowledge of any other mode will not necessarily cause this.
OK, you think interests should not dictate test questions. And you believe the CW test gives that mode too much weight.

So, is CW relevent to Amateur Radio? Yes or no.

[KC9HJX]

no

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (KD5NCO @ Dec. 10 2006,10:13)]We simply object that it should be mandated as a skill one has to prove before being granted Privilege on HF spectrum below 30Mhz.
All the no code arguments are a smoke screen to get the rules changed because a few knotheads either can't or won't pass the code test. I said it 100 times at least in one way or another. Looks like another example of how I was right.

Quote[/b] ]You and Charlie and a lot of other Amateurs tend to hold the "I had to do it, it is a great mode, I like it, so every one else needs to do this too" idea.
You said it, Fred, so find and post ONE instance where I said that "I had to pass the test so you do too". You're not a mind reader so show me one post where I said that.

Two things I don't believe in in dealing with other amateurs in the "real world":

1. Never berate a person for not upgrading.
2. Never accept a "participation trophy" attitude from Generals and Extras toward NCTs.

Notice that "I did it so you have to" is not on the that list.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (KC9HJX @ Dec. 10 2006,11:18)]no
Call: KC9HJX Class: Technician

Not speaking to you, but no suprise here.

[KC9HJX]

It really doesn't matter to me if the FCC drops "the code" or not...I still won't upgrade as I have no interest in spending hundreds, if not thousands of dollars for a decent HF setup to talk to somebody for 5 seconds and say "Wel HIHI on the prostate there Phillip, your signal is 5 over 9, ROGER QSL?"

It's just funny how you guys have gotten 23 pages on weather the FCC should allow little beepy noises (CW) to still be allowed in testing. 23 pages.... that still won't help the FCC decide.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[N8CPA]

It's funny how some guys don't know how to use whether or weather?

Has there been a change in the whether I'm not a wear off?

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 10 2006,11:13)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 10 2006,08:03)]So let me be perfectly clear. THERE SHOULD BE QUESTIONS ABOUT MODES, RULES, AND BANDEDGES THAT YOU NEVER INTEND TO USE. THAT IS A PART OF HAM RADIO, JUST AS CODE IS. KEY WORK IS "PART", IT IS NOT THE WHOLE THING.

I hope that is clear. My post was meant to convey one important fact: The test for code is too heavily weighted, and can cause a person to not be allowed on HF simply for that one small deficiency. The lack of knowledge of any other mode will not necessarily cause this.
OK, you think interests should not dictate test questions. And you believe the CW test gives that mode too much weight.

So, is CW relevent to Amateur Radio? Yes or no.
CW is more relevant to ham radio than the code is. But we don't take a CW test, we take a code test. Code has the same relevancy to HR as ASCII does, they are both used to transmit some sort of data. But either code could be changed tomorrow to something else. Those codes have little to do with radio, neither one was created with any sort of radio in mind. The fact that they are used on radio is what gives them any relevance at all to radio.

Many people, like you, erroneously call the code test a CW test. CW is a mode that conveys the morse code, but not the only mode that can convey it. It is specified as OOK of the transmitter. MC can also be sent by FSK, or as a modulated tone. These are not CW, but are MC.

I too make this mistake sometimes, but I try to be a little more observant. We all need to specify whether we are talking about morse code, or the radio method that conveys it.

Joe

[k8pg]

NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER .................................................. ........................................
.................................................. ..........................EVERYONE IN A ENGLISH EXPERT TOO http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[W0LC]

Some NCT rants just don't deserve a response. They frequently lack substance.

Regarding knowing the CW characters, might as well as drop test questions on SSB as well since 99.9% of the radios out there can't be worked on by the 99.9% of the ops out there due to complexity and lack of sufficient test gear. So why bother testing anything regarding it?

Let's just issue a communicator's license. $25 and a form and away you go....

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (KC9HJX @ Dec. 10 2006,11:47)]It really doesn't matter to me if the FCC drops "the code" or not...I still won't upgrade as I have no interest in spending hundreds, if not thousands of dollars for a decent HF setup to talk to somebody for 5 seconds and say "Wel HIHI on the prostate there Phillip, your signal is 5 over 9, ROGER QSL?"

It's just funny how you guys have gotten 23 pages on weather the FCC should allow little beepy noises (CW) to still be allowed in testing. 23 pages.... that still won't help the FCC decide.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
No problem if you don't wanna. But I recently was asked to help a new General get on HF really CHEAP. He wanted to spend no more than $150. Got a Yaesu FT301 (totally solid state 100W) with manual dial for $100 on eBay including a desk mike and a power supply, wire from Allencorp for a longwire for about $6, two insulators at a hamfest for 25 cents, a balun for $3, and 100' of coax on eBay for $15. Cleaned up the rig and it looks like new. He's now working DX like it's going out of style. $20 bucks shipping on the rig. Mission accomplished. He wanted to spend $150 because he sold a 2M handheld and got the money.

I just finished a project where I bought an old Marine Radiotelephone (AM) for $25, spent $10 on two crystals (one for tx one for rx). Bought another identical rig for parts for 99 cents. Total shipping for both was $60. Loaded it up to a random wire stapled along my fence and put it on the air yesterday on 3885 AM. Fixed both tx and rx problems, cleaned it up and it looks like new. Getting good signal reports around the SE..

My point is that you can have alot of fun on AR with a few bucks. My wife told me that in the past 60 days I bought two receivers, two marine radios above, a D-104 mike head, a replacement cartridge, a Speed-X telegraph key, a NIB carbon mike, and two Heathkit SB-200 coils and I have not broken $200 bucks yet.

I gutted one of the receivers and used it to mount boards for a Class E transmitter for 80M AM as well as my RX320D Ten-Tec Receiver and made a transceiver. So now I have two new "toys" to play with.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 10 2006,13:27)]CW is more relevant to ham radio than the code is. But we don't take a CW test, we take a code test. Code has the same relevancy to HR as ASCII does, they are both used to transmit some sort of data. But either code could be changed tomorrow to something else. Those codes have little to do with radio, neither one was created with any sort of radio in mind. The fact that they are used on radio is what gives them any relevance at all to radio.

Many people, like you, erroneously call the code test a CW test. CW is a mode that conveys the morse code, but not the only mode that can convey it.
ROFL!! You can split hairs if you want to. It just adds to my contention about no coder obfuscation. So was the answer yes or no?

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 10 2006,15:29)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 10 2006,13:27)]CW is more relevant to ham radio than the code is. But we don't take a CW test, we take a code test. Code has the same relevancy to HR as ASCII does, they are both used to transmit some sort of data. But either code could be changed tomorrow to something else. Those codes have little to do with radio, neither one was created with any sort of radio in mind. The fact that they are used on radio is what gives them any relevance at all to radio.

Many people, like you, erroneously call the code test a CW test. CW is a mode that conveys the morse code, but not the only mode that can convey it.
ROFL!! You can split hairs if you want to. It just adds to my contention about no coder obfuscation. So was the answer yes or no?

Charlie, have you quit beating your wife? Just yes or no, please.

All questions cannot be answered yes or no. Some answers are "sometimes" or "somewhat" . All things are not black and white, we would live in a dull place if it was. You want me to say whether "CW" is relevant to ham radio. And it is. But not as relevant as a lot of other things, and certainly not deserving of a separate test.

I would have to be totally stupid to answer a question like that with a "yes" or "no" response. If I say yes, then you say ,"then why can't we have a test covering it?". If I say "no" you will say "then what about all the people that use code". If YOU think there is a yes or no response to the question, then tell us which it is. I think the answer is "somewhat".

Joe

[wa9cwx]

Charlie.....

I am very happy that I was not the only one thinking that the issue of 'CW' verses 'code testing' WAS a bit obtuse....

Man, I sure would like to see some kind of meaningfull test for this hobby.... maybe a character test.....or an IQ test, or sanity test. Hell, I don't know what, but SOMETHING so that idiots, 'gimmes', whiners, and wackos were relegated back to a very tiny minority of licensees...

They still ARE a minority, but it sure isn't because of the testing process....

At least with the old FCC code tests, at 13 and 20 WPM, the guy/girl taking the test had the characteristic of determination, and some minimal skill, that would HOPEFULLY be refined over the years.

With the test available under ideal conditions, with the possibility of #'Zero to Extra' #in a day, the entrance barrier to this hobby is a hell of a lot less restrictive than the requirements for driving cab, or being a hairdresser, or bartender.

Yipee.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[K7JEM]

Hairdressers and bartenders don't need to be licensed when they do it as a hobby.

[n0ov]

Neither do you if your hobby is CB. However, this is amateur radio and a license is a requirement.

You meet the requirement, you can play with the rest. If you don't want to step up, that's ok too.

[K7JEM]

That's correct, but the requirement will soon change. I have never suggested that people shouldn't meet whatever requirement is the law, just that the requirement needs to better represent our times.

[wa9cwx]

Yep,
AND 'hairdressers and bartenders' are not given free reign of good slices of a natural resource, the privilege of modifing equipment that shares this resource with other licensed services, the protection of the FCC in 'interference' cases, home variance arguments, and the history and heritage of a proud tradition of service, dedication to improving an art and resource use, and what USED to be virtually universal recognition of competence in an art and science.

[K7JEM]

Very correct. Hairdressers and bartenders really can't be compared to ham radio ops. Most of them do it as a profession, hams do it as a hobby or pastime.

Joe

[wa9cwx]

I'm sorry JEM,

I guess I will never have any respect for the willfull lowering of standards in what was once a challenging avocation.

Ham radio IS a hobby, yep, used to have a RANGE of levels, the top tier was a challenge, one which I REALLY wanted to make it to.

For my personal journey, it served as an early lesson that EFFORT was needed to achieve something of value.
I am not sure that if I had been handed the license without serious effort, that my life would have turned out as nicely as it has.

Undoubtedly many young people have a wonderful sense of self-worth, dedication to core values of hard work, delayed rewards, and achievment.

When I was a teenager, I did not. I suspect there may be a few OTHERS around who, as teenagers, needed to WORK for something, to help focus their abilities, and learn the value of goal setting, achievment, and reward.

The world won't fall apart if ham radio turns into a garbage heap of loosers who waste etherspace....but MY beloved hobby, that has been a source of gentle pride, a memory of lessons learned, of wonderful, intelligent and insightful people teaching, learning and driven by a desire to better themselves, WILL be scarred.

I see the cheapening of the license structure as a personal and hobby-wide insult.

YOU may see it as progress, your opinion will almost certainly prevail. Good for you. Enjoy.

[K7JEM]

I don't get so emotionally involved in what is just a hobby, sorry. My life and the things I have learned were not dependent on having a ham radio license. I do have a GROL which has afforded me a good career in the communications industry, but I could have had that with or without a ham radio license. My ham license was for my personal enjoyment, I never cared too much what the other people were doing, since I assumed they were also doing it for their own personal enjoyment.

If you are insulted by the present license structure, then you have a personal problem. You already have a license, and you really don't need to be overly concerned with what new hams are required to do. Your test was different than mine, and almost everyone has taken different tests for the same or different classes of licenses. To require everyone to take exactly the same test would be insane.

Ham radio tests have never been much of a challenge for some people, and a terrible challenge for others, thats just the way it is. My thought is that if a person is interested in radio, and wants to get a license, he should be afforded that opportunity with minimal government intervention or control, not regulated and tested to the max.

Joe

[wa9cwx]

Joe, I now understand, as you have stated, basicly, you don't care.

Ham radio is a small, rather uninportant part of your life.
You are successful and happy with minimal involvement in this hobby.

Again, undoubtedly that is true for MANY people, their early experiences, the things they take pride in, may vary all over the place.

I would not call 'careing' a problem, you do. OK.

My early experiences as related to learning about the value of achievement, revolve around ham radio, yours did not.

Yep, I take it personal, so do a number of folks.
And yes, there will always be disinterested people too.

We don't dissagree, we are just coming from different positions, and speak different languages.

[K7JEM]

I never said I don't care. I do care a lot, but it is just a hobby. Ham radio is important to me, it is my most important hobby by far.

But the hobby will still be there after any changes are made, it's not going anywhere, and the people on the bands will still be the same. Some know a lot about radio and stuff, others don't. It shouldn't really matter It doesn't bother me that most hams will never be on my level, radio wise. They are in it for their own enjoyment, thats what it is about. If someone is allowed into the hobby, and they didn't have to do the same stuff you did, so what? Is that really going to bother you that much?

Good about your early days. What have you done lately? What thing have you done in ham radio that you take pride in TODAY?

Thats what it's about. Your personal achievement after you enter the hobby. The licensing test is just the gateway. Obviously, the gate is wider now, and more people can enter with less effort than you did, but is that really a problem?

Joe

[ab8ro]

It's time for a link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/18/MN73840.DTL).

One of my favorite studies, I expect that you guys will like it as well.

Here's a key line from the story:

Quote[/b] ]
In a series of studies, Kruger and Dunning tested their theory of incompetence. They found that subjects who scored in the lowest quartile on tests of logic, English grammar and humor were also the most likely to ``grossly overestimate'' how well they had performed.

[K8HUR]

Peace On Earth And Good Will To All. I'll still be on 40 cw even if it gets flooded with NC appliances operators. Ill just tighten up my DSP and and I won't hear ya.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 10 2006,16:24)]It's time for a link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/18/MN73840.DTL).

One of my favorite studies, I expect that you guys will like it as well.

Here's a key line from the story:

Quote[/b] ]
In a series of studies, Kruger and Dunning tested their theory of incompetence. They found that subjects who scored in the lowest quartile on tests of logic, English grammar and humor were also the most likely to ``grossly overestimate'' how well they had performed.

That quote goes a long way towards explaining why so many "pro coders" who find it necessary to whine about no-coders think so highly about having done something as simple as getting a ham license.

[K0HWY]

Although I'm still opposed to the idea, it would appear that we are going to have to accept the changes that are coming our way. We who appreciate work, achievement and reward must learn to deal with the new concept of anything, anybody, anytime. The fight to keep Morse Code in the amateur radio exam process is over. More dumbing down is likely on the way for the next version of the written exams; why break a trend? The FCC has adopted the attitude, "If you don't care, we don't care" ; pretty much their way of dealing with CB.


If the amateur community was united, we might stand a chance of maintaining at least some degree of challenge. But, as a whole, we don't want that. We want ham radio to be just as acessible as public telephone, cable TV or the internet. Plug, play, have fun.

I think Charlie gets a kick out of messing with the whiny lazy arses here. And I have to admit, I get a few chuckles out of his Photoshop art. I'd probably find it more humorous if I didn't have to deal with the same lazy, "give me" attitudes on a daily basis... outside of amateur radio.

[W5HTW]

Quote[/b] (W0LC @ Dec. 10 2006,15:24)]Some NCT rants just don't deserve a response. They frequently lack substance.

Regarding knowing the CW characters, might as well as drop test questions on SSB as well since 99.9% of the radios out there can't be worked on by the 99.9% of the ops out there due to complexity and lack of sufficient test gear. So why bother testing anything regarding it?

Let's just issue a communicator's license. $25 and a form and away you go....
I seriously believe we will get there, though not in the next five years. But it's coming.

Just sign a statement, "I have read the rules and will comply," and "I know not to hang an antenna over power lines," and you have a ham license.

Ed

[wa9cwx]

uuhhh,
IP

OR.....

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Why so many whiners who complain about something as simple as learning the code....think they ALREADY DESERVE the same priveleges.....


DUH

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (wa9cwx @ Dec. 10 2006,19:20)]uuhhh,
IP

OR.....

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Why so many whiners who complain about something as simple as learning the code....think they ALREADY DESERVE the same priveleges.....


DUH
That's right. There are two kinds of whiners in these threads, those who want something for nothing and those who think that something small is a BigDeal™.

Neither represent more than a small minority of those on either side of the discussion; both are equally reprehensible.

Whether achieving an amateur license was a lot of work for you or a no-brainer doesn't matter to anyone but you. If you had to work hard to get the license then you're entitled to the personal sense of accomplishment that gives you, and congratulations for doing so. But it has nothing to do with anyone but you.

It also has nothing to do with whether the FCC should continue requiring element 1 for licensing. The issue over element 1 isn't about how much "work" someone should be required to do to "earn" a license. The issue is whether testing for Morse code proficiency serves a useful regulatory purpose. The FCC has found that element 1 does not.

Obtaining an amateur radio license has nothing to do with 'work ethic' - it's a hobby, not a job. The sense of accomplishment that comes from it comes from meeting your own personal goals, not from judging yourself against the tests someone else had to take. The tests are of almost no importance, as it is what you do with the license, not how you obtain it that makes the hobby worthwhile to you.

[n9vo]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 10 2006,16:32)]I don't get so emotionally involved in what is just a hobby, sorry. My life and the things I have learned were not dependent on having a ham radio license. I do have a GROL which has afforded me a good career in the communications industry, but I could have had that with or without a ham radio license. My ham license was for my personal enjoyment, I never cared too much what the other people were doing, since I assumed they were also doing it for their own personal enjoyment.

If you are insulted by the present license structure, then you have a personal problem. You already have a license, and you really don't need to be overly concerned with what new hams are required to do. Your test was different than mine, and almost everyone has taken different tests for the same or different classes of licenses. To require everyone to take exactly the same test would be insane.

Ham radio tests have never been much of a challenge for some people, and a terrible challenge for others, thats just the way it is. My thought is that if a person is interested in radio, and wants to get a license, he should be afforded that opportunity with minimal government intervention or control, not regulated and tested to the max.

Joe
How can you say you don't get emotionally involved in just a "hobby"? Since friday the 8th, you have made approximately 26 post's on this thread alone. Hobby no, obsession probably!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (n9vo @ Dec. 11 2006,06:22)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 10 2006,16:32)]I don't get so emotionally involved in what is just a hobby, sorry. My life and the things I have learned were not dependent on having a ham radio license. I do have a GROL which has afforded me a good career in the communications industry, but I could have had that with or without a ham radio license. My ham license was for my personal enjoyment, I never cared too much what the other people were doing, since I assumed they were also doing it for their own personal enjoyment.

If you are insulted by the present license structure, then you have a personal problem. You already have a license, and you really don't need to be overly concerned with what new hams are required to do. Your test was different than mine, and almost everyone has taken different tests for the same or different classes of licenses. To require everyone to take exactly the same test would be insane.

Ham radio tests have never been much of a challenge for some people, and a terrible challenge for others, thats just the way it is. My thought is that if a person is interested in radio, and wants to get a license, he should be afforded that opportunity with minimal government intervention or control, not regulated and tested to the max.

Joe
How can you say you don't get emotionally involved in just a "hobby"? Since friday the 8th, you have made approximately 26 post's on this thread alone. Hobby no, obsession probably!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Key word there is "emotionally". I didn't say I wasn't involved, or that I didn't care, or that I don't post a lot, especially about this subject.

Joe

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif You ( the average reader ) can already tell by reading the various posts which of the post people are WHINERS and those who are WORKERS without spending more than a minute or two at each individual post.

Just go back 10 - 20 posts and see who says what and you CAN tell which is which.

Then if you are still confused, just check out their call sign and see if they are a TECHNICIAN, GENERAL or EXTRA, and that one part will answer the rest of any questions.

Sure it takes just a few minutes, but it will tell you really more than you really need to know about most any of the post people here on the internet.

Now for the big question --- am I serious or sarcastic ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[ai4ep]

... then you have the EXTRA class operators who want to GIVE away their hard work to folks who wish to WHINE instead of WORK for their radio privileges. No one made it easy for them, so why do they wish to do that ?

I have words for that type of operation, but it aint legal to put it here on the internet.

I didnt want any one to GIVE me any thing, more bragging rights in putting out the effort and succeeding .

...and I did succeed , and honestly, the tests are not THAT hard....I was surprised at the easiness of the questions.

[ai4ep]

...then you have the folks who say

" Just give me hf privileges with voice and I will learn C W later " !!

Yea...sure. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 10 2006,15:47)]Charlie, have you quit beating your wife? Just yes or no, please.
Yes I did. See it was easy, yes or no. And quit trying to change the subject.

Quote[/b] ]I would have to be totally stupid to answer a question like that with a "yes" or "no" response. If I say yes, then you say ,"then why can't we have a test covering it?". If I say "no" you will say "then what about all the people that use code". If YOU think there is a yes or no response to the question, then tell us which it is. I think the answer is "somewhat".
This is equivocation. State your caveats and answer the question. I believe your answer was that Morse is important to Amateur Radio with the caveat that you don't think it deserves a special test. Yes or no?

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif only reason that some of you have the class of license that you DO have is --- you got lucky on test day. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

simple & to the point.

[K8HUR]

Oh my gosh! Now we've moved on to psychology. So then. Once the no-coders get their ticket they can go out and buy 2 KW continuous key-down (but in their case Mike) linears so that they can compensate for their (other) short-comings.:D

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 10 2006,21:16)]There are two kinds of whiners in these threads, those who want something for nothing and those who think that something small is a BigDeal™.

Neither represent more than a small minority of those on either side of the discussion; both are equally reprehensible.
I realized that the No Code General (NCG) will simply be a speed bump in AR. They'll be part of the road but their only function will be to slow us down or damage our vehicle. Some will be big speed bumps, some will be little ones you hardly even know they are there. I guess since the code test has been a speed bump to the self declared geniuses who can't pass a 5 WPM code test, it's only fitting that they be speed bumps to the entire service from now on. They'll show us!

Removal of the code test is no big event. Surely it was a solution in search for a problem, but we'll move on and hopefully get over the speed bumps. It's one of life's ups and downs. But as my pappy used to say, "It ain't the ups and downs that get you in life, it's the jerks."

[W0UZR]

Quote[/b] (n9vo @ Dec. 11 2006,07:22)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 10 2006,16:32)]I don't get so emotionally involved in what is just a hobby, sorry. My life and the things I have learned were not dependent on having a ham radio license. I do have a GROL which has afforded me a good career in the communications industry, but I could have had that with or without a ham radio license. My ham license was for my personal enjoyment, I never cared too much what the other people were doing, since I assumed they were also doing it for their own personal enjoyment.

If you are insulted by the present license structure, then you have a personal problem. You already have a license, and you really don't need to be overly concerned with what new hams are required to do. Your test was different than mine, and almost everyone has taken different tests for the same or different classes of licenses. To require everyone to take exactly the same test would be insane.

Ham radio tests have never been much of a challenge for some people, and a terrible challenge for others, thats just the way it is. My thought is that if a person is interested in radio, and wants to get a license, he should be afforded that opportunity with minimal government intervention or control, not regulated and tested to the max.

Joe
How can you say you don't get emotionally involved in just a "hobby"? Since friday the 8th, you have made approximately 26 post's on this thread alone. Hobby no, obsession probably!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Hay Jim:

A while back I decided to quit

WASTING MY
TIME

You aren't going to tell someone Anything that has a closed mind and aren't willing to listen.......

And as far as an obsession goes, like I said a bunch of times before, people that carry on like this is NOT normal and probably could use some professional help.......

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 10 2006,18:10)]Very correct. Hairdressers and bartenders really can't be compared to ham radio ops. Most of them do it as a profession, hams do it as a hobby or pastime.

Joe
I want to be a pilot, just as a hobby, can they eliminate that pesky licensing requirement?

[KC0NBW]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Dec. 11 2006,11:32)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 10 2006,18:10)]Very correct. Hairdressers and bartenders really can't be compared to ham radio ops. Most of them do it as a profession, hams do it as a hobby or pastime.

Joe
I want to be a pilot, just as a hobby, can they eliminate that pesky licensing requirement?
as a matter of fact, they have created a licence free class of light aircraft! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

they still require a ground school however!

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (w6dce @ Dec. 09 2006,05:33)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Dec. 08 2006,08:57)]Quote[/b] (w6dce @ Dec. 07 2006,15:21)]Quote[/b] (K8HUR @ Dec. 07 2006,08:56)]Quote[/b] (kd4mxe @ Dec. 07 2006,06:51)]well I tell you some of these people need to cheer up ,some sound like the world is comming to a end ,cheer up folks there could not Be any test at all Bill kd4mxe http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
The world as we used to know it really is coming to an end. Just because society (especially in America) is becoming so decadent and lazy doesn't mean Amateur Radio has to go to hell in a handbasket along with it. It's not just an issue of losing exclusive CW space but the fact that more room is being made for "appliance operators" My main gripe is the people you hear on 2 meters for example, that couldn't sit down and pass the technical element of the no code Tech license. Makes one wonder about the legitimacy of the VE system. Like I stated originally. "Is this a case of you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."
This isn't about being lazy. It is about progress and technology.

It's simple.. in the 1800's people used to have to travel by horse. Today tho, we use automobiles, trains, planes, skateboards and a variety of other modes of transportation. Now the horse is still around, and plenty of people still ride them. But it isn't required that one know how to ride a horse in order to pilot a plane or a car.

In the early 1900's morse code was a widely used mode of communication, but because of technology advances, now there are many more efficient modes of operation. Using the same logic, there is no reason to require someone to know how to operate morse code even tho there are still plenty of people using it. The fact is, there are so many different and more efficient modes of operation available, that morse code, like the horse is simply obsolete.
Likewise, long ago you had to use a slide rule, trig and log tables and a pencil and paper and do math problems by hand.

Now you have calculators and computers running MATLAB and other software to do the math for you.

Pen and paper to do math are now obsolete.

Therefore they should stop teaching math problems by hand in school because it's obsolete.

Give all the kids a calculator from early on and let them learn to use that instead of trying to learn an obsolete skill.

Do you agree?
Of course I do, In fact most classes, teachers allow students to use calculators in class.
And I believe that calculators should be allowed after a certain skill level has been obtained.

ALL calculators should be banned up until pre-calculus.

Graphing calculators should be banned until students have passed college level calculus courses. Often, the graphing calculator is a hindrance, not a help because it will often give you a misleading answer, or not enable you to learn proper mathematical theory.

You're not going to find someone in elementary school who is learning arithmetic using a calculator. You will find someone who has already mastered it and learning other things using the calculator to save time by eliminating the arithmetic component out of a particular problem and concentrating on the actual theory.

[ky5u]

Hey Guys,

Look what No Coder upgraded to General!!

http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin....=139975 (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=139975)

Cool!

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (KC9HJX @ Dec. 10 2006,13:47)]It really doesn't matter to me if the FCC drops "the code" or not...I still won't upgrade as I have no interest in spending hundreds, if not thousands of dollars for a decent HF setup to talk to somebody for 5 seconds and say "Wel HIHI on the prostate there Phillip, your signal is 5 over 9, ROGER QSL?"

It's just funny how you guys have gotten 23 pages on weather the FCC should allow little beepy noises (CW) to still be allowed in testing. 23 pages.... that still won't help the FCC decide.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
There is no law saying that holders of P, G, A, or E licenses have to buy HF gear or operate on HF.

And by the way, I'm 28 years old, in perfect health and operate a lot of HF, both on CW and phone. Sometimes ragchewing, sometimes DXing.

It isn't just all wx reports and OF's griping about their medical conditions.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Dec. 11 2006,09:11)]... then you have the EXTRA class operators who want to GIVE away their hard work to folks who wish to WHINE instead of WORK for their radio privileges. No one made it easy for them, so why do they wish to do that ?


Dunno. Never met any such people.

Quote[/b] ]
I didnt want any one to GIVE me any thing, more bragging rights in putting out the effort and succeeding .

...and I did succeed , and honestly, the tests are not THAT hard....I was surprised at the easiness of the questions.

So you want bragging rights for doing something that you think wasn't hard?

much ado about nothing -- which pretty much sums up the "worker" pro-code argument.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (w0uzr @ Dec. 11 2006,10:31)]
You aren't going to tell someone Anything that has a closed mind and aren't willing to listen.......


You owe me a new irony meter.

[ky5u]

New T-Shirt...

[PE1RDW]

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Dec. 11 2006,19:14)]...then you have the folks who say

" Just give me hf privileges with voice and I will learn C W later " !!

Yea...sure. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
You forgetting the group of hams that have already seen first hand that eliminating CW test doesn´t turn the HF bands into CB

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ Dec. 11 2006,12:57)]You forgetting the group of hams that have already seen first hand that eliminating CW test doesn´t turn the HF bands into CB
And here they are. I think Amateur Radio turning into CB is the LEAST of their problems in the that country...

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ Dec. 11 2006,14:57)]Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Dec. 11 2006,19:14)]...then you have the folks who say

" Just give me hf privileges with voice and I will learn C W later " #!!

Yea...sure. # # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
You forgetting the group of hams that have already seen first hand that eliminating CW test doesn´t turn the HF bands into CB
That's because only a small minority of the world has removed the code requirement.

[ab8ro]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 10 2006,14:29)]Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ Dec. 11 2006,12:57)]You forgetting the group of hams that have already seen first hand that eliminating CW test doesn´t turn the HF bands into CB
And here they are. #I think Amateur Radio turning into CB is the LEAST of their problems in the that country...
Charlie, I just wanted to give you a heads up on this before you take this making fun of other countries TOO far. Are you ready for it?

Michael Jackson is an American!

pot, kettle and all that.

[AG3Y]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Dec. 11 2006,14:44)]Quote[/b] (KC9HJX @ Dec. 10 2006,13:47)]It really doesn't matter to me if the FCC drops "the code" or not...I still won't upgrade as I have no interest in spending hundreds, if not thousands of dollars for a decent HF setup to talk to somebody for 5 seconds and say "Wel HIHI on the prostate there Phillip, your signal is 5 over 9, ROGER QSL?"

It's just funny how you guys have gotten 23 pages on weather the FCC should allow little beepy noises (CW) to still be allowed in testing. # #23 pages.... that still won't help the FCC decide. #

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
There is no law saying that holders of P, G, A, or E licenses have to buy HF gear or operate on HF.

And by the way, I'm 28 years old, in perfect health and operate a lot of HF, both on CW and phone. #Sometimes ragchewing, sometimes DXing.

It isn't just all wx reports and OF's griping about their medical conditions.
I've been described as an "OF" by more than one or two people, and you want to know something? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

I haven't talked about my prostate, or colonoscopy for ; oh, let me think, at least two or three days, now !

Guess I had better get on the radio, huh ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

73, gotta get back to my SSTV , nice pictures coming in from HK6DOS. And they aren't the results of HIS colonoscopy, either !

Jim http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[W0LC]

Dar Dit Dar Dit (http://65.24.128.15/sounds/FX/Sos.mp3)

[n4jtl]

all he is aying is HE IS TOO LAZY TO LEARN IT. #HE WANTS THE EASY WAY OUT. i hope they never drop the code, that way we want have to put up with he's kind. an there are alot of them. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (n4jtl @ Dec. 11 2006,16:45)]all he is aying is HE IS TOO LAZY TO LEARN IT. HE WANTS THE EASY WAY OUT. i hope they never drop the code, that way we want have to put up with he's kind. an there are alot of them. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
But apparently you aren't too lazy to learn spelling or proper grammar.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 11 2006,11:52)]Quote[/b] (w0uzr @ Dec. 11 2006,10:31)]
You aren't going to tell someone Anything that has a closed mind and aren't willing to listen.......


You owe me a new irony meter.
http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/6258/ironykl1.jpg

[k7nys]

Quote[/b] (KD5NCO @ Dec. 10 2006,06:40)]When I went through USAF basic training, I had to learn to march and obey all the commands that are used to move troops about and get them where you want them.




Those would be lemmings.

And thanks to them for their service. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[wa9cwx]

Just keeping this thread active....






Seemed there had not been any posts in say, about ten minuets or so......

[W0UZR]

AAAhh,,,

GO TO BED !!!

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 11 2006,13:46)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 10 2006,14:29)]Quote[/b] (PE1RDW @ Dec. 11 2006,12:57)]You forgetting the group of hams that have already seen first hand that eliminating CW test doesn´t turn the HF bands into CB
And here they are. I think Amateur Radio turning into CB is the LEAST of their problems in the that country...
Charlie, I just wanted to give you a heads up on this before you take this making fun of other countries TOO far. Are you ready for it?

Michael Jackson is an American!

pot, kettle and all that.
ROFL!!! You got a point.

Morse code testing will be dropped. There is little to dispute that.

Morse code testing will be dropped very soon. Most likely in the first half of 2007.

Amateur radio will be better for it. Those that think otherwise have nothing to support their stance.

Everything else is just fear mongering, wishful thinking, belly aching, bruised egos, etc. Put simply it is people that have difficulty dealing with facts.

[wv6z]

Okay, as this has happened, code is not only dropped but officially illegal, CW ops will all be shot on sight....... you have been warned!

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d148/ku4my/hellfrozeover.jpg

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Dern...I just used some cw a few minutes ago, does that maen I have committed an ill eagle act ?

What will the jury say ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-c