A R R L Know Code Survey

[K6UEY]

I haven't posted on QRZ for some weeks, as I was uncomfortable with the juvenile, immature bickering and whiney attitude and crying about how hard it is to learn 5 WPM code and all those difficult Technical questions about subjects that the newbies were not going to use, so why should they bother to learn. I did feel that this post was of adequate importance, as I just finished and returned a membership survey by the Pacific Division Director of the ARRL. I wanted to share my comments with others who may have the same opinion as I do. Oh yes I'm aware that this topic will be inundated with opposing comments by the newbies, most of which are my subject of concern. Because of the attitude displayed in past months,and emotional outbreaks from mostly those who are new to Amateur radio and have yet to understand the purpose and traditions and just what Amateur Radio has stood for. They seem to only have an understanding to what they want to convert Amateur radio to be, for their own personal enjoyment, irrespective of the foundation on which it was built. Learning Morse code to qualify as a Ham Radio operator has been a test of skill, to show one's desire to contribute to the Fraternal Bond and Technical Expertise that has been traditional in Ham radio. In addition it has in the past served to weed out those who's interest were not sincere. Even at the basic level of 5 WPM it can serve as a filter. If my posting #of my answers to the survey can influence only one other to agree, it will make the posting worth while.
On the questions of whether General Class and Extra Class should retain the code test , ABSOLUTELY!!! #....
On the question of whether Technician Class should be allowed HF privileges with out being tested for their code skills ...ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! #...
Should ARRL put together a work force to pressure the FCC to retain the code testing....ABSOLUTELY !!!
Should an entry level class be created, with HF but limited power #.... NO!!
I would favor an entry class being created with HF CW ONLY and limited power level with entry level CW testing.
Not every real Ham will agree with my view points, but to survive as Ham Radio has for decades it NEEDS HAM RADIO operators, not a bunch of warm bodies who have no inkling what the Hell Ham Radio stands for .

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif # # # # 73, # ORV

[kc2jga]

I'm sure the ARRL is not going to take sides on this issue. Money talks and other things walk. The ARRL is hurtin for members and $$.

[KG4CGC]

Good Lord! Here we go again! Can we just drop it for a while?
KG4CGC

Orv,

I agree completely with your position on this.

73, Marty WB2RJR

My sentiments exactly Orv....

[ki4bgo]

What A Deal! ...And to think -not even all this Saddam Hussein stuff, can stop the "code/no code" posters from their appointed rounds!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KG6JTB]

HF - CW for technician would be a major step in the right direction. Arguably, this should have been the rule made years ago. We could have avoided this debate today.

Orv, I know your stance on this issue, but your survey by the ARRL is simply a way to soften their decision to support a removal of the code exam. The city where I live wants to build a COSTCO, so they posted a public hearing. Same kind of thing. The city is going to do what it takes to drive revenue, while appearing concerned about it's residents feelings.

No one will ever accuse you for going down without a fight!

Dave
KG6JTB

[N5CTI]

Orv, I disagree with your point that removing the code requirement for HF access would leave us with a bunch of warm bodies instead of Ham Radio Operators. There are probably things that could be done to give us more of the latter and less of the former, but I just can't see Morse code as the determinant of who's going to be a good operator.

More importantly, some HF access without code proficiency is inevitable (and not necessarily a bad thing, IMHO). Reminds me of the old saying:

"If it's inevitable, you might as well lay back and enjoy it."

[wm7o]

I firmly believe that our amateur society, just as with the rest of free society, needs ultra-conservatives like Orv. Fortunately, they are so far to the right, that they become irrelevant when it comes time for a vote.

Orv, I know where you are coming from, and I don't fault you for your point of view, but I whole-heartedly disagree with it. But then, I am just a newbie.

[kc7jty]

Like a post a few months back stated: There is definately some entertainment value here.
As to the original post by k6uey: Squirm baby Squirm!

[w7act]

No Comment ! ! ! ! ! ! !

[AE6IP]

Well, Orv, and with all due respect, I have to disagree.

In following this topic on QRZ and eHam, I have not noticed that "most" of the "juvenile, imature, bickering and whiney attitude" has come from either camp.

There seem to be plenty of whiney, imature, juvenile postings coming from both sides. For every no-code poster who asks "why should I be forced to learn a mode I'm never going to use", there's a pro-code poster who whines that element 1 is the only thing keeping the vandals from the gate and bringing an end to amateur radio.

If there has been a failure of new comers to the hobby understanding its traditions, that failure lies at the door of those who have failed to communicate the tradition to the new comers.

But it is incorrect to assume that those opposed to retaining element 1 fail to understand those traditions. I would go so far as to argue that those who most ardently support element 1 seem to be those who least understand the traditions of the hobby.

It is not in the spirit or tradition of the hobby to denigrate those who wish to approach it differently, and yet, I find pro-coders dismissing no-code techs as "appliance operators", apparently without recognizing that the service tradition of the hobby is, in the main, carried on by precisely those "appliance operators", many of whom's only interest in ARS is the service aspect.

It is in the spirit and tradition of the hobby to mentor those come after, and yet, I find pro-coders making sneering remarks about those who know less than they, rather than sharing their knowledge.

It is in the spirit and tradition of the hobby to encourage others by sharing with them what it is that makes the hobby special to us, and yet, I find pro-coders who demand that no-coders learn code, rather than encourage the no-coders to do so by sharing the fun of the code with them.

There are even those who will be upset that I have called the hobby a hobby, even though the ARRL itself describes the hobby as a hobby.

I will say that the spirit and tradition of the ARS is not one of an old boy's club jealously guarding its rites and requiring the Morse code test as a rite of entry.

The spirit and tradition of the ARS is one of service, as represented by those "appliance operators" who man the event coverage and ARES/RACEs drills. It is a spirit of sharing, as represented by those who mentor new hams, accepting them into the fraternity with open arms, and teaching them. It is a spirit of adventure, as represented by DX-peditions, of experimentation, as represented by new mode, and the perpetual excitement of antenna design. It is a spirit of cooperation, as represented by the many nets. It is a spirit of competition, as represented by contests and contestors. It is a spirit of accomplishment, that comes from any or all of the above.

But most of all, it is, as the FCC definition of the service indicates, a tradition of "interest[] in radio
technique solely with a personal aim".

Radio technique is not just Morse code. It is all of the above, or any of the above.

Amateur radio should welcome anyone who has any of those interests. We as Hams, should encourage those interests we encounter, whatever they are. If we wish others to share our interest, than we must infect them with our enthusiasm. That is the spirit of amateur radio.

[AE6IP]

Since Orv was so kind as to share his survey response with us, I thought I would share mine as well.

For those who are not in the Pacific division: It appears that the Pacific division director, Bob Vallio, W6RGG, has had headquarters email a 5 question "License Testing Requirement Survey" to those Pacific division members who have an email address on record. The petition was mailed on December 15.

I wonder if members from other divisions might comment in this thread what they're division director is doing to obtain feedback?

What follows is the text of the email I sent to Mr. Vallio, and CCed to Jim Haynie, W5JBP, ARRL president.

1. e
2. e
3. d
4. e
5. e

The morse code test serves no useful purpose, but rather, is a divisive element within the hobby.

However, there is no need for a new class of license with HF access, the current structure is sufficient, more license classes would just cause confusion and further division.

The ARRL would serve its members better by either abstaining entirely from the process, (and announcing that it is abstaining,) as it has done at the NCVEC meeting, or by supporting elimination of code testing, as it has done at the IARU. The sooner that the ARRL acts on this matter, the sooner the US amateur community can move on and begin healing the rift that the extended debate over the test has caused.

As a member, I'm disappointed both in the lack of speed -- this survey should have been conducted in a uniform manner, country wide, within weeks of the WRC decision -- and the lack of transparency -- it is still not clear to me how this survey is being used, or if the tabulated results will be shared with the membership, for instance -- that the ARRL has shown in this manner.

Further, I am very disappointed that this survey is not neutral, but instead, the questions are worded with a bias towards preserving the test. Where, after all, is the question that asks how much effort the ARRL should put into supporting removing the requirement?

While I agree that the issue itself is of minor importance, I strongly believe that the division it has caused within the community is sufficient reason for the ARRL to have moved quickly, and with greater communication to its membership.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc2jga @ Dec. 16 2003,03:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm sure the ARRL is not going to take sides on this issue. Money talks and other things walk. The ARRL is hurtin for members and $$.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I believe that the ARRL does not wish to take sides, but I also believe that by its slow response it has put itself in a situation where it believes it must.

I suspect that the result of the January board meeting is going to disappoint a lot of people.

I have no idea who,though.

[wm7o]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 16 2003,16:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, Orv, and with all due respect, I have to disagree.

In following this topic on QRZ and eHam, I have not noticed that &quot;most&quot; of the &quot;juvenile, imature, bickering and whiney attitude&quot; has come from either camp.

There seem to be plenty of whiney, imature, juvenile postings coming from both sides......... #

...........That is the spirit of amateur radio.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Thanks, Marty. Very well said. I wholeheartedly agree with you 100%.

[W0UZR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N5CTI @ Dec. 16 2003,07:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Orv, I disagree with your point that removing the code requirement for HF access would leave us with a bunch of warm bodies instead of Ham Radio Operators. There are probably things that could be done to give us more of the latter and less of the former, but I just can't see Morse code as the determinant of who's going to be a good operator.

More importantly, some HF access without code proficiency is inevitable (and not necessarily a bad thing, IMHO). Reminds me of the old saying:

&quot;If it's inevitable, you might as well lay back and enjoy it.&quot;[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You look like a bright level headed person in your picture. that if it is actually you.

You mean that? That eliminating the code isn't going to have an effect on the kind of people that come into amature radio?

I can't believe it..Code, if nothing else is going to eliminate the Riff Raff. Those people are not going to disipline themselves to learn the code. Only real people are.

We don't need riff raff on the HF bands, so KEEP THE CODE ! !


KB0UZR

[K3DAV]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I can't believe it..Code, if nothing else is going to eliminate the Riff Raff. Those people are not going to disipline themselves to learn the code. Only real people are.

We don't need riff raff on the HF bands, so KEEP THE CODE ! !

KB0UZR [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

OH PLEASE !! This is another aspect of this tired old issue that has been proven wrong a thousand times.

ONE MORE TIME for the reality impaired. The CW requirement hasn't done one single thing to keep the &quot;Riff Raff&quot; out of the HF bands. There is so much &quot;Riff Raff&quot; there now, that anyone who says there isn't any, should hang there heads in shame for lying.
*************************

First there was one thread on code vs no-code. Then there was two. Then there was three. Then there was four. Then there was five. Then #5 was deleted form the forum. (Thank you QRZ. Good choice). So we were back to four. Now there is five again. And it is the same reruns with a new name. These posts are starting to look like a &quot;Copy and Paste&quot; job.

HEY FRED. Time to hit the delete button again. But this time, don't stop at just this one. This stupidity just never ends.

[KG4CGC]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3DAV @ Dec. 15 2003,23:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">HEY FRED. #Time to hit the delete button again. #But this time, #don't stop at just this one. #This stupidity just never ends.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Thank God! I could not agree more! Dump all these code topics and let's have a two month cooling down period. A code thread by any other name is still a code thread.
73 de KG4CGC, Charles

[W1RFI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc2jga @ Dec. 15 2003,04:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm sure the ARRL is not going to take sides on this issue. Money talks and other things walk. The ARRL is hurtin for members and $$.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Let's find out how serious you are in your belief. I will bet a lobster dinner with you that ARRL will put together a position on licensing that includes code testing. Loser buys and drives.

Do you believe what you are offering here enough to back it up? :-)

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

[W1RFI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If there has been a failure of new comers to the hobby understanding its traditions, that failure lies at the door of those who have failed to communicate the tradition to the new comers.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Worse, some say that #unless the FCC has a code test, those traditions are not good enougn for anyone to want to #use the code.

I disagree. #I believe that Morse code has enough value to the state of the art of amateur radio telecommunications that its use will continue if Morse code is not tested in its present form. Every other mode survives just fine on its own merits and those who say that Morse code will not are NOT speaking very well of the usefulness of the mode.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

[w8amd]

Yup. Time to dump the code/no code foolishness. It has long gone past reasonable debate. Just two sides slinging mud for the most part. The entertainment value expired long ago.

Most including myself feel strongly on the issue but all that can be meaningfully said has been long ago. Sadly it has turned into bicker-baiting (aka trolling) which is all too big a part of the online scene.

[W0LC]

Sorry Orv, but you have a clue. There are many out there with no clue.

Makes too much sense, too practical.

However, not going to work this issue. Might see my name on a list twice. Hi.

Good comments, although made before, you are correct. Watch for the flames, lists, etc.

Yawn. That mentality sure gets old fast!

[W0LC]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W1RFI @ Dec. 17 2003,04:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If there has been a failure of new comers to the hobby understanding its traditions, that failure lies at the door of those who have failed to communicate the tradition to the new comers.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Worse, some say that #unless the FCC has a code test, those traditions are not good enougn for anyone to want to #use the code.

I disagree. #I believe that Morse code has enough value to the state of the art of amateur radio telecommunications that its use will continue if Morse code is not tested in its present form. Every other mode survives just fine on its own merits and those who say that Morse code will not are NOT speaking very well of the usefulness of the mode.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
So true Ed!

In fact, over the decades, I haven't met or found anyone that was &quot;excluded&quot; from entering the hobby because of the simple code test. I have to wonder where all of these &quot;unabled&quot; individuals suddenly came from!?

Everyone in this &quot;hobby&quot; has a particular mode/aspect that interests them else they wouldn't be licensed.

The issue is moot for discussion here as we won't be the ones making the decision. Our ever omnipotent Federal Agency will make that decision. Hey, weren't they the ones that allowed the &quot;F&quot; word on TV recently?

Hmmm.

[N5CTI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb0uzr @ Dec. 16 2003,23:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You look like a bright level headed person in your picture. that if it is actually you.

# # # You mean that? That eliminating the code isn't going to have an effect on the kind of people that come into amature radio?

# # # #I can't believe it..Code, if nothing else is going to eliminate the Riff Raff. Those people are not going to disipline themselves to learn the code. Only real people are.

# # # We don't need riff raff on the HF bands, so KEEP THE CODE ! !


# # # # # # # # # # # # KB0UZR[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Thank you, and you can confirm that the photo is me by looking at this article in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A48982-2003Jun29&notFound=true) where they covered my club's Field Day activities this year (although they did misspell my surname). It's me, honest!

My contention is that requiring code proficiency is the wrong tool for the job of keeping the riff-raff out of Amateur Radio; also, that removal of the code requirement for HF access is inevitable. I believe the handwriting is on the wall, so it's better for us to figure out how to deal with it than to rail against it.

[N5CTI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W1RFI @ Dec. 17 2003,06:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I will bet a lobster dinner with you that ARRL will put together a position on licensing that includes code testing. Loser buys and drives.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ed, do you really think it's fair to operate off of &quot;insider knowledge?&quot; http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kc7jty]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 16 2003,17:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I believe that the ARRL does not wish to take sides,[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
After reading your posts here (in addition to previous understanding) it seems to me that the ARRL wishes and already has taken sides on the code requirement issue.
The thing they don't wish to do is take a firm stand for the code requirement then have it shot out from under them by the FCC.

[kc7jty]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W1RFI @ Dec. 17 2003,04:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc2jga @ Dec. 15 2003,04:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm sure the ARRL is not going to take sides on this issue. Money talks and other things walk. The ARRL is hurtin for members and $$.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Let's find out how serious you are in your belief. I will bet a lobster dinner with you that ARRL will put together a position on licensing that includes code testing. Loser buys and drives.

Do you believe what you are offering here enough to back it up? :-)

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Here's a guy who knows whats coming. I wouldn't touch that bet if it had 100 to 1 odds.

[kc7jty]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ai4cb @ Dec. 17 2003,05:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">None of this matters........[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yeah....Its just like bible prophecy. No sense arguing about it, its going to happen anyway.

[ac5r]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">end up with only two license classes they have to administer - Generals and Extras[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'> Back to class A and class B?

Chris, AC5R

[WB2WIK]

I guess I'll never understand why for seventy-plus years hams learned code, took tests, and didn't complain, and now, after all that time, this is a huge issue.

Methinks it's really not a huge issue. It's a tiny pimple on an elephant's butt, and a very small but vocal minority are spending so much time complaining, they have no time to learn the code.

The internet age and wonders of instant communications.

Although everyone transmitting on the ten meter band allegedly met the Element 1 requirement, it is truly amazing that by far and away the worst operators I hear anywhere are on 10 meter SSB. In last weekend's ten meter contest, I spent some time operating. Not having time to tune around at all, I just sat on one frequency, called CQ, and got answers.

Surely 25% of those answers were calls made by hams who had absolutely no idea what they were doing. Answers off-frequency. Answers with nonsensical phonetics. Answers from guys who started giving me their life story, instead of a simple call, which should involve sending only their callsign. Answers so overmodulated they weren't understandable. With so much mike gain and background noise, they had no signal-to-noise ratio at all. Answers with lots of distortion. I told some of those guys, &quot;Hey, I can't understand you. If you're using an amplifier, please turn it OFF.&quot; And when they did, they cleaned right up.

Yep, those are the ones with the &quot;CB&quot; amps, Golden Eagles and the like. Overdriven worthless crap that should never be used on an amateur band.

And, if we believe what we're told, these people actually passed a Morse test.

I cannot begin to imagine what it will be like when they're not required to pass even that. I'll have to use only CW at that point, and put the mike away forever.

Oh well.

WB2WIK/6

[ky5u]

cb,

Interesting call....

Anyway, thanks for releasing me from hours of debate with other amateurs on the code issue because you have devine knowledge on how it will all turn out.

Seriously, I suggest if you're not happy with the debate, then skip right over it, including the view into your crystal ball. Apparantly crystal balls can be myopic albeit the opinion of the viewer.

I can imagine throwing all modes in the US into the same bandwidth as a method to reduce enforcement efforts. Where have you been through all the discussions on troubles just on the SSB subbands with QRMing? Yeah, lets dump CW there so the code haters can have fun!

Appreciate the opinion. Next.

[kc7jty]

There have been many times when I mentioned that an op was &quot;too close to his mike&quot; on 2 meter FM while the upper class hams never said boo.
If I gotta listen to someone who sounds like they are shouting into my ear through a megaphone I'm outta there. It doesn't seem to bother most though.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W1RFI @ Dec. 17 2003,04:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> #I believe that Morse code has enough value to the state of the art of amateur radio telecommunications that its use will continue if Morse code is not tested in its present form. Every other mode survives just fine on its own merits and those who say that Morse code will not are NOT speaking very well of the usefulness of the mode.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Well said; and I could not agree more.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc7jty @ Dec. 17 2003,11:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 16 2003,17:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I believe that the ARRL does not wish to take sides,[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
After reading your posts here (in addition to previous understanding) it seems to me that the ARRL wishes and already has taken sides on the code requirement issue.
#The thing they don't wish to do is take a firm stand for the code requirement then have it shot out from under them by the FCC.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Your view does seem more accurate than my statement.

Marty

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc7jty @ Dec. 17 2003,11:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W1RFI @ Dec. 17 2003,04:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc2jga @ Dec. 15 2003,04:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm sure the ARRL is not going to take sides on this issue. Money talks and other things walk. The ARRL is hurtin for members and $$.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Let's find out how serious you are in your belief. I will bet a lobster dinner with you that ARRL will put together a position on licensing that includes code testing. Loser buys and drives.

Do you believe what you are offering here enough to back it up? :-)

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Here's a guy who knows whats coming. I wouldn't touch that bet if it had 100 to 1 odds.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
one wonders how a staffer can know what the directors are going to do, when several of the directors have only just started polling the members in their district.

[KD7IZA]

i agree and disagree with this, i mean sure, all of the tech classes would have their general at least, if there was no code for it. But what do we need the code for, i mean basically if u want to do CW on the air then do it, if not, dont, i think CW is just for emergencies, like when WWIII comes, u know what i mean,dont u? anyone?

[KG4ZQZ]

i'm a relatively new ham and had no idea about license restructuring, WPM reduction, or any of these issues before getting into ham radio...

but i must say that it was not that difficult to learn CW to the point of passing the 5WPM Element 1 exam... i had a real desire to get on HF, so i did what was required to get on the air, and i'm glad i did!

i kept my CW practice notes, and looking back, it took me two 15-minute practice sessions (three 5-minute sessions) every other day for a month, which works out to about 7.5 hours total time...

and for those that are hoping that upgrading will be easier if Element 1 is eliminated:

1. Note that the Element 2 question pool was expanded by one-third last June (i expect the Element 3 pool to be expanded as well)

2. And if you think Element 1 is an obstacle now, wait until you try taking the Element 4 exam!

the truth is that licensing for Amateur Radio is not an obstacle, nor a hurdle; no one 'learns' about ham radio before getting a license...

the learning happens AFTER you get your ticket...

[W1RFI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WB2WIK @ Dec. 16 2003,15:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess I'll never understand why for seventy-plus years hams learned code, took tests, and didn't complain, and now, after all that time, this is a huge issue.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
When I learned code in the 1960s, when I tuned the commerical SW bands, I heard plenty of Morse code use. The military also used Morse code to quite an extent, although both the military and commercial services then were making more and more use of digital radio techiques. But with the amount of code I heard all across HF, I understood that I was learning something that was an important part of the radio technology of the day.

I passed my 5 wpm test and got on the air and called CQ at 5 wpm. I made plenty of contacts at that speed, and one QSO at a time, I got to 13 wpm the easy way -- getting on the air and having fun.

Today, if that prospective ham tunes the shortwave bands, a Morse code signal is a rare thing indeed. #If he or she does pass a 5 wpm test and calls CQ, chances are really good that no one will answer time and time again. Sooner or later, he or she will grab the microphone or hook up the computer and try something else in ham radio.

If it looks different to this new ham than it did to you and me, it is because it is different.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

[K3STX]

OK, my turn. Back to Orv's original post, I agree with Orv 110%.

I also disagree that this is another one in a continuous string of code/no-code threads. This topic has been sort of dead for the past month, so there might be some new people here who might enjoy it too. If you don't like it leave, but based on the number of people who look at these topics they are all the rage.

My prompted me to join in the fray is the recent post from IZA:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But what do we need the code for, i mean basically if u want to do CW on the air then do it, if not, dont, i think CW is just for emergencies, like when WWIII comes[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I'm sorry friend, but if this is really how you feel (and I don't think you are alone) you truly do not understand the essense of being a Ham. Communicating by code is something me, my father, my fathers father, and his father before have done. It's going on a century now. Sure there are other modes, and they ask technical questions about them, but the only way to test for code is to test for it. If you don't have the desire/energy to learn it to work on HF, then don't, but don't then make up a bunch of excuses for why it was not really all that important to know in the first place.

In most hams &quot;careers&quot; they take an interest in DXing, whether it be on 70 cm or 160 m. This too is one of the &quot;essenses&quot; of Hamming, and that is done most efficiently by CW. Many (most) Hams also go through a stage of wanting to build a rig, once again CW here (usually start here, but certainly people build SSB rigs). Many Hams also try out QRP, sure you can do it with SSB but, as for all weak signal work, CW is the simplest and most efficient.

CW is NOT &quot;just another mode&quot;, like SSTV and PSK-31. It is special since it is useul (necessary) for many &quot;Ham-specific&quot; applications in the ARS. Yes it is true that many say &quot;I do not intend to use CW so why should I learn the code!&quot;. To that I would respond &quot;I have no intention of building a rig, so why should I have to learn all this electronic mumbo-jumbo?&quot;. Th reason you learn the mumbo-jumbo is because it is important to further the radio art (if only for you), and who knows, maybe you WILL build something some day. Now aren't you glad you have at least a basic knowledge base. The same with CW; 5 wpm is painfully basic. Is knowledge of the code necessary for rag-chewing? Of course not. But sitting around chewing the fat is not what the ARS is all about (but even I do it). I wonder how many licensees WHO ACTUALLY USE CW IN THEIR DAY-TO-DAY HAMMING ON HF are in favor of dropping the requirement. I doubt many, since I think these guys understand the importance of this special mode of communication and would hate to see the &quot;why not wait till WWIII attittude&quot;. But I guess the no-code camp will argue that the OTs who use CW in their day-to-day Hamming are not a particularly relevant camp and should be afforded no special consideration.

My two cents (again).

paul

[W1RFI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 17 2003,02:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">one wonders how a staffer can know what the directors are going to do, when several of the directors have only just started polling the members in their district.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don't know what the ARRL Board will do. The premise of my offered wager was that they would take a position at the January Board meeting. He claimed they wouldn't do so because the League didn't want to offend any members and lose their membership $$$. Let's see if he was serious, or just stirring the pot. :-)

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

[W1RFI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wc5rr @ Dec. 16 2003,06:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In fact, over the decades, I haven't met or found anyone that was &quot;excluded&quot; from entering the hobby because of the simple code test. #I have to wonder where all of these &quot;unabled&quot; individuals suddenly came from!?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I haven't met anyone on HF amateur radio that had been excluded by the code test either, but then again, they wouldn't be on HF unless they HAD passed the test.

Most who are opposed to the code test are not saying that they are not able to pass the test. They are generally saying that Morse code is not relevant to most radio technology of the day.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

[W1RFI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N5CTI @ Dec. 16 2003,10:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W1RFI @ Dec. 17 2003,06:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I will bet a lobster dinner with you that ARRL will put together a position on licensing that includes code testing. Loser buys and drives.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ed, do you really think it's fair to operate off of &quot;insider knowledge?&quot; http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
In reading my words, I can see how they could be misinterpreted. Let me clarify them a bit.

When I said that their position would include code testing, I meant that the Board's position would address the code testing issue. I have no more than conjecture whether they will or will not support retaining some form of code testing.

That is not insider knowledge by any stretch; to me, it is a no brainer that the Board will have to take some sort of position. My bet is that they will do so at the January meeting. I would agree that it is a sucker bet, but it was in response to someone who claimed they would not take a position at all.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

[N5CTI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W1RFI @ Dec. 18 2003,08:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would agree that it is a sucker bet, but it was in response to someone who claimed they would not take a position at all.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
And who better to offer a sucker bet to? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

And actually, Ed, you address what I specifically meant. I'd be willing to bet that most, if not all, of the ARRL staff believe that the Board will take a position. You guys are steeped in the goings on, which includes attitudes, culture, and so forth. Hams who live nowhere near Connecticut and have little if any interaction with the ARRL staff can't be expected to know what's going on at ARRL HQ, what day-to-day discussions are happening, so on and so forth.

That's what I meant by &quot;insider knowledge,&quot; Ed. As an ARRL staffer, you've got your finger on the pulse, at least much more so than the common &quot;Joe Ham&quot; out here in the boonies.

[kc7jty]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG4ZQZ @ Dec. 18 2003,02:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i'm a relatively new ham and had no idea about license restructuring, WPM reduction, or any of these issues before getting into ham radio...

but i must say that it was not that difficult to learn CW to the point of passing the 5WPM Element 1 exam... i had a real desire to get on HF, so i did what was required to get on the air, and i'm glad i did!

i kept my CW practice notes, and looking back, it took me two 15-minute practice sessions (three 5-minute sessions) every other day for a month, which works out to about 7.5 hours total time...

and for those that are hoping that upgrading will be easier if Element 1 is eliminated:

1. Note that the Element 2 question pool was expanded by one-third last June (i expect the Element 3 pool to be expanded as well)

2. And if you think Element 1 is an obstacle now, wait until you try taking the Element 4 exam!

the truth is that licensing for Amateur Radio is not an obstacle, nor a hurdle; no one 'learns' about ham radio before getting a license...

the learning happens AFTER you get your ticket...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You are certainly entitled to your &quot;relatively new&quot; opinion. Now here's mine: Morse as a requirement is the same as the established members of a frat house using a wood paddle to smack the bare arses of the new blood that want to move in. (in addition to all the belittling and name calling).
Some of us will not subject ourselves to it and we have the gaul to call attention to the folly of it all.

I studied Morse code. If it was easy it would be a done deal. After a relatively short time I was able to send at 8 wpm with surprising accuracy. Listening to it however was very unpleasant for me. I have very poor hearing with constant loud tinnitus (humming and ringing in both ears). I also have difficulty reading. I'm dyslexic. I have to proof read my posts 2 or 3 times to weed out all the mistakes. If you offered me a couple hundred dollars to read a good book I'd turn it down. Its that much of a burden
As far as the written exams. There is nothing that they could come up with (that would be applied to the general public) that would be a deterrent or obstacle. Even if it was BS it would be interesting to see what the BS was.

We're not all the same. I think that a lot of good people are passing amateur radio by as something not to be taken seriously because of the way things are now.
Bill

[N5CTI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc7jty @ Dec. 18 2003,13:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Morse as a requirement is the same as the established members of a frat house using a wood paddle to smack the bare arses of the new blood that want to move in. (in addition to all the belittling and name calling).[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If that's your experience, then you're definitely hanging out with the wrong crowd. Amateurs who treat their fellow Hams that way are a disgrace to the vast majority of Amateurs who want to help each other wherever they can, however they can. Those who behave that way (you know who you are) should be ashamed of themselves, but they won't be, because of their backward, self-serving, small-minded inferiority complexes, who have to lord themselves over others to build up their own low self-esteem.

Honestly, Bill, there really aren't a lot of those numbskulls around. Sometimes it seems as though there are tons and tons of them, especially when you hear them spouting their venom and vitriol, but they're just a loud-mouthed cabal, thinking they can make themselves look better by trying to make others look bad. Ignore them. They aren't worth any more time than it would take to scrape them off the bottom of your shoe.

Stick to the vast majority of Hams, who will do what they can to help you, encourage you and coach you. They are the essence of Amateur Radio. They're waiting to help you. When you run into one of the others, just move on. They really aren't worth your time.

[ky5u]

Here is a simple question for the Tech Class no-coders:

What is it that you want to do with HAM radio that you can't already do on 6M and above covered by the no code tech ticket that already exists?

Even if the answer is &quot;I want to use SSB and talk DX&quot;, its ok. I just want a concensus.

Thanks!!

[W1RFI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N5CTI @ Dec. 17 2003,08:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And actually, Ed, you address what I specifically meant. I'd be willing to bet that most, if not all, of the ARRL staff believe that the Board will take a position. You guys are steeped in the goings on, which includes attitudes, culture, and so forth. Hams who live nowhere near Connecticut and have little if any interaction with the ARRL staff can't be expected to know what's going on at ARRL HQ, what day-to-day discussions are happening, so on and so forth.

That's what I meant by &quot;insider knowledge,&quot; Ed. As an ARRL staffer, you've got your finger on the pulse, at least much more so than the common &quot;Joe Ham&quot; out here in the boonies.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The ARRL Board typically meets near Newington once a year, so I don't get much more interaction with the Board than you do. Of the HQ staff, I may have a bit more Board contact, as I do get out to about a half-dozen ARRL conventions a year, so I get to rub elbows with a Director or two. I also occasionally deal with one relating to a member in their division. But my biggest advantage is that I make it a point to be informed. I read every major post on ARRL's web site; read each set of Board-meeting and Executive Committee minutes. My finger on the pulse is not directly related to my staff work nearly as much as it is that I take the time to put my finger on the pulse.

The little bit of inside info from time to time at the manager's meetings is not as valuable to me as the ARRL's public info, just available a bit faster. And in this case, there really is no inside info; I don't think that the ARRL Board yet knows what collective position it can come up with. There are 15 voting participants on the ARRL Board, and they will probably bring 15 different views to the table. What can be hammered out from that is mighty hard to predict.

The only ARRL Director I have really discussed this with is Tom Frenaye, so there really is not much &quot;inside&quot; knowledge at work here. I am, perhaps, a bit more immersed in ARRL's work than some, so from 17 years at ARRL HQ, I have some instincts about what the organization might or might not do, but even at that, our beloved Board has managed to surprise me more than once. :-)

At the July meeting, the Board decided that its members should poll the members in their respective divisions, with an eye to putting together an ARRL policy position, or affirming the present one, at the earliest opportunity. Each Director and Vice Director are doing that in his or her own way. With the petitions on the plate, and the interest in the amateur community in this issue, although it was not necessary to put together a position overnight, it would also, IMHO, not be a good idea to wait much past January. So, again IMHO, the January meeting looks to be a good time for the League to do this.

I found the premise that ARRL would choose not to take a position to be unlikely enough that I was willing to risk a lobster to be wrong. :-)

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

[WB2WIK]

I've already stated my position, in that I really don't care if the code test is retained in the U.S. or not, but I think something relevant in terms of proficiency demonstration (which can never be a multiple-choice quiz) should replace it.

Ed (W1RFI), you said you tuned around the SW bands and heard a lot of code used 40 years ago, or whatever.

Well, I'm your contemporary (I think) but I didn't do that. I never was an SWL, other than for BCB DXing, which was fun but didn't involve any code. The only time I ever heard code was on the ham bands, or sent via a code practice oscillator. Still found it very easy to learn, since nobody ever told me I didn't have to do it, and nobody ever told me it was difficult.

I disagree that nowadays one can call CQ at 5 wpm and never get answers (in the HF novice bands, for example). Maybe if they use QRP and an indoor whip, that might be the case, because then operator skill and experience plays a major role in working anything. But with the typical 100W rig and a dipole? Come on....

There isn't a day in any week, unless a major solar flare just occurred and there's no propagation to anywhere temporarily, when I can't tune across the 40m Novice segment (7100-7150) to hear ongoing QSOs at low speeds. My old friend Bill W6DDB, the CQ magazine Novice columnist for years and years and years, is still there, in his advanced age, working Novices left and right in the 40m band, and I hear him doing it, almost daily (including yesterday evening). He's just one example. Frankly, I'm another. Not a week passes that I don't go out of my way to spend an hour or so in the 40m Novice band making contacts, and they're not difficult to find.

I do agree that there isn't as much crowding in the Novice subbands as when you and I were kids, that's true. I recall the Novice bands being so full of signals I could not find a clear spot...but then, with crystal control, the only clear spots I was concerned with were the ones I had crystals for!

WB2WIK/6

[kc7jty]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AG4YO @ Dec. 18 2003,12:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here is a simple question for the Tech Class no-coders:

What is it that you want to do with HAM radio that you can't already do on 6M and above covered by the no code tech ticket that already exists?

Even if the answer is &quot;I want to use SSB and talk DX&quot;, its ok. #I just want a concensus. #

Thanks!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
OK. Here comes a dead honest answer. I'll be able to use an antenna tuner to TX on the 10 meter band with the existing antron 99 (which is currently adjusted for the CB band) and the 10 meter capable radio I have. (Sorry kids...Its not a gum ball machine prize its a Kenwood TS 450).
Then, if 10 meters doesn't work out for me I won't be out of anything.

You're Welcome!!

[W0LC]

Ed, I have to agree with some of what Steve (WIK) stated. I have tuned numerous amateur bands, in the CW portion and I hear lots of activity. Albeit, the time of day will determine how much comes through. That goes without saying. SSB portions are very similar. I hear lots of vacant spots within the SSB portion to argue the statement that more SSB space is needed.

I too started out as a Novice with crystals, with a set frequency to transmit since VFOs were taboo back then. Since the entry into the hobby was Novice, everyone entering automatically went into the Novice bands. Now, they have No-Code licenses so obviously those individuals won't be in the CW portions.

I don't even try to keep up on the license structure any longer. After I upgraded to Extra taking the required 20 WPM test that I didn't want to do, I quit following the changes. Dropping the Cw test I feel, as does Steve I think should be okay as long as those individuals have a portion of the overall frequency spectrum, with upgrades with a CW endorsement to get &quot;more&quot; so that there is at the minimum, a sense of achievement and some proficiency verification of some sort for CW.

I think that is a very fair approach, but then again, that is up to the FCC. Lately, their track record hasn't been very good.

[kc7jty]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AG4YO @ Dec. 18 2003,13:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Seriously, as a dyslexic person myself, I overcome it by not giving in to it. #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes we fight it the best we can so as not to miss out on many things in life but, overcome it by not giving into it? You make it sound like its there for you but you have the ability to make it go away when you want.

[w0tdh]

Tnx Orv,

Very well said es I agree 100%. #I'll go one thing further.......Build a one or two tube rcvr or xmtr es demonstrate how it works as part of testing. Yes, put the Code Test back where it was. Anyone can sit es yap on a mike. We have a Gazillion CBers to prove that. It takes skill to learn what amounts to a new language. Keep a trained pool of operators that can function with out Sat Links or rptrs. Never know when the next BIG one will be.
I wrote something about that a little while back. Anyone read it ? #By way, the ARRL has lasted many a year es has stood the test of time. Lets see where these newbies es whiners are in 30yrs.

73, ( Not 73's )

Tom - KØPJG

P.S.
I do not give a Damn if you don't like &quot;es&quot;

[KG4ZQZ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc7jty @ Dec. 18 2003,14:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You are certainly entitled to your &quot;relatively new&quot; opinion. Now here's mine: Morse as a requirement is the same as the established members of a frat house using a wood paddle to smack the bare arses of the new blood that want to move in. (in addition to all the belittling and name calling).
Some of us will not subject ourselves to it and we have the gaul to call attention to the folly of it all.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
oh my!

first, i said i was a 'relatively new' ham, not offering a 'relatively new' opinion...

second, you seem quite bitter about the Morse requirement? i never realized that this was such a big issue in the ham community...

i'm terribly sorry that you feel the way you do about this (and about the pain you experience when listening to CW).. but i wish i was up to 8WPM like you were able to achieve!

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif all the posts about morse code elimination dont add up ...it is still there, it will be there tomorrow when you get up, it will be there after January 1, 2004; so we can argue about it till (?) but it will NOT change the rules and regulations one letter of one word !! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[kc7jty]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K0PJG @ Dec. 18 2003,15:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lets see where these newbies es whiners are in 30yrs.

73, #( Not 73's )

Tom - KØPJG

P.S.
I do not give a Damn if you don't like &quot;es&quot;[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I didn't think you would want to go there. 30 years of no Morse exams!!.........Doesn't just the thought make you weak?

[kc7jty]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG4ZQZ @ Dec. 18 2003,16:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but i wish i was up to 8WPM like you were able to achieve![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Sending, Sending, 8wpm sending speed. It doesn't amount to zip when it comes to test time.

[kc7jty]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AG4YO @ Dec. 18 2003,15:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">jty,

It NEVER goes away and I try to NEVER give up trying to beat it. #Then I accept the small victories when and if they come.

Thanks for the answer to my question about what you wnat to do on HF. #73![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
YO:
I hear ya!
The nuns would beat me (honest) and ridicule me in front of my class mates in grade school cause they &quot;knew&quot; I was lazy and causing trouble when it came to reading assignments.

When I got to high school (9th grade for Catholics) One of my classes was the special class for those that couldn't read. I'll never forget that first day. I was looking around at all the slack jawed neandertals when the priest came up to me, made eye contact, and in a very deep voice said &quot;I don't want any trouble from you&quot;.
Looking back on life now it seems almost as strange as it did then.

People just can't understand trying to read a book when your mind wants to suck everything off the page but you have to read...every...word...individually. Then you get bored and put the book down.


Roger on the question.....no sweat. Feels odd not having the shield up and the flame thrower pointed.
73 Bill

[ky5u]

Cool, Bill.

Yeppers, I am the product of a warped Catholic education here. Took alot of guff in elementary school until they gave IQ tests. Then all of a sudden I was Joe Cool. Kinda sad.

I will be going back and deleting some of my posts about this. Feel uncomfortable talking about it. But hang in there.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd4amg @ Dec. 18 2003,17:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif all the posts about morse code elimination dont add up ...it is still there, it will be there tomorrow when you get up, it will be there after January 1, 2004; so we can argue about it till #(?) but it will NOT change the rules and regulations one letter of one word !! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ah, but you never know. The ARRL could weigh in with yet another petition, and arguments perfected here and used in its FCC review might just be the factor that make up the FCC's mind.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W1RFI @ Dec. 18 2003,05:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 17 2003,02:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">one wonders how a staffer can know what the directors are going to do, when several of the directors have only just started polling the members in their district.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don't know what the ARRL Board will do. #The premise of my offered wager was that they would take a position at the January Board meeting. #He claimed they wouldn't do so because the League didn't want to offend any members and lose their membership $$$. #Let's see if he was serious, or just stirring the pot. :-)

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I knew that. I was responding to the person who said that it would be a sucker bet because you have inside information.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W1RFI @ Dec. 18 2003,05:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I haven't met anyone on HF amateur radio that had been excluded by the code test either, but then again, they wouldn't be on HF unless they HAD passed the test.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

That's technically true, since we've not worked each other yet. But from my first real interest in radio, in the early 70s, until last year, I stayed away from amateur radio because I didn't want to bother with the code test.

Those 30 years were no big deal to me, since I had plenty of non-ham hobbies to contend with; but they were 30 years during which the hobby lost out on an ARES volunteer, a VE, a mentor, and points in contests.

However, I never complained about the code test. I simply didn't bother with the hobby.

[k9kjm]

KEEP the CW test requirements for the Extra
class license. # Eliminate all CW testing for
the General class license.
This will give both &quot;sides&quot; of this question a
win.
And yes, The CW requirement IS keeping lots of
technical minded people who have NO desire to
learn CW out of this great hobby. And the CW
requirement is NOT keeping knotheads out of the
hobby....... Just take a listen on 75 meters most
any evening!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KG4CGC]

Sorry, but code as a requirement is not the &quot;essence&quot; of ham radio. Our previous generations (myself included) used phonographs. Those who do today don't have to, they just like it. It's not a required way to hear recorded sound. It's &quot;nostalgia&quot;. Code is &quot;nostalgia&quot; nothing more. If you want to honor history and tradition, do it because you want to not because you have to. Many many more people will take an interest in code and keep it alive when it is no longer a requirement. That's just the kind of society we have become and there is nothing wrong with that. The older ones will ALWAYS say that the younger ones got it easy, have no respect, don't care for tradition. Shoot, I look at kids today and say the same thing. Having said that, I still say code as a requirement is wrong. Things change and time moves on. Life goes on. Things change and it is ALWAYS hard to accept change thus, we must learn to be adaptive if we wish to continue living.
I have read all the arguments, repeatedly, for code. No argument for code as a requirement will ever change mind. That's why we all must agree to disagree as corney as that sounds, it holds water.
You can always use code whenever you want EVEN if it's not a requirement. Curiosity for code is what will attract more to it not the force you to learn the code aspect of it. Yes code is fun, yes code is interesting, yes code is a mode but it is not the end all and be all of ham radio. No, code is NOT a filter nor will it make you or me a better operator. Your quality as an operator is in your heart not in you knowledge of telegraphy.
Yes I am hearing dyslexic. Always have been. I have to work extra hard to communicate with everyone I come in contact with. And yes, I will have to proof read this post 4 or 5 times to make sure it's grammatically correct.
I have always loved radio, ever since I found out about the ionosphere when I was 8, I was hooked.
Now! No more code threads for 2 months! How's that for an argument?!?!?!!??
73 Everyone, de KG4CGC, Charles Chackal
Peace and Goodwill! Merry Christmas to all and especially all the good folks at QRZ.COM

[ky5u]

Interesting points from CGC:

1. I don't want to learn CW so remove the test!
2. I don't want to see the CW debate so stop posting it!

Is there a pattern here?

Merry Christmas, Charles. No offense meant.

[W1RFI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wc5rr @ Dec. 17 2003,15:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ed, I have to agree with some of what Steve (WIK) stated. #I have tuned numerous amateur bands, in the CW portion and I hear lots of activity. #Albeit, the time of day will determine how much comes through. #That goes without saying.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

There is plenty of CW activity indeed, but it almost all high-speed. My own operation is probably 99% HF CW. What used to be wall to wall signals in the Novice bands has been replaced with virtual silence. Try 3.7 MHz sometime at 5 wpm and tell me how long it takes to scare up a QSO. #And if you do manage a contact, I would bet a dollar that it would be with the rare old timer willing to slow down to help someone build their code speed.

Try the same thing on 3.550 and tell me if anyone yells at you for operating too slow in the code band, or comes back to you at a much faster speed than 5 wpm. :-)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">SSB portions are very similar. #I hear lots of vacant spots within the SSB portion to argue the statement that more SSB space is needed.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, there are times when there are vacant communications channels on the SSB portion of the band, but other than during a major CW operating event, have you heard times where there are &quot;vacant&quot; SSB channels but no vacant CW channels? #And, if you weigh in the 100 Hz necessary bandwidth for a CW QSO vs the 2000 Hz necessary bandwidth for an SSB QSO, the number of available channels for CW operation is much greater.

On Saturday evening, set your receiver to 4000 kHz and start tuning downward. Tell me at what point the band becomes pretty quiet.

In most nations of the world, amateurs do not have the balkanization that exists in the US regulations. For the most part, they are able to sort out their use of the band fairly with bandplan and operating practices. Yes, you could occasionally hear &quot;other&quot; modes in &quot;your&quot; part of the band, but to me, that is just another form of QRM. #In NE, on 40 M at night, I do hear some S.A. SSB on the &quot;CW&quot; part of the band, but I have had far more QRM from other CW stations than I have had from SSB or other modes.

To some, the ideal regulations would be very simple: #These are your band edges. These are #your power limits. Stay within them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I too started out as a Novice with crystals, with a set frequency to transmit since VFOs were taboo back then. #Since the entry into the hobby was Novice, everyone entering automatically went into the Novice bands. #Now, they have No-Code licenses so obviously those individuals won't be in the CW portions.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The no-code licencees are still permitted to operate above 50 MHz, so those individuals won't be in the CW or phone portions of HF. Right now, we have more code-tested amateurs than at any time in our history. #If they aren't operating in the CW portions of the band, something has changed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dropping the Cw test I feel, as does Steve I think should be okay as long as those individuals have a portion of the overall frequency spectrum, with upgrades with a CW endorsement to get &quot;more&quot; so that there is at the minimum, a sense of achievement and some proficiency verification of some sort for CW.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The argument against that has been that it does not make senses to require a high-speed CW proficiency to gain access to non-CW modes. One could argue that a code test should be required to operate on the lower 25 kHz of 80, 40, 20, 15 and 10 meters, but I don't see the value in that. If someone were to operate Morse code on the bands, that would demonstrate proficiency to me, so making it harder for them to actually use the code would, IMHO, be counterproductive.

Do we really want to make using Morse code into something so hard so hams can &quot;prove&quot; themselves that only a handful of &quot;worthy&quot; people actually use it? #Frankly, I think that some of the the arguments that are being offered to &quot;save&quot; the mode are contributing to its demise. Fortunately, it is a valuable mode with proponents who help keep it alive in spite of it all. :-)

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
#

[W1RFI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 17 2003,22:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">However, I never complained about the code test. #I simply didn't bother with the hobby.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That may tell us more about this subject than nearly anything else I have read here...

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

[K3STX]

Charles, I'm gonna stick my neck out here. I see you have a technician license and have been licensed since '99. If you are a no-code tech (I don't know if you are or are not) and have never been on HF, you and I are talking about two different kinds of &quot;Ham radio&quot;. So maybe you know the essense of &quot;your&quot; Ham radio, but not mine.

Those down in HF and those guys doing EME know exactly what we are talking about. You do not have to agree, but remember: being a Ham is a priveledge, not a right. If you don't want to play by the rules, then don't play. You support the idea of making it easier to get in (after all, if learning the code was as easy as memorizing Ohm's law this would not be an issue). Therefore don't be surprised that some, who went through all these hoops before you see through your transparent agenda. You want HF access for nothing. Period.

paul

[KG4CGC]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AG4YO @ Dec. 18 2003,06:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Interesting points from CGC:

1. I don't want to learn CW so remove the test!
2. I don't want to see the CW debate so stop posting it!

Is there a pattern here?

Merry Christmas, Charles. #No offense meant.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, I do not believe you see a pattern here. It is a simple fact that things change. Time and progress change everything.
How about this? My parents used cloth diapers on me when I was a baby. When my brother came along five years later, they had the option of using Pampers.
When I was 6 I listened to music on phonograph. When I was 8 it was 8-track. When I was a teenager we used cassettes...progress...CD's now...DVD music next.
Progress. Progress allows us to grow. Lack of progress will make us like the Taliban.
As far as dyslexia goes, try walking a mile in my shoes. nuff said?

[KG4CGC]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3STX @ Dec. 18 2003,06:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Charles, I'm gonna stick my neck out here. I see you have a technician license and have been licensed since '99. If you are a no-code tech (I don't know if you are or are not) and have never been on HF, you and I are talking about two different kinds of &quot;Ham radio&quot;. So maybe you know the essense of &quot;your&quot; Ham radio, but not mine.

Those down in HF and those guys doing EME know exactly what we are talking about. You do not have to agree, but remember: being a Ham is a priveledge, not a right. If you don't want to play by the rules, then don't play. You support the idea of making it easier to get in (after all, if learning the code was as easy as memorizing Ohm's law this would not be an issue). Therefore don't be surprised that some, who went through all these hoops before you see through your transparent agenda. You want HF access for nothing. Period.

paul[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Take what I said to heart or ignore my point altogether. It's not about something for nothing. I've had to work for everything I have. Just as you have had to I'm sure. There are different ways to earn anything. We should be offered options and choose the path that works best for each of us.
Next.

[K3STX]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are different ways to earn anything. We should be offered options and choose the path that works best for each of us.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I must have missed something. Options for what? There already ARE options for the different ways to learn code.

OHHHHHH; you mean options for access to HF?

paul

[KG4CGC]

I should also add, I've learned code before. The problem is I can't learn it with my ears, just no connection there. Learning code is not the problem, hearing it is. I'm trying again but it's all really pointless. Dit and dah just all sound like, well, like they are all dit and dah. I can't play an instrument either. As much as I've tried and would love to be able to do that, it just doesn't work. I could write music and hear the notes in my head. I simply could not play them. Would I be able to hear code in my own head? Yes. I just could not hear it through my ears. Do YOU, know how discouraging this is?
And by the way something, yes this is a dead horse.

[N8CPA]

I'm so burdened! #Woe is me! #Woe is me! I get so tired of hard luck stories! Walk a mile in your shoes? #No thanks. I have my own and they are worn through at the toes. Your shoes couldn't stand the beating I'd give them!

Just a summary of my hardships. #Probable ADHD at birth, possible dyslexia, with no particular aptitude for anything. A bout with neonatal mastoiditis limited my ability to hear certain frequencies, and combinations thereof. For example, I could not distinguish the difference between a TH and S sound and it showed in my speech until I was 10. #To this day I still have trouble understanding some song lyrics.

The ADHD meant that I had a terrible time in school in an era when verbal crutches like ADHD and dyslexia did not exist. Neither did chemical management exist. The resulting behavior was dealt with in traditional fashion, with liberal doses of &quot;the rod&quot; and repeated as needed--which was quite frequently in my case. #My difficulty with learning letters was eclipsed only by the brick wall presented to me by numbers. #

Now add to that an accident so scrambled my neuromuscular impulses that I might as well be wearing mittens full time. #Try tying your shoes or typing with your paralyzed right thumb locked permanently parallel to the index finger in a grasping position. It was a corrective procedure that made the right hand minimally useful. #The left hand is slightly more useful. #At least I can place it palm flat on a table. #But the fingers on both hands lack individual coordination when I flex or extend them. #They move as a mass. #That's just the upper body.

The effects in my legs are more pronounced on the right side than the left. #I refer to my left leg as the limp leg. #I refer to the right one as the swagger leg. #As I walk I move the right leg by twisting my torso. #One of the effects this mode of ambulation is that one out of five steps on one side or the other I stub the toe. #Hence, my comment about about where my shoes are worn through.

Need I mention what a finacial hardship my medical bills meant for my parents' large family? #And we didn't come from a long line of silver spooners. Neither was there a decent insurance program to cover them. One of the effects of that poverty was that I had no idea how to pick a college major--yes, I got there completely by accident. #So I picked one that, along with my aforementioned physical condition, ensured a serial career in entry level pink and blue color positions. #And I still manage to live better than my parents did, even if I do occasionally wear holey shoes.

When I decided to become a ham, I had to basically rewire my brain to absorb the math. And if a waiver had been made available for that aspect of the qualifications, I think I would have jumped at it. #And I would have cheated myself and Amateur Radio by not developing what, for me, is an ulterior aptitude. #As it is, I passed every test along the way first time, except for the Extra. And it only beat me once.

My own experiences have taught me that life is a mixture of picking battles and meeting challenges, and learning the difference between the two. If you pick a goal, you choose to deal with the road conditions along the required route. #Driving on the berm is usually not an option. #And one of the conditions on the road to HF, for now and the foreseeable future, is to demonstrate minimal proficiency in Morse. #

Is CW difficult for you? #Then it's your chuckhole on the road to HF. #You'll see the top of that mountain a lot quicker by climbing it than by waiting for it to erode away. #In the meantime, you and I have the same privileges above 30MHz. #You can already pick your battles up there. #Harsh as it is, that's reality.

I'll close with a joke. #Have you heard the politicians' updated Christmas Carrol? #&quot;Here we go a-waffeling...&quot;
!!

[ky5u]

Way to go CPA!

If CGC would have read the whole chain, he would have seen that I not only walked a mile in his shoes but he's wearing my hand-me-down shoes.

[KG4ZQZ]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AG4YO @ Dec. 19 2003,11http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif9)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Way to go CPA![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
- i certainly have to agree... in some ways i feel kinda guilty about going up the ladder of licensing in the time that i did... and admire those who have struggled to overcome very personal, not governmental, obstacles on the way to success - great attitude!

- my Elmer, who was licensed in the '60s and despite being a fervent advocate of CW, has compassion and understanding for those new to the hobby and currently facing the 'challenge' of the Element I exam. His attitude is that anyone who is licensed is a ham, and even hams who choose to not upgrade to General or higher deserve all the respect due to all hams.

- He is supportive and encouraging to all new hams he meets - a good role model. This guy knows more about amateur radio than anyone I know (it's amazing to see all the homebrew transceivers, power supplies, tuners, and assorted equipment he has built... his soldering is the work of an artisan)

- despite his experience, knowledge, and operating interests (CW only, very, very rarely on phone), he never looks down his nose at those of us working our way 'up the ranks' and into the hobby... (this is also true of nearly all hams at our local club)

- i just hope that one day i can develop half the skills (radio- and people-related) of some of the hams i've met so far...

[AE6IP]

Here is a thought for the &quot;I overcame my handicap and could do it; so you should be able to also&quot; crowd:

Stephen Hawking has overcome greater handicaps than anyone in his field --- greater than most people. If he can understand general relativity well enough to add to the field, than anyone can.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W1RFI @ Dec. 19 2003,05:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 17 2003,22:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">However, I never complained about the code test. #I simply didn't bother with the hobby.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That may tell us more about this subject than nearly anything else I have read here...

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Because it's time to drop Element 1.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3STX @ Dec. 19 2003,05:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Those down in HF and those guys doing EME know exactly what we are talking about.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

With all due respect, I must disagree with this claim. It is clear, based on the NCVEC and FISTS petitions, that those &quot;down in HF&quot; do not agree on this issue. If that is so, then there must be a legitimate difference of opinions, and not a lock-step &quot;exactly what we are talking about.&quot;

[w5alt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 19 2003,20:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here is a thought for the &quot;I overcame my handicap and could do it; so you should be able to also&quot; crowd:

Stephen Hawking has overcome greater handicaps than anyone in his field --- greater than most people. #If he can understand general relativity well enough to add to the field, than anyone can.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Are you talking about passing a 5 WPM test and comparing it to advances in the field of general relativity? I don't recall anyone saying they had to be the best, just that most can do what many other people with handicaps have done many times. No one is saying that people should do things that most people without handicaps can't even do.

Did Hawking learn 5 WPM Morse? I really don't know, but I wonder if Hawking could have applied himself enough to pass it.

Bad comparison, Marty. Must have been the egg nog, right? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KG4CGC]

Everyone has their cross to bear in life. That doesn't mean that code as a requirement is right. Plain and simple its time has come and passed, passed on like the horse we continue to beat. Code as a requirement is wrong. Period. To all those who worked so hard to get their code down, good for each of you! I commend you all! Guess you don't want to think you did all that work for nothing. Sorry. I stand behind what I said, code as a requirement is no longer needed. As an endorsment fine. I'm all for that.
I won't change my mind and neither will you I'm sure.
More flames I say more FLAMES! It's getting cold in here!

[kn6z]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AG4YO @ Dec. 19 2003,08:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If CGC would have read the whole chain, he would have seen that I not only walked a mile in his shoes but he's wearing my hand-me-down shoes.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Negatory on the shoes, good buddy. This is the fallacy upon which the &quot;if I can, anybody can&quot; argument rests. You have walked in no one's shoes but your own. The obstacles you've cleared say nothing about anyone else's.

[ky5u]

6z,

Okay, I take generally your point, but answer these questions for me. #What makes me so special or important that I should have expected someone to change qualification standards so I can belong? #And how could anyone who fought for lower standards to ensure their participation ever have pride in the accomplishment?

CGC,

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Everyone has their cross to bear in life. That doesn't mean that code as a requirement is right. Plain and simple its time has come and passed, passed on like the horse we continue to beat. Code as a requirement is wrong[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

For shure you are entitled to an opinion. #And others are entitled to tell you if they think your opinion is good or bad. Personally, I think you fall within the category of Amateurs who have convinced themselves they are poor little victims who can't pass the mean old test, so they are MAD!!!! #No code!!! #The code is dead(we hope)!!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To all those who worked so hard to get their code down, good for each of you! I commend you all! Guess you don't want to think you did all that work for nothing[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

A bitter compliment. #No, I don't care that I did any work necessary to get my ticket. #I am just sorry anyone would be allowed to whine their way in.

[kn6z]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AG4YO @ Dec. 20 2003,12:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">6z,

Okay, I take generally your point, but answer these questions for me. #What makes me so special or important that I should have expected someone to change qualification standards so I can belong? #And how could anyone who fought for lower standards to ensure their participation ever have pride in the accomplishment?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Please understand that my comments were restricted to the &quot;if I can, anyone can&quot; argument only. As to what someone should expect, or take pride in, I don't know.

Speaking for myself: When I got my general in 1972, I did take some pride in earning the ticket, but for the most part, I was motivated by the radio privilages I would obtain.

[KC0REY]

Nine pages of drivel, crap even. I am a new ham, and ham radio operators on this site act like that is something I should be ashamed of. I learned about ham radio and was befriended by a ham radio operator 30 years ago. Timing and job responsibilities through out the years didn't allow me to have the time to test until recently. I can no longer work and this is a great new thing for my retirement. I am enjoying it tremendously and if you take this site out of the picture the Hams I have met and QSOed with have all been great people. Like my friend 30 years ago. Seems to me that a huge number of cry babies are on this site. I don't like CBer's Whaa Whaaa! ........I don't like truck drivers Whaaa! Whaaa! I don't like newbies Whaaa Whaaa!....Jeez guys, If you are not happy talking about being a Ham online then sell your computers and go key your radio. Some Newbie would love to talk to you.

As to code......My choice is to learn as much CW as I possible am able to and I plan on upgrading by May of next year. I will give myself six months and upgrade again to Extra. I have no problems with being required to learn code. I would have no problem if I were not required to learn code. I will learn code because I wish to and because I wish to communicate with people using code. I think it is fascinating.

For you cry babies, you know who you are........Ham radio is diverse, people from all ages and all walks of life can use this service and communicate with each other. It is a lifestyle that I have loved all my life and finally get to participate in. You need to sit back and realize that you run nothing and learn to get along. I'll bet you don't act like this when you are making that DX contact.

OK I know I am going to get flamed. Flame away!

[ky5u]

From C0REY, two quotes:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nine pages of drivel, crap even[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You need to sit back and realize that you run nothing and learn to get along. I'll bet you don't act like this when you are making that DX contact.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

My comment:

Congrats on being so excited on getting your ticket. I am also glad it works out to enhance your retirement. A couple of suggestions:

1. Your first comment is a flame. Not a good start.
2. On your second point, you'll need to learn the difference between being on the the internet, and on the air.

No flame intended. We exchange ideas, argue, comment, joke around, pull each other's chain here, and pretty much have fun. Sometimes folks get angry, but they usually calm down. Sometimes we get a little too wrapped up in the discussions but that too shall pass.

If you read your own message, you take these folks to task then you proceed TO DO THE SAME THING to us. What's up with that?

[KG4CGC]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AG4YO @ Dec. 19 2003,13:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">6z,

Okay, I take generally your point, but answer these questions for me. #What makes me so special or important that I should have expected someone to change qualification standards so I can belong? #And how could anyone who fought for lower standards to ensure their participation ever have pride in the accomplishment?

CGC,

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Everyone has their cross to bear in life. That doesn't mean that code as a requirement is right. Plain and simple its time has come and passed, passed on like the horse we continue to beat. Code as a requirement is wrong[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

For shure you are entitled to an opinion. #And others are entitled to tell you if they think your opinion is good or bad. Personally, I think you fall within the category of Amateurs who have convinced themselves they are poor little victims who can't pass the mean old test, so they are MAD!!!! #No code!!! #The code is dead(we hope)!!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To all those who worked so hard to get their code down, good for each of you! I commend you all! Guess you don't want to think you did all that work for nothing[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

A bitter compliment. #No, I don't care that I did any work necessary to get my ticket. #I am just sorry anyone would be allowed to whine their way in.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Not mad about a thing!
Code is the way it is now, that's a fact. Code in the future will be voluntary, an endorsment with it's extra privileges for band space. But don't go screaming about the sky falling when the FCC decides to drop code as a requirement. I think someone else here is bitter.
Whine away!

[KC0REY]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AG4YO @ Dec. 20 2003,23:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">From C0REY, two quotes:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nine pages of drivel, crap even[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You need to sit back and realize that you run nothing and learn to get along. I'll bet you don't act like this when you are making that DX contact.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

My comment:

Congrats on being so excited on getting your ticket. #I am also glad it works out to enhance your retirement. #A couple of suggestions:

1. Your first comment is a flame. #Not a good start.
2. On your second point, you'll need to learn the difference between being on the the internet, and on the air.

No flame intended. #We exchange ideas, argue, comment, joke around, pull each other's chain here, and pretty much have fun. Sometimes folks get angry, but they usually calm down. #Sometimes we get a little too wrapped up in the discussions but that too shall pass. #

If you read your own message, you take these folks to task then you proceed TO DO THE SAME THING to us. #What's up with that?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Point taken'. I surely didn't mean to intentionally flame.
When it come to Hams talking to Hams I would think that a certain decorum should be expected amongst ourselves. All the bashing I have seen in these forums is very contrary to what I was taught as a child by my old friend. How are we to promote the service to others, and guys there are children that come to this site to learn, many already hams. It is bad behavior.

I truly wish I could remember my old friends call. By now he is either a silent key or 106 years old. He was a good man. Many of the local children hung out to watch him run his rig and eat his wife's cookies. Sometimes one or two of us actually got to talk to people many miles away.

[K7KBN]

Regarding earlier posts about Steven Hawking and his disabilities: his disabilities are physical, not mental (duh!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. He can, however, get around with his chair, and can communicate quasi-vocally (and can even guest star on The Simpsons). His ability to discuss quantum physics is unaffected by his ALS.

Yes, he has overcome his disabilities. I would be astounded if he could NOT learn Morse code at the awesome speed of 5WPM.

[ky5u]

C0REY,

I wish you could remember who he was too. We need to remember and glorify all the folks who do special things to make this hobby so special. And, share the stories of their good works.

[K3STX]

KC0REY,

I wonder what your old elmer would have thought if, at the time you were learning from him, you said &quot;You know, I think this Morse code stuff is overrated and old fashioned. Times change, you radio guys really should get with the '70s and eliminate this code requirement.&quot; Think about THAT the next time you belittle our love of this hobby. Somehow I don't think he would have said &quot;You know what? You are RIGHT, and for all these years I thought it was important to require this of my new elmeree's.&quot;

It's not trivial to some of us. It's very personal.

paul

[W5HTW]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kn6z @ Dec. 19 2003,22:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AG4YO @ Dec. 19 2003,08:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If CGC would have read the whole chain, he would have seen that I not only walked a mile in his shoes but he's wearing my hand-me-down shoes.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Negatory on the shoes, good buddy. This is the fallacy upon which the &quot;if I can, anybody can&quot; argument rests. You have walked in no one's shoes but your own. The obstacles you've cleared say nothing about anyone else's.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
There are hundreds of thousands of women, not to mention quite a few Blacks, who would disagree with you on that. They laid the groundwork for progress, just as hams gone past laid the groundwork for today's ham radio.

Having said that, I have no particular feelings about code as a testing requirement. But in no way do I want to belittle my own accomplishment, nor that of the hundreds of thousands of hams who did take and pass the code test in America between the 1930s and 1991. Almost none of them complained, though some small percentage did, as is true in every walk of life. Someone always wants it easier.

Well, maybe the time for 'easier' has come. I suspect it has, and I think the FCC will make that decision in early 2004, if not at the end of 2003. (As they did Dec 31, 1999)

My own feeling is about obstacles, though. Some can do this, some can do that. But not everyone can do everything. Ham radio is not a birthright. There are indeed people who either 'can't' or 'won't' or 'don't care.' I learned very young I can't play baseball, though I really wanted to. Very poor eyesight, and the state of glasses at that time, made it impossible for me to see the ball. I didn't ask for a bigger, slower ball, closer bases, more strikes. I just backed away and accepted that it was an activity in which I could not participate.

That is true of ham radio. Under current rules (and as noted, I think they will change very soon) if you can't do code, you can't do HF. Do something else. Play baseball, collect stamps, shoot arrows, fish or hunt. It is patently unfair to ask that the rules change because you won't meet the requirements.

Those who founded and expanded ham radio did not do that. They simply studied and passed, or they found another activity. That is how it should be now. If, after the first of the year the FCC changes the rules so there is no code testing, then THAT is the way it should be, and no one should start complaining that there should be NO testing at all.

But they will.


Ed

[W5HTW]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 19 2003,17:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W1RFI @ Dec. 19 2003,05:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 17 2003,22:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">However, I never complained about the code test. I simply didn't bother with the hobby.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That may tell us more about this subject than nearly anything else I have read here...

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Because it's time to drop Element 1.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
And THAT is how it should be! If you can't play the game, don't ask for change to suit you. Go play another game in some other sandbox.

Ed

[KC0REY]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3STX @ Dec. 21 2003,20:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">KC0REY,

I wonder what your old elmer would have thought if, at the time you were learning from him, you said &quot;You know, I think this Morse code stuff is overrated and old fashioned. Times change, you radio guys really should get with the '70s and eliminate this code requirement.&quot; Think about THAT the next time you belittle our love of this hobby. Somehow I don't think he would have said &quot;You know what? You are RIGHT, and for all these years I thought it was important to require this of my new elmeree's.&quot;

It's not trivial to some of us. It's very personal.

paul[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
K3STX,

You need to go back and READ my post. I said nothing against code. As a matter of fact I spoke favorably of code.

Nor have I belittled your love of this &quot;hobby&quot;. I see it as a lifestyle and one that I openly and loudly embrace.

I did speak against the way you guys fight and complain within this forum.

Go back and re-read what I said. To summarize it for you I spoke highly of this lifestyle and complained about the general bitch fest that tends to go on in this forum.

[kn6z]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W5HTW @ Dec. 21 2003,21:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kn6z @ Dec. 19 2003,22:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AG4YO @ Dec. 19 2003,08http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif9)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If CGC would have read the whole chain, he would have seen that I not only walked a mile in his shoes but he's wearing my hand-me-down shoes.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Negatory on the shoes, good buddy. #This is the fallacy upon which the &quot;if I can, anybody can&quot; argument rests. #You have walked in no one's shoes but your own. #The obstacles you've cleared say nothing about anyone else's.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
There are hundreds of thousands of women, not to mention quite a few Blacks, who would disagree with you on that. #They laid the groundwork for progress, just as hams gone past laid the groundwork for today's ham radio. #

SNIP

If, after the first of the year the FCC changes the rules so there is no code testing, then THAT is the way it should be, and no one should start complaining that there should be NO testing at all. #

But they will.


Ed[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Your point about women and Blacks went over my head.

Anyone who feels like complaining about a license requirement, should. Dialogue is good. It helps the hobby. Inferior arguments for change either don't survive the debate, or if they do stick around, are not persuasive enough to stimulate change. I don't think the hobby is endangered by talking.

[kn6z]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0REY @ Dec. 21 2003,23:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To summarize it for you I spoke highly of this lifestyle and complained about the general bitch fest that tends to go on in this forum.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Why do you subject yourself to code debate threads? Titles such as that of the current thread too deceptive?

[ky5u]

6z,

Merry Christmas first off... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Inferior arguments for change either don't survive the debate, or if they do stick around, are not persuasive enough to stimulate change.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Well said. We have many fundamental arguments on both sides that are so incorrect that they are now not persuasive enough to cause or prevent change. The common hide-away for people with bad arguments is to attempt to squelch the debate.

It is too easy on QRZ to avoid a topic if it bothers you without insisting we all cease to discuss. If my point of view does not win, I plan to paste a big stupid grin on my face and move on. Some wont. THEN we can talk about squelching.

[kn6z]

Merry Christmas to you, Charlie.

Let's hijack this thread, and argue about Christmas trees. I have always liked the old fashioned, natural Douglas Fir. Not the perfectly shaped, uniformly dense, cultivated tree, but the kind that looks like it was cut down in a forest--also known as a &quot;Charlie Brown&quot; tree. I can't get them anymore. They slowly started disappearing from Christmas tree lots a few years ago, at least here in So Cal. If they were making money,