ARRL FAQ #Question of the Week

[ky5u]

Closed:


See Weekly FAQ #2 chain.

[K2WH]

This has to be the best rant in many years. #I think you take yourself and the hobby too seriously.

"By labeling the discussion as a "religious debate", the League labels the participants as religious zealots thereby taping into the negative connotation. #Therefore if you debate code retention, you are a religious zealot to be shunned and ignored. #This attempt to pigeonhole the telegraphy debate should be considered a case of bigotry. #The ARRL uses a religious stereotype to foster preconceived notions about those who would defend CW testing for whatever reason by their association. It allows the League to appear to be above the fray, champions of modern ideas, defender of the hobby from the religious right! It entrenches them in their position without need for listening to other opinions."

Say what?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif???

"Next, I took the "religious debate" #response to my neighborhood church and showed it to the Pastor. #He was outraged."

No wonder he was outraged. #What in the world does your pastor have to do with this? #I think you should apologize to him for wasting his time.

Maybe you should call the Pope on this very important issue. Maybe you should have the ARRL board arrested.

K2WH

[KA3RFE]

"FAQ"?

I don't see you giving any answers to any questions about the proposal from the ARRL.

You're just writing your own take on the plan, you're not explaining a thing.

[W5HTW]

The word "religious" does not necessarily mean of or pertaining to one's God or Gods. It also means adamant devotion (to anything - such as to brushing one's teeth religiously,) which certainly describes the CW issue. You have gone off on a very strange tangent to try to turn the Morse testing issue into a Satan versus God debate, one side representing God and the other the anti-Christian movement. And you even enlisted the "aid" of your pastor, taking it a lot further than than the ARRL's mention of "religious debate."

You need to see if you can find some ground beneath your feet.

Ed

[nt7c]

While I can surely understand the response you received from your clergy, I don't agree that the phrase "amateur radio's religious debate" as implying anyone or everyone involved in the debate is, in any way, a Religious Zealot. #The ARRL could have as easily phrased it at amateur radio's political debate. #Would you have then read into it that everyone taking a side was a liar and/or thief (or whatever your opinion of politicians)?

The label of Religious Zealot was applied to all those involved in the discussion by you, Charlie, not the ARRL.

I read the reference made by the ARRL to mean that everyone has a very strong opinion, usually based upon faith (emotion?) rather than logic, and that nobody involved is likely to be swayed from their position.

An informal poll in this area reflects, in general, an approval of the ARRL proposal. #There have been a couple of concerns expressed. #1) that a current technician may not have a sufficient introduction to HF operating procedures, and 2) that the ARRL's use of the title Restructuring II conveys that the ARRL is the moving force behind the change.

While you may be correct in your statement of inconsistent operation by the individual League Directors, here in North Texas our Director did indeed solicit comments and in fact personally replied to my comments regarding maintaining Element 1 testing for Extra. #This indicated to me that my Director listened to my concerns and desires. #My Director acted as I wished and as a result will continue to receive my support each time he comes up for reelection.

If you don't like the outcome of the Board's action, go after the duly elected representatives that sit on the Board. #Just maybe the place for you to start would be for you to run for Director.

73,
Moe Knight
NT7C

[n8wce]

Ok, ok, how about Morse Code zelot. The point is we need to THINK about issues, not FEEL about them. I use CW 75 to 80% of the time on 10-160, and I absolutly love it. I don't have much intrest in the digital modes right now, but I would hate to be penalized for that. CW is a dead (or rapidly departing) mode outside the ham bands. It is THE hobby mode, used today only by CW hobbiests (is that a word?). It's just another mode.
Just one Ham's $.02
--... ...-- Willie

[N8HE]

MMMMM.....if you dislike what the ARRL proposed drop your membership. I may not whole heartedly agree with the proposal, but at least they have kept the code intact for the Extra class. I don't support the part of Grandfathering the now novice to Tech and the tech to general, I see a loophole that will allow a novice today to be a general tomorrow with no new testing. My district manager did in fact ask for comments by internet, I voiced mine, only to find that the proposal was a done deal before I was asked for input. I still support the Arrl and will continue to do so, but will make my comments to the FCC when public comments are solicitated. So I guess what I'm saying is I don't agree with you.

[ke4pjw]

Why that's a nice Ad Hominem attack you have on the ARRL there. Too bad you didn't decide to attack the logic of the proposal itself.

[kb7uxe]

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah morse code blah blah blah blah blah blah blahl bah pastor blah blah blah blah blah blah blah good blah blah blah blah bad blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah religious blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah arrl blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah ........

And that sums up my take on this issue..
( makes about as much sense as the orignal posted msg. )
I guess QRZ doesn't pre-screen these posts any more..
Dan ..
8-)

[ke6irp]

The ARRL has sold out, lost it, one wheel in the sand...to charactorize this as a religious debate is so strange it's hard to imagine.

The proposal guts the hobby and opens the floodgates---Many aspects of the proposal are bad. From dropping the code requirement to selling out the Generals----very weak---I hope the FCC sees the light.--Chris-

[K2WH]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ke6irp @ Jan. 26 2004,11:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The ARRL has sold out, lost it, one wheel in the sand...to charactorize this as a religious debate is so strange it's hard to imagine.

The proposal guts the hobby and opens the floodgates---Many aspects of the proposal are bad. From dropping the code requirement to selling out the Generals----very weak---I hope the FCC sees the light.--Chris-[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Interesting. Sold out to whom? Let us know.

K2WH

[N3TTN]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FAQ"?

I don't see you giving any answers to any questions about the proposal from the ARRL.

You're just writing your own take on the plan, you're not explaining a thing. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>



This is not a religion with him, it's an obsession, and that is not healthy behavior, as we say in my profession.

[wb0m]

You took the "religious debate" statement out of context and W5HTW nicely summed up a response.
Now, saying the ARRL "sold out" is a stretch.
The ARRL's proposal is not great, but with or without the #ARRL's input, the FCC will probably drop the CW requirement. So, "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know". And please don't take that proverb out of context.
Jeff/wb0m

[k0fl]

The ARRL sold us out years ago so it's not much of a surprise to me of this latest kick in the nuts. It's funny how when you let your membership expire they will send you three letters to get you back, but when an issue as important as this comes up they "feel/believe" they know whats best for ham radio in the future without a poll of their membership. As I have stated before.. I'd rather see ham radio die a dignified death than become channel 19. But it's too late for dignity..sad but true.

de KØFL

[ka7lgf]

Hi all! I know that this is a heated debate & I have been in the middle of it more than once on BOTH SIDES!!! Everyone likes to be recognized for their achievements #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif But I don't know of anyone who likes to be FORCED to do anything! There are those who will (for their own gratification & justification) hold their capabilities over someone else in a self-rightous pretense of "Weeding Out the Rif-Raff for the Good of the Organization"!!! I think unfortunatly the ARRL has gone the way of our National Government in putting the "System" ahead of the "Body" http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif Over the many years we have been watching the slow decline & decay of Ham Radio primarilly due to outdated testing requirements. While we have also seen the Internet (a fabulous communication form) grow expotentially!!! # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif #I would like to see the FCC maintain our license classes & spectrum allocations while removing the Code requirement. We need encouragement to GROW http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[ky5u]

I do not see the debate as "religious". #On the contrary. #I see people making points on both sides discussing their views honestly. The outrage is to dismiss this discussion as a "religious debate" as the League attempts to do.

The FAQ form can be good or bad. #If it addresses the issue it can be good. #If it is an attempt to limit access to requiring the PEOPLE involved to personally answer questions, then it is bad. #And especially so if the question is dismissed in the first paragraph as a "religious debate". #If you asked an important question to anyone and the first words out of their mouths were that you were a "nut" to even discuss the issue...well, you'd not be happy.

My views on their proposal are known. #Although I support telegraphy testing for General Class, I could probably support the League proposal with a modification in how the Technician Class licensees are handled. #If they were made Novices or if we simply did NOTHING with them (they kept current privledges untill passing Element 3), then I would be tempted to support the plan.

Even though I am not so far away from their position, I am still concerned at:

1. How they poll members (or don't) on issues.
2. How they treat arguments.
3. Their view on the future of the hobby.

And most assuredly, I take issue with a FAQ form that dismisses the discussion process on any issue as a "religious debate".

I also will not quit my membership. For all the things wrong with the ARRL, I have and will continue to defend it as being both needed and necessary. Quitting is the easy way out. No, we need to do as the article suggests and hold them to the high standard they claim to maintain.

The acid test IMHO is that even if the League and I agreed on the proposal, I would have issues with the condecending and dismissive way they are answering questions about it.

[WB6FTI]

The remarks of K2WH, KA3RFE, W5HTW and NT7C reflect my current thoughts on the original post.
In spite of some naysayers, the ARRL still represents the attitudes and aspirations of most American amateur operators. If only our governments could achieve such concensus, however limited!

WB6FTI

Trying to stretch a metaphor like "Religous Debate" into a way to dismiss the issue by stereotyping the pro-code interests only supports what I'm sure was an unintended misinterpretation. In other words, "If the shoe fits wear it" and there were certainly enough people around willing to yank that boot on just before they put their foot in their mouth.

Too funny, you have proved his point for him !

[KC7ATO]

Nice to see "The Dead Horse Flogging Society" is still alive and well. I do think the "Religious Connotation" is a bit much though. Charlie, rather than your Pastor maybe you should have asked "Ms. Cleo" for her advice. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[W5GD]

You are quite eloquent in your responce to an issue that was not intended by the ARRL in the first place. #

The ARRL did NOT make this into a religious debate; you did. #What the ARRL intended to say was that the passion with which hams on both sides of this issue debate the code requirement reminds one of what a couple of theologians debating a theological point would look like. #The ARRL could just as easily have used the term 'political debate'. #As a fundamentalist Christian, I instantly saw what was intended, because I have seen passionate religious debate. #Never once did I take the ARRL's statements to mean that this WAS a religious debate.

I was not offended by the comment. #I may or may not agree with the ARRL proposal, but their use of a most descriptive term helped to me, and I suspect quite a few others, to put this debate in perspective. #I thought their choice of words helped show respect to both sides of the issue. #

If you want to attack the ARRL proposal, do so on the merits of the issue and not their choice of metaphores. #I suspect that you could come up with a few metaphores that would offend someone if you took sides in the real issue.

The issue is code vs. no code. #It reminds me of what I've read about the spark-gap vs. CW debate. #Or the CW vs. AM debate. #Or the AM vs. SSB debate. #Or, still to come, the SSB vs. Digital debate. #

Our hobby is changing. #One need only to look at the past to establish that fact.

Steve, W5GD

[ke4pjw]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AG4YO @ Jan. 26 2004,12:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I do not see the debate as "religious". On the contrary. I see people making points on both sides discussing their views honestly. The outrage is to dismiss this discussion as a "religious debate" as the League attempts to do.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It's "religious" in the sense that many on both sides of the debate will never accept compromise. Just as "sprinklers" and "dunkers" have very different views on baptism that are not likely to change, so do the "pro-coders" and "no-coders". It's not dismissive at all, it an accurate analogy.

[N2PVP]

Charlie Young AG4YO,
# # # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # I believe after reading the post before this you should now realize that your renting has fallen on deaf ears. You have proven that this is akin to a "Religious Debate".

As far as the ARRL, the members elect the board. Same as our senators, congressmen and the president. We elect them with the idea in mind that they will do the best job for us. But like all elected officials they cannot serve all of the people all the time. The CW debate will go on long after you and I leave this world. For me life is to short to rack my brain worrying about keeping or not keeping CW as a test for amateur radio. If you like CW use it if you don’t than don’t use it. #We all tend to at different times in our lives become passionate about something. Most of the time it happens when we are bored and do not have anything else to concern ourselves with. #I for one would rather send my free time enjoying the company of my granddaughter. #Everything else comes in last place. #Get out and enjoy life and stop worrying about CW.

[w5vnv]

I just don't see your point or why you would ask your pasture to reply. If you don't like the proposal you can comment to the FCC when asked. This is why we elect leaders to take the lead and make a stand. Like someone else said you can run for the board.
You have let your emotions over take your reasonning. Don't just rant & rave suggest an alternative.

KD5SQE

[w6th]

WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS A CALLING OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS AND CLEAN HOUSE.

Good idea for the ARRL and the FCC as well. Not meaning to get rid of the ARRL, but to get some real hams in there to run the business. Like the people that got ham radio on the map. People like Mr Kenneth B. Warner, John Huntoon. These men were devoted to ham radio operators and brought ham radio to fortune. The new folks at ARRL have money on their minds in place, which is very good, but please don't exploit the membership by doing so.

I have high hopes this will work out for all classes of licensed hams and may we all dwell together in unity.

Hope we will all survive from harms way

73, W6TH

[K4JSR]

If you really want to see a religious war that makes Jihad
seem like recess at playschool, take Football away from
college athletics! Then you will see religious frenzy at its
absolute max! Ham radio's present debacle would not even
rate as an insult across picket lines in that war! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Hell hath no fury like an alumnus scorned!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
I've been in ham radio over 50 years. It has been going to hell in a handbasket since Hiram Percy Maxim's days.
I wish the descent would accelerate. The suspense is
driving me stark raving sane! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Back to the dead horse beatings now--
73 Cal K4JSR
PS. You'll know when the League says code is dead.
The code practice sessions on W1AW will go away. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[wd0ct]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KA3RFE @ Jan. 27 2004,09<!--emo&http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"FAQ"?

I don't see you giving any answers to any questions about the proposal from the ARRL.

You're just writing your own take on the plan, you're not explaining a thing.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

This is typical of yo [and some of his toadies]. Read his bio and maybe you will understand why this ham has such a 'self important - I'm right' outlook about his proposals and his so called compromises. His head is #nearly as big as k1man's.

[ag4hy]

just one word: horse!!!!!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[KG4RRH]

First let me start off by saying that most of this discussion has become a religious debate in the purest of forms. Remember, along with the spiritual topics, Webster defines religion as a cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. I've watch both sides of the code/no-code debate express thoughts that fit that exceptionally well.

Personally, I'm OK with the ARRL's proposal. I wish however that the FCC required real tests instead of the jokes they have today for all levels (I passed my tech with no questions wrong without any preparation at all) AND REQUIRE that all HAMs be re-tested with the then current test each time their license is renewed. I've always been a big believer in continuing education and I think the service would be a lot better if the FCC required re-testing of some sort. I also don't think that the questions should be released before hand.

On the code/no-code issue. I've got to say that I'm rather biased toward no-code. Yes, it is a mode that can work in emergencies with minimal equipment but yes, it's just another mode. It's also a mode that I'll never have skills in again but even if I did, I doubt if I'd ever use it. Not everyone can learn code ... I'm currently an example. Years and years ago, the FAA required basic code for a pilots license. During practice sessions, I could send and copy at greater than 20wpm without any great difficulty. I could copy a 30 minute session that included a full regional weather report and traffic vectors along with variable spacing and intentional keying errors, without error ... perfect in fact. At the time, I was in local HAM club and enjoyed the help I got from many, many elmers who were all very helpful and happy to explain anything I wanted to learn on any topic even remotely related to Ham radio.

Then, I almost died from bacterial meningitis.

After months of recovery to regain things like speech and general language skills, I moved on with my life, picked up a couple of degrees (Electrical Eng. being the main one), a wife, and had a couple of kids. I still have a speech problem that requires me to actively think about how I'm going to make most sounds, but most people never notice it, just the occasional pause. I got back into SWL/HAM radio when my kids flew the nest after picking up a couple degrees (each) for themselves, walked into a test session, and aced the tech. test a few years back. My wife (now KI4COF) bought me a multi-band HT (VX5). I then started to "refresh" my code skills, fully believing I'd have my general taken care of at the next test session and my extra shortly after that. The only problem is that at speeds above about 1wpm (which may be too fast depending on the character) I can no longer discriminate between a dit and a dah, not by ear, eye, or touch. Another strange after effect of being sick is that my ability to learn languages improved (and continues to improve) to the point where a few weeks exposure (NOT formal instruction but straight exposure, best in a group of locals that don't mind me asking questions) and I can understand enough to be a productive participant in a conversation. A pass job brought me to many, many places around the world and I've picked up 16 languages with little difficulty, including nihongo (Japanese). The only ones I had difficulty with were a couple of Chinese dialects that make serious use of very minor inflections. In all cases, languages have come to me slowly at first but them like a flood after just a few weeks. Maybe the FCC should require local language proficiency before we're allowed to carry on a QSO with a non-native speaker :-)

If you think that's strange, I can also copy AFSK packet (yes, 1's and 0's) at 300 baud fairly well by ear and I think I could learn RTTY if I wanted; just not CW. I wrote a program to convert CW to tones (settled on 440=dit, 1260=dah) and I can mostly (LOTS and LOTS of errors) read CW off the air but not good enough to pass a 5wpm test.

After spending almost two years and having tried every training tool I could put my hands on with no results, I finally came to the realization a few weeks before Christmas last year that I wasn't going to become a general. I had thought that all I needed to do was develop a new pathway in my brain and, worst case, start over again but I guess it wasn't meant to be. I'll live with the sat's, packet, repeaters for now. Quite honestly, after listen to the HF bands for a while, I'm not so sure I want to go there anyway. Between contesters doing massive amounts of traffic using only the minimal exchange possible and groups of HAMs that seem to feel they "own" a particular freq., berating other Hams that try to join in, it sounds nothing like I remember it in years past.

'73 KG4RRH Mike

[AB0SI]

"Religious debate" is a wellknown term. It has nothing to do with religous freedom. I don't eman to sound nasty, but I can not help it here: It seems that neither your pastor nor you ahve ever read much history, political science, or sociology.

"Religious debate" simply means an issue (any issue) which is not subject to rational discussion. The two (or more) sides are wedded to their position and no arguements are goiong to sway anyone.

Getting upset about the use of that phrase (and thinking it has anything to do with freedomof religion) simply shows a lack of a liberal education. It rather detracts from anything else you have to say, I'm afraid.

Paul AB0SI

[n3mvf]

I told my priest about me throwing a "hail Mary" pass in college and he likened me to a pagan (sarcasm) even though it was for a Catholic university. # Political correctness gone wrong.......Was their a point to the spent broadband comparing a common phrase and the ARRL beside political correctness?

73
Greg

[n7wsb]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AG4YO @ Jan. 26 2004,12:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Next, I took the "religious debate" #response to my neighborhood church and showed it to the Pastor. #He was outraged. #To liken a debate on Ham Radio to the struggle of people for religious freedom and expression was a concern to him. #He offered to immediately to organize a letter writing campaign to the League on this issue.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Two words "mellow out" - anyhow thats the reason why the ARRL put the term in quotes. You could show the comments on qrz.com to any outsider and they probably could describe this issue as a religous one.

Much in in the same way the c.s.*.advocacy groups fight over which computer is best. As a matter of record many of the posts on there have been cross posted to the alt.religon newsgroups as a joke.

Here I have a simple proposal for everyone that wants to spout off how bad the ARRL is. take 5 minutes email the Director for your section. then post the reply you get here.

maybe some will get the big picture after that.

Start quote
Hi Kevin,
I agree and we discussed that option. Unfortunately, it would have meant that Techs who didn't take the test would have been classified as Novices and that would have meant "taking away" some of their privileges (both bands and power - the Novice power levels were designed to be below the RF safety limits). We tried that once as you may recall (incentive licensing) and it was a fiasco that divided amateur radio for a generation. So, given the two options, we are betting it's better to giveth than to taketh away.

Here some more info http://www.arrl.org/news/restructuring2/faq.html

Thanks very much for your support. I think I'll need a flak jacket for a while!

73, Walt W0CP
End quote

73 and happy hamming
Kevin

[WA5KRP]

I'm not forsaking the League - it's the only organization with teeth to represent amateur radio's interests in bureaucratic DC. But I can't understand why Techs and Generals couldn't have extended frequency privileges by demonstrating CW proficiency. 25kcs here and there offer genuine incentives to make the effort worthwhile. As for the ballyhooed/lamented inrush of new amateurs - SOMEBODY better put our bands to work. WA5KRP

[KC0JTC]

To code or not to code that is the question, whether it is nobler to morse? #The argument over these issues that has persisted in amateur radio for the past several years has taken on clearly religious fervor and devotion. #In the battle both sides, see the other as the demonic enemy. #There are the monotheistic know coders on one side and the agnostic, athiestistic no coders on the other. #It is with religious fervor that each side tosses ad hominim attacks on the percieved enemy. #Both sides seek converts to there particular view of the metaphoric diety. #We are told by our respective "religious" institutions to go out and zealously preach the gospel wether it be code or no code. #We witness to the unbelievers and unconverted through all available forums.

The ARRL's use of religion as a metaphor for the conflict is completely accurate. #We speak in terms of a belief system rather than oppinion. #It is no wonder that there is little respect given by the respective groups one to the other. #Give me morse or give me death. #And place your right hand on the vibroflex and swear. #I am going to take my tithe from the ARRL and find a new church. #

And I thought amateur radio was around simply to experience the pure joy of operating. #I wonder how many SK's are rolling in their graves laughing at us.

[N0CTO]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k0fl @ Jan. 27 2004,10:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The ARRL sold us out years ago so it's not much of a surprise to me of this latest kick in the nuts. It's funny how when you let your membership expire they will send you three letters to get you back, but when an issue as important as this comes up they "feel/believe" they know whats best for ham radio in the future without a poll of their membership. As I have stated before.. I'd rather see ham radio die a dignified death than become channel 19. But it's too late for dignity..sad but true.

de KØFL[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yeah because 75 meters doesn't sound anything like channel 19. That "amateur radio will become just like CB" mantra holds no water. All one has to do is listen to 75/80m to all the crap that's said on there. And since it's hf we all know us lowly little no code techs aren't the ones doing it. Ham radio already does sound like CB and it's the fault of the few General and Extras that chose to behave badly and not follow the rules. The hf that I listen to sounds a heck of a lot worse than anything I've ever heard on 2meters. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

I'm not anti-code, I just haven't learned it yet. I don't think the auto upgrade to General for techs is a good idea. Yes, there are too many that don't know how to operate on hf. I had over 12yrs of hf comms experience courtesy of the military before I ever walked into amateur radio. I can only speak for myself. I know how to operate hf as do several other techs in the military that I know. Not everybody has that training so they should be required to test for it. I say bring it on. As to code, I really could care less at this point. If it stays (we all know it won't) when I learn code I'll start TALKING on hf. If it goes away, I'll start talking on hf and then learn it. (I just won't use it). It's a hobby and I'm not going to blow a gasket like some people. (I guess if some do blow an artery that will give them something else to talk about on the radio. They can mention it somwhere between their colon surgery and their enlarged prostrates).

No coders won't ruin amateur radio. What will ruin it will be the jerks who will do things like refuse to talk to or worse bad-mouth or cuss out all the newbie no coders on hf. When people start ostracizing sectors of our community like that then that my friend will be the death of amateur radio. (At least in spirit).

P.S. One more thing, If this HOBBY is getting so bad now and you actually want it to die why wait? Just go ahead and tear up your ticket and go fishing. We won't miss you.

[N0CTO]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0JTC @ Jan. 27 2004,22<!--emo&http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And I thought amateur radio was around simply to experience the pure joy of operating. #I wonder how many SK's are rolling in their graves laughing at us.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Very well put. It is for our enjoyment. If anyone uses it for anything else then that's all on them. #I believe Amateur radio is an important tool in disaster preparedness and homeland defense but at the end of the day it's really just a hobby.

I can only imagine how some of these guys treat their other hobbies. (if they have any). They probably cuss out anybody that isn't using a $4000 fishing pole or even worse, using a pole that they didn't walk up hill both ways and have to kill a bear to get to the tree to chop it down to get the wood to whiddle the pole and make fishing line out of cat gut and if they don't catch 300 fish every 30 minutes then they are obviously an idiot and have no business in the water.


Or here's a couple more: "You didn't build your computer that you use to make posts on qrz.com? Your an idiot. I built my computer. Yeah just like my radio. Silicon valley's got nothing on me. All you appliance operators just need to get off my internet. Which I built by the way." #Or: "You didn't build your car? I built my car. I also paved the highways that I drive on. I also drilled and refined the oil needed to make gasoline. If you haven't done all of that my friend then you don't need to be driving."

Know anyone like that? It's just plain crazy.

[N0TTW]

K1ZZ's response to another Ham, compliments of my ARRL director....

K1ZZ wrote:

"There are some basic assumptions behind the Board's proposal that I think will explain the thinking behind it.
#
"First, the most important consideration is that we have a license structure that will encourage the growth and development of amateur radio over the next 10-15 years.
#
"Second, three is the right number of license classes for amateur radio as we practice it in the United States. (Most other countries now have one or two.) There are three license classes available now, and it is difficult to find a rationale for asking the FCC to increase that number.
#
"Third, having "legacy" license classes that are no longer available but are maintained on the FCC's books indefinitely is not a good idea. That's the present situation with regard to the Novice and Advanced licenses. This greatly and unnecessarily complicates the FCC rules.
#
"Fourth, to the greatest extent possible, present licensees should not lose privileges.
#
"Fifth, the Technician license as it now exists is not working particularly well as an entry-level license. Amateur radio needs a better entry-level license. (I won't dwell on this as you have indicated your support for a codeless Novice license.)
#
"Finally, the Amateur Extra Class license does seem to be working appropriately. The Board could find no compelling reason to change the existing requirements, including the Morse requirement.
#
"Taken together, these assumptions lead inescapably to something similar to what the Board has proposed. If the Amateur Extra remains as-is and there is a new entry-level license, then the existing licenses have to be mapped to the new structure -- mostly in the middle. Novice maps pretty well to the new entry-level license (which is being called Novice for now). Advanced licensees have passed a written exam that's technically on par with the Extra as well as a 13-wpm Morse exam, so there's little point in continuing to deny them access to the additional Extra Class privileges (most of which are in the CW bands).
#
"The Board considered converting present Technicians into the new entry-level license, but doing so would require either a significant reduction in privileges for Technicians or the inclusion of rather advanced material (high power VHF/UHF, microwave, satellite control, etc.) to the entry-level study material.
#
"It's true that there presently is an additional written exam to go from Technician to General. That exam is on a technical level similar to that of the Technician written exam. The two exams had the same starting point. Until 1987 the Technician and General written exams were identical. In that year the exam element was split in two, with most of the HF material being put into the General and the Technician exam being principally (but not exclusively) about VHF and higher. Pre-1987 Technicians already were converted to General, following the reduction in the General Morse requirement to 5 wpm. In 1998 the Board proposed converting Tech Plus (as well as Novice -- the new proposal is a change in that respect) licensees to General in the ARRL's comments in FCC Docket 98-143. Given the dropping of the international Morse requirement for an HF license, it's not a big step from there to the new proposal.
#
"I certainly understand your desire to retain a written exam step between present Technician licensees and General privileges, but doing so would greatly complicate the transition to a new structure that has significant benefits for the longer term.
#
"One thing we know about the Technician and Tech Plus licensees who would gain General privileges under the Board's proposal is that they have passed an exam since 1987. Using myself as an example, I haven't passed an FCC exam since getting my Extra in 1965. The exam process doesn't ensure that I know anything at all about semiconductors, repeaters,
packet radio, spread spectrum, slow-scan television, satellites, or the RF safety rules. The frequency limits have changed many times since then (the bands at 5, 10, 18, 24, and 902 MHz didn't even exist in 1965)."


END

73,
Chris N0TTW

[kg4efr]

http://home.mchsi.com/~kg4efr/nocode/

nuff said.

KG4EFR

[ky5u]

Here's a question or two:

If the ARRL had said, "The entire issue of CW testing is very controversial, almost religious in nature..." would your opinion be the same?

What about,"The CW testing debate has gotten to be a biblical issue to many.."?

Or, "When I go to church on Sunday, they do readings from the bible and but I hear the CW debate.."?

What if I told you that these are three quotes from three different League Officials? By labeling and selling the debate on telegraphy testing as a "religious deate", the League dismisses arguments on both sides.

Some Directors have been forthcoming with correspondence. #My Director has not. #Others report the same "non response" for their leadership. #We want the League to clean up their proposal, specifically the promoting of Technicians without Element 3. #

My overriding belief is that there should have been a membership poll on these issues instead of a preconceived proposal by leadership. #IMHO, the "religious debate" statement is intended to remove emphasis from a very important issue to allow the leadership to foster their own plan.

[ke6irp]

The proposal stinks, period. The no code crew is tired of us saying...dumbing down....because they know it's true and it hurts. While HF won't turn into cb in a week, the process of it turning that way has been ongoing and now will continue if this lame proposal ever was passed.---Sad day for the ARRL and this hobby....

[ke6irp]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD5SQE @ Jan. 27 2004,13:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't just rant & rave suggest an alternative.

KD5SQE[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
ok--here's an alternative----give the no coders another hf band----free----no test---have fun ---tear it up lads------give them all of 10 for instance----but don't give them the whole spectrum-----what a sad joke......Chris

[W5NM]

I agree whole heartedly with Mr. Young. I too am an
ARRL member, but I think his comments hit it right
on the head! I realize that Mr Young's point was not
to give an opinion on morse code, one way or the other, But I think any plan to do away with the
morse code will only send the "go" signal to those
who would turn our ham bands into CB bands.
As for his conclusions about the ARRL statement,
Again, I believe he is correct.
And I believe this really represents the ARRL's opinion
that morse code is no longer needed. So despite the
obvious effort to appear neutral on the question, I think
that the ARRL has indeed given its thumbs down to
Morse Code. This is a grave and long term mistake!
And thats My two cents!

[W0LC]

Does it really matter what I think? THe Feds and ARRL are going to make their middle of the road decision.
Besides, if a person supports the code element, they must be in a cult, right?

What happened to separation of church and state? Can we mention the word "religion" on here?
Hi.

[ke4pjw]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AG4YO @ Jan. 27 2004,09:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here's a question or two:

If the ARRL had said, "The entire issue of CW testing is very controversial, almost religious in nature..." would your opinion be the same?

What about,"The CW testing debate has gotten to be a biblical issue to many.."?

Or, "When I go to church on Sunday, they do readings from the bible and but I hear the CW debate.."?

What if I told you that these are three quotes from three different League Officials? By labeling and selling the debate on telegraphy testing as a "religious deate", the League dismisses arguments on both sides.

Some Directors have been forthcoming with correspondence. #My Director has not. #Others report the same "non response" for their leadership. #We want the League to clean up their proposal, specifically the promoting of Technicians without Element 3. #

My overriding belief is that there should have been a membership poll on these issues instead of a preconceived proposal by leadership. #IMHO, the "religious debate" statement is intended to remove emphasis from a very important issue to allow the leadership to foster their own plan.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Is it dismissive to call the debate between Vi and Emacs advocates (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=religious+debate+vi+emacs) a "Religious Debate"? Does it somehow invalidate the good points made by the advocates for each editor?

[W0LC]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0CTO @ Jan. 27 2004,22:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k0fl @ Jan. 27 2004,10:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The ARRL sold us out years ago so it's not much of a surprise to me of this latest kick in the nuts. It's funny how when you let your membership expire they will send you three letters to get you back, but when an issue as important as this comes up they "feel/believe" they know whats best for ham radio in the future without a poll of their membership. As I have stated before.. I'd rather see ham radio die a dignified death than become channel 19. But it's too late for dignity..sad but true.

de KØFL[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yeah because 75 meters doesn't sound anything like channel 19. That "amateur radio will become just like CB" mantra holds no water. All one has to do is listen to 75/80m to all the crap that's said on there. And since it's hf we all know us lowly little no code techs aren't the ones doing it. Ham radio already does sound like CB and it's the fault of the few General and Extras that chose to behave badly and not follow the rules. #The hf that I listen to sounds a heck of a lot worse than anything I've ever heard on 2meters. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

I'm not anti-code, I just haven't learned it yet. I don't think the auto upgrade to General for techs is a good idea. Yes, there are too many that don't know how to operate on hf. I had over 12yrs of hf comms experience courtesy of the military before I ever walked into amateur radio. I can only speak for myself. I know how to operate hf as do several other techs in the military that I know. Not everybody has that training so they should be required to test for it. I say bring it on. As to code, I really could care less at this point. If it stays (we all know it won't) when I learn code I'll start TALKING on hf. If it goes away, I'll start talking on hf and then learn it. (I just won't use it). #It's a hobby and I'm not going to blow a gasket like some people. (I guess if some do blow an artery that will give them something else to talk about on the radio. They can mention it somwhere between their colon surgery and their enlarged prostrates).

No coders won't ruin amateur radio. What will ruin it will be the jerks who will do things like refuse to talk to or worse bad-mouth or cuss out all the newbie no coders on hf. When people start ostracizing sectors of our community like that then that my friend will be the death of amateur radio. (At least in spirit). #

P.S. One more thing, If this HOBBY is getting so bad now and you actually want it to die why wait? #Just go ahead and tear up your ticket and go fishing. We won't miss you.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I have to agree with some of this posting info. But do be careful who you lump into the pool of the bad apples on 75 meters. I am certain they aren't Techs, but I wouldn't go so far and label them as General and Extra class either. If that were the case, one could surmise the issues with 2 meters is the Techs fault since enforcement after enforcement listing identifies the vast majority being techs.

The issue is, we have bad apples amongst us. License class matters not. However, throwing a large group of individuals automatically into the voice (hf) spectrum certainly won't help the already decaying situation.

I always agreed with the tiered approach to licensing. Newbe, to newbe with a little knowledge to newbie with more knowledge to newbie gaining voice operating experience, etc.

This whole issue of restructuring the license class(es), etc. hasn't done anything to help amateur radio except put a few more calls on the books. How active they are is another issue. We have just as many "old timers" that aren't very active as newbies that aren't active at all.

If anything, give a small portion of HF voice to the techs and put into place some incentive to upgrade to gain more. This give away stuff doesn't encourage the hobby or motivate anyone to upgrade.

I don't agree with the proposal, ARRL's or the FEDs even considering it, but then again, who am I?

I suppose we will all have to live with the outcome in some fashion, but I sure don't see a bright future implementing it this way.

[ky5u]

pjw,

To answer your question:

If the calling of the editor discussions a "religious debate" causes some people not to participate, diminishes all the good points you refer to by being ignored, or for the debate not to be take seriously, then it is indeed dismissive. #

When you seek to engage your Director in a calm conversation about telegraphy testing and he dismisses you by saying it's a "religious debate", what do you call it?

The intention is clearly to use the stereotype to validate dismissal of the League's responsability to poll members on the issue. #It has been repeated by most Directors as a mantra.

This thing waddles, quacks, has a bill, swims, and looks like a duck. #Yet, you keep calling it a sparrow. I don't hope to change your mind, and your hanging on semantics won't change mine. Can we agree to disagree?


P.S. We do agree on one thing.... OS9 was cool!

[ke4pjw]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AG4YO @ Jan. 27 2004,11:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">pjw,

To answer your question:

If the calling of the editor discussions a "religious debate" causes some people not to participate, diminishes all the good points you refer to by being ignored, or for the debate not to be take seriously, then it is indeed dismissive. #

When you seek to engage your Director in a calm conversation about telegraphy testing and he dismisses you by saying it's a "religious debate", what do you call it?

The intention is clearly to use the stereotype to validate dismissal of the League's responsability to poll members on the issue. #It has been repeated by most Directors as a mantra.

This thing waddles, quacks, has a bill, swims, and looks like a duck. #Yet, you keep calling it a sparrow. I don't hope to change your mind, and your hanging on semantics won't change mine. Can we agree to disagree?


P.S. We do agree on one thing.... OS9 was cool![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
YO,
I was just hoping to hear a good argument for retention of the code. I don't think attacking the ARRL's characterization of the debate helps your side of the argument, but that is just MHO.

We can agree to disagree on that :)

As to OS-9, I was talking to a good friend this weekend (KD4NMD) and we were tossing around the idea if a TCP/IP stack, Ethernet driver and hardware could be built for the NitrOS9 (http://www.nitros9.org/) on the CoCo 3.

[kc4vu]

I am a long-time CW enthusiast. #I spend more time on CW than on any other mode. #I love it, and always have. #Yes, it was an effort to learn, but I thought it was worth it, and an interesting challenge. #

However, that said, I think the FCC made a big mistake years ago when they took away the 2 meter voice priveleges for novices. #For many years, novices could only operate on CW as a practical matter. #I do think that there should be an entry level license with no CW requirement. # If radio is to survive as a hobby, we need to find new ways to interest prospective radio operators.

[W0HSN]

Open the floodgates?Yes!
Sell out the generals?Yes!
I had to work very hard over several years to get the code and receive my general! Why should anyone be allowed to not do the same and give the Hf bands away to those who are either not willing to perservere, or unable to learn the code when they are physically able to do so. That is just my feelings!Maybe not right, but they are mine http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[gu7uj]

Hey, for all you too stupid or lazy to earn your general licnese maybe you will get a free NCI, NCVEC, No Work, No Brain Required license. Merry Christmas.

[KC0OWN]

This does seem to be a hot topic! Although I have only been an amateur for about a year, I have been in electronics as a professional since the 1970's, and had a hobby in electronics as a kid before that.

The facts as I see them are that older hams are dieing off and there is a lack of younger people becomming hams. This means less people involved with the hobby, and less use of the bands. Unless the bands get more useage the FCC will be forced to re-allocate the ham bands for other uses.

I do understand the romance of the code, but things change with time. I worked with many good people who could not make the change from tubes to transistors. They had to learn to adapt or leave the busisness. I also know many good people who refuse to learn about computers, again many of these are leaving the workforce. (I'm "ass u me ing" that most of you reading this understand a little about computers...) Nobody is forceing you to use phone, go ahead and use CW to your hearts content. But face the future, the code has been phased out in almost every other radio service, other than automatic station ID's and that is well on its way.

Maybe the FCC could all allocate a part of a few bands for CW only no matter what your license is.

I don't have the answers, but if changes are not made, there may be no more ham radio in another hundred years...

Dave KC0OWN

[w4lgh]

Yes once again, the "middle man" (Generals) have to pay the price, and carry the load. Ever noticed this with other things in society? (TAXES)

I have voiced many opinions on the code / no-code, and personally don't care if they drop the code or not. I do care that someone with a novice or tech class license will get bumped up to General without any additional testing (written exam) on rules/regs, band plans etc.

Drop element 1, but require element 2 for Tech, 3 for General and 4 for Extra. Its just that simple!! Why did they have to make it so "damn'ed" complicated! We have enough politics already in our life.

I am required to keep an ARRL membership because of an appointed position for my area (EC) but I am seriously thinking about dropping my ARRL membership , giving up on my position (which helps others) and go back to just playing radio!

Breaker breaker 7.251, this here is the BANDIT..thats
Baker Alpha November Delta Indigo Tango Call'n.

[N3MKC]

W4LGH

I'm a tech and I agree with your statement, to grandfather the tech is wrong. They should be required to pass the General written exam and at least know the basics of CW even if they can't copy it. Myself I don't want something for nothing, I'd rather earn it. Besides they already dropped to code about 13 years ago.

As for the ARRL I'm A long time member and I do believe they are acting in the best manner possible,just a bit to extreem.

73's
John N3MKC

[k6bbc]

To all my fellow hams who are bent out of shape, on a rant, or otherwise type A+++ upset – I have two suggestions. Embrace the change or visit the following website: www.ebay.com.

K6BBC

[w6th]

This was mentioned previously.
---------------------------------------------------------
And I thought amateur radio was around simply to experience the pure joy of operating. #I wonder how many SK's are rolling in their graves laughing at us.
---------------------------------------------------------------
You have it wrong as ham radio was not for the pure joy of #operating. The purpose was to help defend our nation of invasion from the enemy for one thing. The second and more was to give us a very low price of becoming something of value to our country. Like killing Japs and killing Germans. Or prevent any country to invade our land.

Don't have to be dead to turn over in our graves, as there are many from the ages 80 to 97 are alive today and knowing what is going on, don't appreciate your decisions and your discussions related to what you now call a hobby, which is not today and never was a hobby.

And to make life easy for folks like you, so you may raise a family and live in content.
Half of my ham friends before WW2, hams, never came back home to celebrate the use of ham radio, like you are today.

Go ahead and destroy what was once the greatest in history of man and hope you enjoy living with it.

# # # # # # # What a bunch of sad sacks.

# # # # # # # # # # #W6TH.

[N0UWW]

Radio has been my love since 1972 when I was bitten by the bug. #Yep, I'm one of those 'no-code' techs, licensed in 1992 but I've been involved in commercial 2-way radio engineering & repair since 1986 and currently employed as a government Communications Technician. #I have built, owned and been trustee for repeaters in the past also.

I've sat here the last few evenings reading the sometimes hilarious, yet very passionate postings by hams that have probably forgotten more about radio than I'll ever know... #My knowledge of tubes is that they get hot and they glow. #And they're supposed to. #But I have a lot more knowledge about transistors and IC's. #Would I only be a 'real ham' if I had knowledge about tubes? #I know of new hams that have been 'shunned' by old timers because they don't like new people on their frequencies or repeaters. #

I was briefly a member of the ARRL and was an EC for a year but resigned because none of the local hams wanted to participate in training or drills, partially due to their average age being in the 60's. #They used to brag to me about how the 'hams were always there, when needed' but if there is no incentive for young people to become hams, the hobby/service is doomed, due to declining numbers. #And at the time, I felt the ARRL was not doing the ham community any favors.

Quite frankly, I could care less whether I'm a tech, general or whatever... #I doubt I'll do any HF work because I like the VHF & UHF bands and don't feel the passion for HF like some hams do. #As far as the code goes, it's a mode like AM, FM, SSB, RTTY, Astro digital... #I wonder how Astro digital format would fly on 2 meters or 440...?

I will rejoin the ARRL because I feel that they are finally doing what is in the best interest for the ham radio community. #I was totally shocked when they introduced this petition! #

I welcome new hams to the hobby and have no problem helping those that need help getting their ticket. #Code or no-code, can't we all just get along...?

73
Dennis
NØUWW

[k7fd]

Charlie's observations are totally correct. The ARRL downplaying those opposed to the proposed changes as being emotional or carrying on a religious debate is a sign of this mis-guided organization's true colors.

Welcome to the new ARRL, run by pro's instead of amateurs.

73, John K7FD www.cwoperator.com

[W0HSN]

the whole issue has in my view come down to this! It's not an issue of code or no code. Its a matter of right and wrong. I have nothing against any (ANY) class of license but the ARRL proposal is going to end up in the same way the citizens band did in the 60's. First you must have a license.Then you dont have to have a license and now did you see those seatcovers, breaker this is trouser mouse. Hooow bout it! The proposal stinks of money and other political bull S---. The techs do need a way to experience hf but not on the entire spectrum. This proposal is giving them free reign to roam the bands without the work or initiative to work for it. (I'll probably catch hell for this one)Rog o

[ki4awk]

I totally agree with W0HSN. If the rules keep relaxing, then Ham radio will be in the same pot with CB. It will get stupid. Now, at least you have to work a little bit to enjoy the HF bands! The people that are on the air on HF are all great people with lots of knowledge of the technical side of things... Because they worked to get there! I enjoy listening to them. Yes, listen... I'm (only) a tech. I had planed to learn code and further my license after I felt I had done everything I could as a tech, which I think, has overwhelming privlages as it is! I freaked out the first time I had a QSO on a sattelite, thinking "Wow, all it takes is the bottom license to do this?!" I would love to have more people on the air as operators.... but I don't want losers on the air! Let them stick with CB!! Please don't get me wrong, I don't think that code or no code is a big issue, just that the continued relaxing of the rules is heading us straight to Hell. W4ZDP, The oldest member of our local club (he started the club) told us about the old days at a club meeting one time... back when you had to have a log book and HAD to log every call.. and they came out with this new thing called "two meters." The FCC has definatly relaxed since then http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

'73 till next time, I've got to get back to learning that (damned) code!

-.- .. ....- .- .-- -.- (that's KI4AWK for the rest of you)

[N7YA]

Just so you know, while you guys are defending our hf bands from certain destruction, cb'ers, FCC reallocation, etc....i have my rig on.

Im doing something about it....im USING the bands.

If you would like to talk to me, i would love to hear from you...no matter what your standpoint is on this issue, if you have a call, i have a spot in my logbook for you.

Look for me on the cw bands (ssb messes up the TV and i cant use it here in the apartment, cw is it for me).

I work 80-10, mornings and evenings....hope to hear you.

73...Adam, N7YA

[af6dq]

I haven't read the entire 6 pages of posts yet, so forgive me if some of this has been said, but here's my opinion of the whole proprosal, both good and bad points.
I agree with consolidating into 3 licenses, and see no reason why advanced can't be grandfathered into extra. But not tech/tech+ into general, that doesn't seem right. Instead, novice, tech, and tech+ into tech w/ some hf regardless of passing element 1. That seems more in line with a intro no-code license, imho. I'd rather see 5wpm required for general and extra ticket rather then as proposed, for extra only, but as long as techs are not grandfathered into a general class ticket, I could live with the the rest of ARRL's latest proposal. Not happily, but I could live with it.

[kf4dew]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif I am glad ARRL is wanting to put tech on the HF band. The Extra class cb's have always had it there way. That was the reason they put morse code in there, so it could be a block for other people. Times changes and people better change to. Or they may be talking to a mic, all by there self. What people don't understand is MC is not for everyone. I know, i had to do it, so should you. Well when i went into the army, the next year they stop the draft. So i didn't get mad, or say if i had to go, then should everybody else. Get over it people. This is a hobby. Not Life or death. Code will always be around for those who like it. 50 per cent of the people that took morse code, can't send it anyway. You should hear what people are saying, well i use to be good at it but, i can't do it anymore. That's all folks!!!!

[w6th]

--------------------Get a load of this---------------

That was the reason they put morse code in there, so it could be a block for other people.
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
What a bunch of sickos. This is what is coming into ham radio.

You no-coders are a disgrace to the human race.

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # .:

[ky5u]

Before we get too far off subject, the questions are:

1. "Should the ARRL have taken a poll of it's membership on cw testing retention before putting forth a proposal?"

2. "Should it have asked about codeless Novice and what should be done with technicians?"

3. "Should it have had a question concerning removing CW testing for General after granting no code HF access to Novices?"

My answer is: yes,yes,yes.

[w6th]

--------------------AG4YO-------------

I am with you on this one.

A religion to ham radio is what I cipher and that is so. I worship CW, the code. Again I say: Ham radio is my religion and ham radio I do worship.

Religion in this case is ham radio and the worship is CW.

I also go along with this as to and in regards to the ARRL:

1. Adequately poll members individually on important issues before acting.
2. Adequately record WHO voted on an issue and what their vote was.
3. Conduct debates and discussions in a responsive, organized manner.
4. Show concern and respect for all members regardless of their opinion.

The ARRL has done none of this in my opinion. In my opinion I don't believe this is what the ARRL has or had attempted to release, but by confirmed orders of, by and from the FCC.

In this case I believe the ARRL is the scape goat.

I also believe this is all caused by the past administration of,------- and ---- for 8 years of service.

Then again, this is one H-----a mess and is going to hurt Amateur Radio more than you will ever know and #believe.

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # Amen

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # .:

[W7IB]

AG4YO said:

Before we get too far off subject, the questions are:

1. "Should the ARRL have taken a poll of it's membership on cw testing retention before putting forth a proposal?"

2. "Should it have asked about codeless Novice and what should be done with technicians?"

3. "Should it have had a question concerning removing CW testing for General after granting no code HF access to Novices?"[I]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Long before the ARRL made its comments I received a survey from W6RGG, the Pacific Division Director. #It was on this very subject. #Further, I recently received an analysis of the survey from the same source. #

While I agree with 2., and 3., I think that there may be a problem in some Divisions if a survey of this type wasn't done. #Maybe those folks need to reconsider their vote, if they voted for their Division Director...

So, I was able to voice my opinion in advance, and I don't necessarily agree with the ARRL position...imo, code should stand for General and Extra (5 for General and 10 for extra), but opibnions are only worth the consideration of the listener, or reader.

Finally, it would be nice if those responding to these posts would stay on subject, AND engage their thought process before pushing the send key... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

My very best to all those who have taken the time to get any class of amateur license!

73,
Casey/W7IB

[WH7QQ]

Not at all surprising that ARRL now dismisses the CW debate with the "religious argument" sneer. They want to move on to other ways to sell ham radio. The next thing they will decide is obsolete is having to know anything at all about electronics theory to be licensed.

Follow the money! The ARRL has a longstanding conflict of interest in the CW proficiency debate. The ARRL bureaucracy and its big QST advertisers all want to maximize the numbers in Amateur Radio with little or no regard to the quality. Basic math: more hams = more QST's sold = more Kenwood, Icom, Yaesu, etc. products sold = more advertising bucks in the ARRL"for profit" coffers. To this end, they have been working for years to flush the CW requirements and it is now coming to fuition.

The ARRL does not represent this Amateur...hasn't for years.

WH7QQ

[K2WH]

What you guys don't realize or are refusing to acknowledge, is the ARRL does not make FCC policy. Its just a big club house.

K2WH

[k4wde]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WB6FTI @ Jan. 27 2004,07:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In spite of some naysayers, the ARRL still represents the attitudes and aspirations of most American amateur operators.

WB6FTI[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
How did you determine that this statement is true?
Polling?

Walt
k4wde http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[k4wde]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG4RRH @ Jan. 27 2004,13:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AND REQUIRE that all HAMs be re-tested with the then current test each time their license is renewed.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That would pretty much be the final
blow for Amateur Radio. I doubt 20
percent would bother to renew.

Walt
k4wde

[n0ov]

dot dot dot dash dash dash dot dot dot

Save us from more code/no code discussions! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[N0UWW]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w6th @ Jan. 29 2004,08:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">--------------------Get a load of this---------------

That was the reason they put morse code in there, so it could be a block for other people.
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
What a bunch of sickos. This is what is coming into ham radio.

You no-coders are a disgrace to the human race.

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # .:[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yeah that's a load of something all right...

Sounds like you take life and your hobby, oops...! your religion way too seriously... C'mon lighten up a little. Find another diversion... There's a whole big world out there outside of ham radio and cw...

Sickos? You're the one having the 'Prozac moment'.

Disgrace to the human race? You don't even know anything about the people that you're directing your comments at... I thought part of ham radio was promoting goodwill and encouraging new or prospective hams.

That all being said, then I guess I have it all wrong and am part of what's wrong with ham radio today... Guilty as charged!

73
Dennis
NØUWW

[kd4mxe]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ki4awk @ Jan. 29 2004,05:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I totally agree with W0HSN. If the rules keep relaxing, then Ham radio will be in the same pot with CB. It will get stupid. Now, at least you have to work a little bit to enjoy the HF bands! The people that are on the air on HF are all great people with lots of knowledge of the technical side of things... #Because they worked to get there! I enjoy listening to them. Yes, listen... I'm (only) a tech. I had planed to learn code and further my license after I felt I had done everything I could as a tech, which I think, has overwhelming privlages as it is! I freaked out the first time I had a QSO on a sattelite, thinking "Wow, all it takes is the bottom license to do this?!" I would love to have more people on the air as operators.... but I don't want losers on the air! Let them stick with CB!! #Please don't get me wrong, I don't think that code or no code is a big issue, just that the continued relaxing of the rules is heading us straight to Hell. W4ZDP, The oldest member of our local club (he started the club) told us about the old days at a club meeting one time... back when you had to have a log book and HAD to log every call.. and they came out with this new thing called "two meters." The FCC has definatly relaxed since then http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

'73 till next time, I've got to get back to learning that (damned) code!

-.- .. ....- .- .-- -.- #(that's KI4AWK for the rest of you)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No you dont have to get back to it if you dont wont to , you are doing it Because those cry Babies told you you had to do , so stand up For yourself , or do what they tell you to do , the choise is your,s you have that Right , 73s Bill

[kc9cdr]

i think taking morse code out of Ham Radio would be the downfall of the hobby because if you just listen to 11meters you will then plainly see and hear what is going to happen to our fine and CLEAN Hobby. BIG MIKSTAKE. the challenge of learning code was one of the reasons for me getting into the hobby. Also since 911, we may very well need the code again as bad as we did during the early wars. Thanks for listening to me babble. Please keep the code. KC9CDR http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif [CODE]

[kd4mxe]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc9cdr @ Jan. 29 2004,20:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i think taking morse code out of Ham Radio would be the downfall of the hobby because if you just listen to 11meters you will then plainly see and hear what is going to happen to our fine and CLEAN Hobby. BIG MIKSTAKE. the challenge of learning code was one of the reasons for me getting into the hobby. #Also since 911, we may very well need the code again as bad as we did during the early wars. #Thanks for listening to me babble. Please keep the code. # #KC9CDR #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif [CODE][/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
sir there is a lot of 11m on hf now just be there at the right time and the right Band , 73s bill

[W0HH]

There is nothing religious about the Morse code. In fact, Samuel Morse was a notorious anti-Catholic zealot among other things. The Morse code belongs back in the ninteenth and 20th centuries. I dont like the ARRL proposal because it requires a Boy Scout dot-dash code test, just like in 1912! And you notice that they are still doling out the SSB segments after all these decades! It is very difficult to understand why, in the 21st century, that half the bands are still for dot dash kiddie code. SSB and data should be allowed anywhere in the HF bands. No wonder we are a bunch of old men and no one wants a ham license anymore. We must get past this code issue! Flame away!

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

[n9kpn]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w6th @ Jan. 28 2004,23:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You have it wrong as ham radio was not for the pure joy of #operating. The purpose was to help defend our nation of invasion from the enemy for one thing. The second and more was to give us a very low price of becoming something of value to our country. Like killing Japs and killing Germans. Or prevent any country to invade our land.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Hmm. #I was not alive during WWII. #But my understanding was that Amateur radio operations were FORBIDDEN by the government during the war. #This included shutting down RECEIVERS, not just transmitters. #If my understanding is correct, how could Amateurs defend their country if they were not even allowed to listen to their radios? #

Don't try and elevate Amateur radio to more than what it is; a HOBBY! #Morse code is just an operational mode. #For some reason the supporters of code think it should remain as a barrier, or filter if you will, to keep the undesirables off the bands. #It has been a requirement for so long that most do not remember or know WHY Morse code was a requirement. #Those that WANT to learn code should do so. #But the need for requiring Morse code has long outlived its usefulness.

Can you point to any of the terrorists using Morse code to communicate? #Most news reports on the war on terrorism state that "monitored cell phone communications" were the source of the intelligence. #But it is ILLEGAL for American civilians to monitor cell phones or even buy new equipment that can even tune in cell frequencies! #I'm sure that Japan and Germany (or Osama???) will use plain text Morse code and the Amateur bands as their communications channel when they invade.

Like it or not you will soon be talking to people from countries that no longer require Morse code as a step in getting HF privileges. #Will you stop talking to them simply because they do not know code? #Should we start forbidding US Amateurs from talking to countries that do not require Morse code testing to be on HF?

The ARRL proposal is very poor in my opinion. #I mentioned this to the ARRL directors at a local ham fest (Jan 25). #(I'm having a "brain slip" and cannot remember the man's name but he was from the central division of the ARRL.) #The issue of the new restructuring is a very hot topic. #One thing that does not make sense and I could not get an answer on was what magically gives someone insight to ham radio operations between what would be the NEW Novice class and the General. #It seems that if you are a Novice with no code test you are fine to talk on certain bands (i.e. 10M and 40M). #But as soon as you pass a Morse code test and another written test you get parts of all bands. #You cannot simply pass the written, you must also pass the Morse code test as well.

Tell me WHAT it is about knowing how operate the CW mode that makes you so much more intelligent and a much more skillful operator? #

For those stating "It keeps those not wanting to make the commitment off the air" #or "The bands will turn into CB." #Sorry but I do hear CB radio operators on the air and they have W#xx calls and cannot figure out how to fix their own radios! #Tell me how come they are better operators than someone that cannot understand code but can troubleshoot their radio's problem down to a single failed component!

[N0UWW]

Atta boy, WØHH...! An Extra with guts to say what he feels, no matter how controversial...!

As far as an ARRL poll, they did have a poll on their web page back in December asking how the ham community felt about whether the code should be retained or dropped. A 2 to 1 margin voted to eliminate the code requirement... This was with 26,000 people voting compared with other polls prior to and since then, garnering about 2500 to 3500 voters. I believe that the majority of licensed hams are in favor of dropping the code requirement but are afraid of saying something here for fear of being flamed. I've received a lot of emails and 'private messages' since my earlier post that share my views.

73
Dennis
NØUWW

[k6bbc]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w6th @ Jan. 29 2004,08:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">--------------------Get a load of this---------------

That was the reason they put morse code in there, so it could be a block for other people.
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
What a bunch of sickos. This is what is coming into ham radio.

You no-coders are a disgrace to the human race.

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # .:[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
oh my God!!!!!!

[kc8rbr]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k0fl @ Jan. 27 2004,10:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The ARRL sold us out years ago so it's not much of a surprise to me of this latest kick in the nuts. It's funny how when you let your membership expire they will send you three letters to get you back, but when an issue as important as this comes up they "feel/believe" they know whats best for ham radio in the future without a poll of their membership. As I have stated before.. I'd rather see ham radio die a dignified death than become channel 19. But it's too late for dignity..sad but true.

de KØFL[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
With such a big word as nu#$s i am surpised you have any one to talk to cw or phone nice language.Good stuff for us tec's to look forward to when we do become generals ( this guy won't be in my log book) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif KC8RBR..

[k1yak]

The ARRL did not ask its members for a vote on this. Who do they really represent? It appears it is their advertisors, not the members. I will not remain a member, and I suggest anyone who feels the ARRL does what they want without asking us should do the same. They havn't taken any poll, on the internet or by mail. They've sold out, now we should can them. The REAL issue is lack of representation, not what they have decided. Wal-Mart will be selling HF radios if the ARRL gets its way.

[kc8rbr]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w6th @ Jan. 29 2004,08:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">--------------------Get a load of this---------------

That was the reason they put morse code in there, so it could be a block for other people.
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
What a bunch of sickos. This is what is coming into ham radio.

You no-coders are a disgrace to the human race.

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # .:[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Now you have to becareful with that statement Sir. When you steriotype people like that it dose'nt look good for ham radio. besides you as a general are to set a good exsample for us tecs. thats dose'nt like it to me. Bad apples even as a general (no class).

[N0UWW]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k1yak @ Jan. 29 2004,23:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The ARRL did not ask its members for a vote on this. Who do they really represent? It appears it is their advertisors, not the members. I will not remain a member, and I suggest anyone who feels the ARRL does what they want without asking us should do the same. They havn't taken any poll, on the internet or by mail. They've sold out, now we should can them. The REAL issue is lack of representation, not what they have decided. Wal-Mart will be selling HF radios if the ARRL gets its way.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Go ahead, quit the ARRL... There'll be plenty of us no-coders to join and pick up the slack...

Yes, there was a poll on the ARRL website in December. I voted with the majority to eliminate the Morse code requirement.

Wal Mart selling HF rigs? Cool...! Then, I could buy it locally rather than through the mail...and at a better price...

You guys and your 'doom and gloom' mentality need to lighten up... It really is just a hobby...except of course when emergencies occur and cellphones don't work...

73
Dennis
NØUWW

[kc8rbr]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0OWN @ Jan. 28 2004,20:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This does seem to be a hot topic! Although I have only been an amateur for about a year, I have been in electronics as a professional since the 1970's, and had a hobby in electronics as a kid before that.

The facts as I see them are that older hams are dieing off and there is a lack of younger people becomming hams. This means less people involved with the hobby, and less use of the bands. Unless the bands get more useage the FCC will be forced to re-allocate the ham bands for other uses.

I do understand the romance of the code, but things change with time. I worked with many good people who could not make the change from tubes to transistors. They had to learn to adapt or leave the busisness. I also know many good people who refuse to learn about computers, again many of these are leaving the workforce. (I'm "ass u me ing" that most of you reading this understand a little about computers...) Nobody is forceing you to use phone, go ahead and use CW to your hearts content. But face the future, the code has been phased out in almost every other radio service, other than automatic station ID's and that is well on its way.

Maybe the FCC could all allocate a part of a few bands for CW only no matter what your license is.

I don't have the answers, but if changes are not made, there may be no more ham radio in another hundred years...

Dave #KC0OWN[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Very good point Dave. refreshing some one out there with some good common sence and a head on his sholders as well. Would very much like to have a QSO with you any time. 73 KC8RBR Nate...

[kn6z]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc8rbr @ Jan. 29 2004,23:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but things change with time.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes. If we insist it is still 1950, we will die. If we move on, we can thrive.

[N7YA]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k6bbc @ Jan. 29 2004,22:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w6th @ Jan. 29 2004,08:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">--------------------Get a load of this---------------

That was the reason they put morse code in there, so it could be a block for other people.
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
What a bunch of sickos. This is what is coming into ham radio.

You no-coders are a disgrace to the human race.

.:[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
oh my God!!!!!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Sickos?? Disgrace to the human race??

Whoa!! Im pro-code, old school extra, etc...but i would NEVER allow myself to become so uptight about something i do for pure enjoyment, nor would i attack like that out of anger over something that really doesnt raise my taxes, send my son to war, take away my breathing air or confiscate my home....its just NOT that dramatic!

I know that the code requirement is going to die, we all know that, i also know i will continue to use it because i enjoy it, big deal. I also dont use a Smith chart, but i had to test for it and i didnt mind...again, big deal.

There are way too many bad hams on the air now, have been for years, extras and advanced guys who are simply insecure elitists...i seriously doubt that a new no-code tech is going to get a license for ANYTHING just to be a jerk, i dont think they will be the ones jamming a net, or excluding old-timers from their qso's, i just dont!

These folks are going to be sitting at the back of the bus for quite a while, the REAL test is not going to be written...its going to be about gaining acceptance, thats starting to become obvious.

Does anyone remember that old dirtbag who would plant himself on 80 ssb...yes, ssb...and refused to work anyone practically. yep, this guy would do a cb-type rant about who he DIDNT want to talk to..."no kids, lids or space cadets, no N's, A's or long K's".
Talk about a guy who didnt live up to daddys expectations of him, he went to the grave with some serious luggage...and this was in the 70's and early 80's, he passed his code test, he got his extra, he abused it.

This code thing is NOT Pearl Harbor, its NOT 9/11, its not Oklahoma City...its not worth waging personal war over.

Are we THIS bored? has LIFE come to this? i noticed nobody responded to my earlier post about just getting on the air and actually USING the bands...noone wanted to meet me on the air, have a friendly qso, make a new friend. no, it wasnt exciting, no fire, no brimstone...no opportunity to validate oneself.
Nope, the war waged on.
Now, this thing IS an important issue, the ARRL should poll before presenting things and i do believe there is some money motivation behind it...i can also understand the fear of the bands degenerating into chaos, but i dont think they will do that anymore that they have for years...there will always be good hams, and then there will be bad hams, we cant control that.

We can control how we treat eachother however, for crying out loud, lets at least be decent and respectful...control your emotions, we will discuss this until its resolved. but this thing will work itself out with or without your cardiac arrest.

Stress kills...im not joking about this.

peace please....73, Adam

[n0klu]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7YA @ Jan. 30 2004,03:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k6bbc @ Jan. 29 2004,22:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w6th @ Jan. 29 2004,08:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">--------------------Get a load of this---------------

That was the reason they put morse code in there, so it could be a block for other people.
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
What a bunch of sickos. This is what is coming into ham radio.

You no-coders are a disgrace to the human race.

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # .:[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
oh my God!!!!!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Sickos?? #Disgrace to the human race??

Whoa!! Im pro-code, old school extra, etc...but i would NEVER allow myself to become so uptight about something i do for pure enjoyment, nor would i attack like that out of anger over something that really doesnt raise my taxes, send my son to war, take away my breathing air or confiscate my home....its just NOT that dramatic!

I know that the code requirement is going to die, we all know that, i also know i will continue to use it because i enjoy it, big deal. I also dont use a Smith chart, but i had to test for it and i didnt mind...again, big deal.

There are way too many bad hams on the air now, have been for years, extras and advanced guys who are simply insecure elitists...i seriously doubt that a new no-code tech is going to get a license for ANYTHING just to be a jerk, i dont think they will be the ones jamming a net, or excluding old-timers from their qso's, i just dont!

These folks are going to be sitting at the back of the bus for quite a while, the REAL test is not going to be written...its going to be about gaining acceptance, thats starting to become obvious.

Does anyone remember that old dirtbag who would plant himself on 80 ssb...yes, ssb...and refused to work anyone practically. yep, this guy would do a cb-type rant about who he DIDNT want to talk to..."no kids, lids or space cadets, no N's, A's or long K's".
Talk about a guy who didnt live up to daddys expectations of him, he went to the grave with some serious luggage...and this was in the 70's and early 80's, he passed his code test, he got his extra, he abused it.

This code thing is NOT Pearl Harbor, its NOT 9/11, its not Oklahoma City...its not worth waging personal war over.

Are we THIS bored? #has LIFE come to this? i noticed nobody responded to my earlier post about just getting on the air and actually USING the bands...noone wanted to meet me on the air, have a friendly qso, make a new friend. no, it wasnt exciting, no fire, no brimstone...no opportunity to validate oneself.
Nope, the war waged on. #
Now, this thing IS an important issue, the ARRL should poll before presenting things and i do believe there is some money motivation behind it...i can also understand the fear of the bands degenerating into chaos, but i dont think they will do that anymore that they have for years...there will always be good hams, and then there will be bad hams, we cant control that.

We can control how we treat eachother however, for crying out loud, lets at least be decent and respectful...control your emotions, we will discuss this until its resolved. but this thing will work itself out with or without your cardiac arrest.

Stress kills...im not joking about this.

peace please....73, Adam[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
N7YA, Adam;

My congratulations for your post. I would be honored to have a QSO with you when I am alowed to be on the HF bands. As a tech (taking the general exam on Feb 7th) if the FCC approves this proposal. I'll be up on the bands calling CQ and maybe we can have a conversation.

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

[K9VQ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (amnman @ Jan. 28 2004,01:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">#
##
# #
##
# Pre-1987 Technicians already were converted to General, following the reduction in the General Morse requirement to 5 wpm.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Wrong! Pre-1987 Technicians were not converted to General. You had to show proof that you completed element one to a VEC and submit a completed 610 form. Nothing done was automatic, you had to show element one passed was by one of several ways. Which did fulfill the General requirement since the pre-1987 writen tests were the same for Tech and General, only difference between the two was the 13 wpm cw test. When the 13 wpm cw requirement was replaced with 5 wpm requirment that made them both equal. But this was not an automatic upgrade to General. You had to show proof you passed the previous elements. I should know, I had to drive 100 miles to the nearest VE session to show an old ragged 1984 Tech license and pay my 10 dollars for the upgrade. Nothing automatic there! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[n0klu]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc8rbr @ Jan. 30 2004,01:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w6th @ Jan. 29 2004,08:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">--------------------Get a load of this---------------

That was the reason they put morse code in there, so it could be a block for other people.
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
What a bunch of sickos. This is what is coming into ham radio.

You no-coders are a disgrace to the human race.

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # .:[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Now you have to becareful with #that statement Sir. When you steriotype people like that it dose'nt #look good for ham radio. besides you as a general are to set a good exsample for us tecs. thats dose'nt like it to me. Bad apples even as a general (no class).[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
But KC8RBR,

W6th and those like him wants all of us to become just like them.....an ASS. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[N0TTW]

First I want to say, I was asked my opinion from my Midwest Director on the restructuring issue. My opinion was represented in the director's meeting. There was even a motion to amend, but failed.

I don't have to agree on dropping the code requirement of the General. But to face the truth, I would prefer they drop the automatic upgrade from Tech/Tech+ to General.

I prefer that the Novice be integrated into the Technician license. Give the HF priviledges proposed for the Novice to the Technician. Then the requirement of Passing element 3 written is secured. I'd feel more secure in knowing that someone has some knowledge in HF principles.

Why do I prefer this over the ARRL proposal? Because HF is very different from the VHF and above. Someone who hasn't had a taste of HF may not know what they are doing. The bands are more narrow for one. 300 Khz on the 40m band versus 4 Mhz on the 2 meter bands. You have to be more respectful on the HF bands because of this. I know there are some "bad apples" already, but based on what I see, they'll die away eventually.

My wife (who is a Technician) found this out as I stood by and watch her do SSTV on HF for the first time. In the whole process, she learned a lot of technical information while using HF, as well as proper ettiquet. She wants to be a General so bad, she can taste it. But at the same time she enjoys VHF and above just as much.

When I told my wife of the proposal, she was a little disappointed. She said "They (ARRL) are giving the HF bands away." I couldn't agree more.

Then there are those who post things that kinda look like "HA HA I TOLD YOU SO.....NO CODE IS HERE" irk me that they'll be Generals if this proposal goes through. They know who they are, just reread your posts. They are the same ones that will point their finger at the HF bands and say "See, even the code didn't stop the bad operators". I couldn't agree more. I will say the code limitted the number of those operators.

Unfortunately, 2 hurdles (code and written) will be removed if this proposal is accepted. Does this mean more bad operators, I don't know. If I went with my experience on the VHF and above in some areas in this country, I will say yes.

However, there is one person that I hope to see a CSCE on passing the General element 3, that's N0KLU. At least he is willing to do the test....Bravo. And you don't really need to do it.

SO..... what can we do.... as old timers (IE experienced operators)?

First, when the ARRL petition comes up for rule making, make your comments to the FCC. That's all you can do. They will decide by the comments received.

Then, no matter what happens, let's welcome any new ham that upgrades. Be it automatic or through testing. But us "old timers" must be stern with these new hams when they aren't following proper operating procedures. Just like you would do when raising kids, be a mentor and be an example.

Also, we should be self-policing our bands like we should be doing. If a stern warning and mentoring from us "old timers" doesn't change their operating ways, then we should be documenting and recording violations, then submit them to the FCC,.

Of course, I'm trying to do that with those OM on 75/80 and other bands people talk about. Emailing the FCC with Digital recordings of violators do wonders. That's how UPS got caught with their pants down on 10m.

By the way, I hate the term "old timer" or OM because I'm younger than most of the commenters on these threads....LOL.

So I'll just say, see you on the bands and 73,
Chris N0TTW

[k4uug]

Get over it the change will happen you are beating a dead horse http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[N0TTW]

N1OBN:

It's so funny how you (others like you) make comments when you don't participate in the Radio Service.

If you enjoy amateur radio enough to make comments about it, why is it you haven't participated in it since 1999? It's stated in your profile on QRZ.

Chris N0TTW

I prefer beating on dead operators http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[ky5u]

Looks like the concensus is that the ARRL SHOULD have polled its members before coming up with a proposal. What do you think?

To BN: I would rather be part of the process and lose than be one of the folks who just sit around and bitch about how it turned out.

And no, this is not a slam dunk for anyone. Sorry.

[k6bbc]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7YA @ Jan. 30 2004,01:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k6bbc @ Jan. 29 2004,22:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w6th @ Jan. 29 2004,08:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">--------------------Get a load of this---------------

That was the reason they put morse code in there, so it could be a block for other people.
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
What a bunch of sickos. This is what is coming into ham radio.

You no-coders are a disgrace to the human race.

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # .:[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
oh my God!!!!!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Sickos?? #Disgrace to the human race??

Whoa!! Im pro-code, old school extra, etc...but i would NEVER allow myself to become so uptight about something i do for pure enjoyment, nor would i attack like that out of anger over something that really doesnt raise my taxes, send my son to war, take away my breathing air or confiscate my home....its just NOT that dramatic!

I know that the code requirement is going to die, we all know that, i also know i will continue to use it because i enjoy it, big deal. I also dont use a Smith chart, but i had to test for it and i didnt mind...again, big deal.

There are way too many bad hams on the air now, have been for years, extras and advanced guys who are simply insecure elitists...i seriously doubt that a new no-code tech is going to get a license for ANYTHING just to be a jerk, i dont think they will be the ones jamming a net, or excluding old-timers from their qso's, i just dont!

These folks are going to be sitting at the back of the bus for quite a while, the REAL test is not going to be written...its going to be about gaining acceptance, thats starting to become obvious.

Does anyone remember that old dirtbag who would plant himself on 80 ssb...yes, ssb...and refused to work anyone practically. yep, this guy would do a cb-type rant about who he DIDNT want to talk to..."no kids, lids or space cadets, no N's, A's or long K's".
Talk about a guy who didnt live up to daddys expectations of him, he went to the grave with some serious luggage...and this was in the 70's and early 80's, he passed his code test, he got his extra, he abused it.

This code thing is NOT Pearl Harbor, its NOT 9/11, its not Oklahoma City...its not worth waging personal war over.

Are we THIS bored? #has LIFE come to this? i noticed nobody responded to my earlier post about just getting on the air and actually USING the bands...noone wanted to meet me on the air, have a friendly qso, make a new friend. no, it wasnt exciting, no fire, no brimstone...no opportunity to validate oneself.
Nope, the war waged on. #
Now, this thing IS an important issue, the ARRL should poll before presenting things and i do believe there is some money motivation behind it...i can also understand the fear of the bands degenerating into chaos, but i dont think they will do that anymore that they have for years...there will always be good hams, and then there will be bad hams, we cant control that.

We can control how we treat eachother however, for crying out loud, lets at least be decent and respectful...control your emotions, we will discuss this until its resolved. but this thing will work itself out with or without your cardiac arrest.

Stress kills...im not joking about this.

peace please....73, Adam[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I voice of reason in a sea of thick-headed, CW snob, geezers.

K6BBC

[w6th]

------------------N7YA-----K6BBC-------------------

Here is another group folks, the jealous type, you know the kind where you have to dumb down Amateur Radio before they find an interest in ham radio.

They are jealous because they could not pass the tests prior to WW2.

# # # # # # # # # #Shame, shame boys

W6TH Prewar Ham, you know the real ham.# # # # # # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #.:

[w6th]

-------------------Write The ARRL-------------------

Tell them you want two classes of Amateur Radio tickets;

The real ham for number one.


The DUMBED down ham for number two.

This sounds more realistic.

# # # # # # # # # # # # My incentive proposal

Real ham ticket===================Extra class:



Dumbed down ham ticket===========Talisman class


Keep present band allocations.

.: # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #.: # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # .:

[kc8rbr]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k6bbc @ Jan. 30 2004,08:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7YA @ Jan. 30 2004,01:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k6bbc @ Jan. 29 2004,22:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w6th @ Jan. 29 2004,08:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">--------------------Get a load of this---------------

That was the reason they put morse code in there, so it could be a block for other people.
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
What a bunch of sickos. This is what is coming into ham radio.

You no-coders are a disgrace to the human race.

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # .:[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
oh my God!!!!!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Sickos?? #Disgrace to the human race??

Whoa!! Im pro-code, old school extra, etc...but i would NEVER allow myself to become so uptight about something i do for pure enjoyment, nor would i attack like that out of anger over something that really doesnt raise my taxes, send my son to war, take away my breathing air or confiscate my home....its just NOT that dramatic!

I know that the code requirement is going to die, we all know that, i also know i w