Question about license requirements after leaving the Army.

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio License Test Schedules' started by KD0TFL, Sep 16, 2020.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: abrind-2
ad: QSOToday-1
ad: Left-3
ad: Left-2
ad: l-gcopper
ad: l-BCInc
ad: L-MFJ
  1. K3XR

    K3XR Ham Member QRZ Page

    When will they change this site to "Who is calling me.com"?

    Those who wish to attack the traditions and practices of the hobby need to be challenged on it every time.
     
    W9JEF likes this.
  2. AC0GT

    AC0GT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Is CQ a Q-code? I don't see a Q at the beginning, do you?
     
  3. W9JEF

    W9JEF Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    No Q at the beginning. But--like the Q-code--a part of the traditional language of ham radio from the days when Morse code was the only mode.

    73,
    Jim
    EARTH: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT
     
    K3XR likes this.
  4. AC0GT

    AC0GT Ham Member QRZ Page

    I was speaking of only Q-codes, no need to prop up a strawman if there's an argument to keep Q-codes. If you have to use a strawman then where's the argument?

    I know this isn't going to get far in this crowd. I just wanted to plant a seed of thought to ponder, not start a license measuring contest. Here's a question or two I want people to ponder, not give a reply, what is the distinction between Q-codes and 10-codes? Do either serve any real purpose but to show one is a member of the "in crowd"? For people listening in Q-codes obfuscate, not clarify, and if there is going to be growth then we need new people and speaking in code is a turn off.
     
  5. W9JEF

    W9JEF Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    A strawman is an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. Can you deny that CQ--like the Q-codes--is a fundamental part of ham radio shoptalk? Do you really think there needs to be an argument to keep Q-codes??? The argument from this end is against the futility of seeking to change what has been a ham radio tradition for as long as any of us OT hams can remember.
    Having no relevance to amateur radio, your citing of 10-codes is the strawman here. When most of us OTs were new people, do you think Q-codes were a turnoff? To those who would QRT from ham radio because of how we QSO: Enough of your QRM! If you consider our talking in Q-codes to be QRN, you can always QSY to another hobby. :p

    73,
    Jim
    HAM RADIO: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT :cool:
     
  6. AC0GT

    AC0GT Ham Member QRZ Page

    That's the problem, people have been switching to another hobby. Your mention of how it was done decades ago is not relevant now, CW is not the primary mode of communications on Amateur radio any more. Also, the people that come into Amateur radio today didn't grow up listening to maritime CW or aircraft CW on HF, or learned Morse code while in the military. The use of Q-codes then may have been routine when many of the old farts in the hobby got started but it's far from routine today.

    Which is what you did by switching from talking about Q-codes to use of CQ.

    CQ is not a Q-code. Conflating the two is a strawman. I was talking about Q-codes, and how they only obfuscate rather than clarify on phone.

    You seem to think so as you are making that argument.

    I guess we're done here. Farewell.
     
  7. W9JEF

    W9JEF Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Whether the use of Q-codes is “routine” today, is not the issue. Your grousing over those hams who do use them on voice modes today is your problem, not ours.

    W9JEF said:
    A strawman is an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
    CQ, like QRM, QRN, QRP, and QRZ--the very name of the website we're on here--all come under the heading of ham radio shoptalk. Your switching from Q-codes to 10-codes--which are in no way related to ham radio--is strawman. Your intentionally misrepresented proposition that you set up. Your strawman.

    W9JEF said:
    Can you deny that CQ--like the Q-codes--is a fundamental part of ham radio shoptalk?
    :rolleyes: You can't be serious. Again: the only strawman is your conflating Q-codes with 10-codes (which gained popularity owing to Highway Patrol, a popular TV series of the 1950s).

    W9JEF said:
    Do you really think there needs to be an argument to keep Q-codes???
    Q-codes are here to stay. The argument is pointing out the absurdity of seeking to eliminate the well-established language of ham radio.
    Watch out for the door. :p

    73,
    Jim
    HAM RADIO: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT
     
  8. AC0GT

    AC0GT Ham Member QRZ Page

    No, CQ is not a part of "ham radio shoptalk" as this is a standard means for calling stations on all radio services. Q-codes on phone are unique to Amateur radio and, again, add only confusion to newcomers. Trying to lump them together is the strawman, as use of CQ serves a purpose but Q-codes do not. There's a reason why CQ is used on phone and it has a long history in phone communications on every radio service. Q-codes also have a long history, but that is from telegraphy and it served a valuable purpose on CW. What purpose does Q-codes serve on phone? It's not saving time on what is spoken or adding clarity, and because of this is not used in any other radio service on phone.

    Oh, I'm sure someone will want to jump in with how aircraft pilots still use one or two Q-codes on phone for something. Yes, there are examples of exceptions but that doesn't excuse the use of all Q-codes on phone for Amateur radio. Pilots don't even know where the Q-code comes from only that there is a knob on their dashboard labeled Q-somethingorother and needs to be set as specified by the tower before landing.

    I didn't switch between Q-codes and 10-codes, I was pointing out the similar nature of them being "shoptalk" and adding confusion instead of clarity. Q-codes are to Amateur radio what 10-codes are to CB radio, both make the users sound like fools to the outsider.

    There's been a lot of well established traditions in Amateur radio that fell away. Things that changed with the technology of the day. I'm saying that if Amateur radio wants to distance itself from the unprofessional behavior of CB then it should adopt a "professional" set of practices on the air. That doesn't mean nobody can have fun, or that we all need to sounds like robots when speaking, but it does mean dropping what you call "shoptalk" when plain English words transfer the same information just as quickly and without need for a translation sheet for the spectators.

    As well established as it may be it's not efficient. I'll again use my example of my training in the Army. The Army learned what was efficient and shortened the training time. They don't use "10-20" for location, they use "location" for location. This "shoptalk" is a kind of code to pick out the veterans in a crowd. If there's confusion on what was said a person might say, "Excuse me?" or, "What was that?" but a veteran will say, "Say again." Why? Because it is efficient, clear, and how we were trained. It's also clear to anyone not trained in the "shoptalk".

    I believe that the use of Q-codes on phone will "self eliminate" over time. These Q-codes make sense to the CW operators but the newcomers aren't all trained in Morse code any more, but those that had military or first responders experience will bring their habits with them, and people that see these habits portrayed in popular entertainment will emulate what they've seen. I'm only giving the inevitable a bit of a "nudge" by pointing out how Amateurs using Q-codes sound no different than some poser on CB to outsiders. The one or two Q-codes still in use serve a purpose as it specifies something very distinct to pilots, something that got it's name from when aircraft communicated by CW routinely. As this didn't have any other name before, or at least the name was lost in time, the Q-code stuck. Because it serves a useful purpose it will likely stick for a long time.

    Don't equate CQ with Q-codes because that's not the same thing. CQ serves a purpose on phone, Q-codes do not. And, indeed, there's one or two exceptions of the utility of Q-codes outside of Amateur radio that do not apply anywhere else. One exception doesn't break the rule.

    OUCH!
     
  9. W9JEF

    W9JEF Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Q-codes on phone serve the same purpose as CQ; and were always, and will continue to be the shoptalk of ham radio.

    73,
    Jim
    EARTH: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT

    My position, and I'm sticking to it:
     
  10. W9JEF

    W9JEF Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    [​IMG]
    73,
    Jim
    EARTH: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2021

Share This Page