Subj : Da Di Dit Dit - Rulz
To : STAN PHILLIPS
From : Roy Witt
Date : Tue Aug 08 2000 10:11 am
Hello STAN.
05 Aug 00 22:49, you wrote to MODERATOR:
M >> No-Code vs Code is a viable topic for discussion here.
SP> From what I have been reading (and hearing), the debate is not really
SP> about 'code' as such. It is about having a test that will keep people
SP> who are not really interested in Ham radio out. I.E. as a 'filter'.
I belong to a (world-wide) group that advocates the relaxing and eventual
end to the morse code requirements. The idea to end that requirement
isn't motivated by anything to do with testing to determine whether
someone is worthy of becoming a HAM.
SP> For example, many comments about the new code speed (U.S.A.) from
SP> those who have qualified with high speed code, are about the
SP> 'standards being lowered and fear of 'C.B. type behaviour' creeping
SP> in to H.F. operation.
I've heard those statements and all I can say is, they have to be the old
guard in Amateur Radio who believe they're somehow better qualified to
judge those who would like to be in Amateur Radio. There's a lot of
room in this hobby that would allow us to make room for those who are
technically inclined, but have no desire to use CW as a means of
communication.
SP> If it was really about 'code' then the comments would be more
SP> about a possible reduction of people available to communicate in
SP> 'high speed code'.
It is all about the code. One of the things about code was that in the
past during a war, HAMs could join the services and immediatly become
useful as a radioman. Today, the services do not use CW as a means of
communications anymore. Neither do the maritime services. In fact, CW is
dead throughout the entire world, except for the die-hards in Amateur
Radio.
SP> The reality is that standards can be made higher at the technical
SP> written exam level, and to have their 'on-air performance' monitored
SP> and a qualified 'monitor' certify that they meet standards of
SP> operation. This, together with the FCC going after those who do not
SP> behave themselves on the air, should work towards 'clean air waves'.
Exactly. When the FCC phased out the 13wpm & 20wpm morse code tests, they
introduced new written exams that required more technical knowledge.
SP> Coming back to "Code", Personally, I think that code SHOULD be still
SP> be required. IMHO, the code should be memorised. This is no different
SP> from learning the rules and regs or Ohms law for that matter. speed
SP> is NOT the important thing, ability to communicate using it is.
Code is still required here to upgrade from the 'no-code' entry level
license to the General or Amateur Extra Class licenses, albeit at a mere
5wpm.
SP> It allows communication using the simplest transmitters/receivers.
SP> For example, a few years ago at Dayton, a wife waiting in the car
SP> started calling her husband using the car horn.
LOL! And every HAM in the neighborhood new what was up...
M>> CB radio is not a tabu here, but I also moderate the CB_RADIO
M>> conference
SP> Very good. It is a LONG time since I have used CB, however there are
SP> some local 'senior citizens' who have a 'CB' chat in the mornings. As
SP> I am now a 'senior citizen' perhaps I should get one and join in now
SP> and again. (will need a vertical antenna for 28 Megs!!!!)
I have 2 or 3 here. I enjoy a chat with the 'other' world on occasion.
SP> What is the full name of the conference?
Which reminds me, I have to update the echo rules. I had to kill that echo
due to a lack of traffic.
... The Uggerumph, the Rettysnitch and the Wouff-Hong can serve again!
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
* Origin: KB6PI's Antenna Farm * Santa Ysabel, CA * (1:10/22)
