Subj : Da Di Dit Dit - Rulz
To : TOM WALKER
From : STAN PHILLIPS
Date : Sun Aug 13 2000 10:42 am
Hi Tom,
TW> -> For example, many comments about the new code speed (U.S.A.) from
TW> -> those who have qualified with high speed code, are about the
TW> -> 'standards being lowered and fear of 'C.B. type behaviour' creeping
TW> -> in to H.F. operation.
TW> Well a little listening on some of the HF bands to Those 13 & 20 WPM
TW> types Soundly Disproves that one. The "CB Mentality" is Alive and Well
TW> amongst the Generals, Advanced and Extra Types.
It sure is.
TW> -> Coming back to "Code", Personally, I think that code SHOULD be still
TW> -> be required. IMHO, the code should be memorised. This is no different
TW> -> from learning the rules and regs or Ohms law for that matter. speed
TW> -> is NOT the important thing, ability to communicate using it is.
TW>
TW> Now that is a CROCK. I have been fighting to learn but never winning
TW> the "Code Battle" since 1948. And I have tried it ALL Methods.
TW> Some years ago(1992) I finally gave up and became a No Code Tech.
I suspect that you have been trying to learn code communications at
high speed (10 WPM or more). I initially took the 5 wpm and later
the 12 WPM for the Canadian full licence. I am NOT suggesting that
even a 5 WPM code be the standard (even though it is rather slow). I
would like to see that all the code characters could be recognised
and sent at any speed.
Contrary to much of what we hear, there are still areas where code is
used. Navigation beacons for example. Satellites give ID in code,
mostly on every transponder.
Use of code with physically handicapped people is increasing.
TW> One group I ran across that had held soem
TW> Licence Classes was actualy telling people that a Ham Radio can be
TW> concidered a "FREE CELL Phone"!!! :-( :-( :-)
I am very sad to hear it.
73 Stan
* If voting changed anything, it would be made illegal.
---
� RoseReader 2.52� P003387
* Origin: FONiX Info Systems * Berkshire UK * +44 1344 641625 (2:252/171)
