[Kenwood] [Fwd: Fw: Help save CW]

Sat Aug 6 11:23:58 EDT 2005

What is the majic with code that makes someone a better person? Why the code? CW is a mode of operation lake any other. why not make some bring in a laptop and demonstrait PSK31? It is a mode of operation like CW. I don't think being able to learn CW makes you a better person or a better operator if so there would be none of the nut jobs operating on 75/80 meters like AM CB chicken banders. Have you ever listened there and herd some of the ranting and cusing? Most of these operators learned CW back when it was hard at the 13wpm rate or higher. They should be better than us 5wpm operators and they act like they are on 11 meters. Look at me. I am an extra class that passed the coed test with flying colors and I am still accused of being to stupid to know how to spell and type good enough for the group. appearently learning CW didn't make me good enough for some in the group why would it make anyone else? And like you said if Code is so simple that any Boy Scout cam learn it then why is it thought of as such a reveared as this all mighty force to keep ham radio more smarter and keep out the dummies?

Wally
KD5ZJP

> 
> From: Ray Friess <rayfri at highstream.net>
> Date: 2005/08/06 Sat AM 10:57:33 EDT
> To: waldan at cox.net
> CC: kenwood at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Kenwood] [Fwd: Fw: Help save CW]
> 
> Wally...
> NO ..  youre wrong!!  The CW requirement is what "separates the men from 
> the boys" and helps a little bit to keep the "idiots" from overrunning 
> the bands like they have the CB channels.
> 
> It show you are serious about becoming a ham, and if any boy scout can 
> learn FIVE words a minute to get a scouting merit badge, I fail to see 
> what all the gut wrenching screaming and crying  from many supposedly 
> grown and intelligent men is about when it comes to having to do the 
> same thing.
> Youve heard since you were a kid, probably, that nything worth having is 
> worth working for.... the same thing applies to a ham license.
> 
> Would you be among those advocating that in order to have more doctors 
> and pilots, etc so that we can "enter the 20th century" we should lessen 
> requirements for them being licensed.  True, ham radio doesnt often 
> effect life and death like those professions... but the principal is the 
> same.   It takes a long time to get a doctors appointment and help, so 
> lets enlarge our group of doctors by making it easier....  say, by 
> cutting down their intern time or residency to say... maybe 6 months 
> instead of years.    We'll have more doctors faster then....   
> 
> I'd like to fly a plane, but dont have the money to take classes.  SO, 
> how about just letting me learn what I want and just enough to be able 
> to fly and then HECK with the license test.  Just let me go rent or buy 
> a plane and fly when I THINK I AM READY.  Let ME decide what I need to 
> learn and is useful.
> To me, that's the same kind of mentality being shown by those who say 
> "do away with Morse Code.  It's outmoded, it's too hard to learn and 
> makes it too hard to get a license."
> 
> Personally, I think it is sometimes too hard to parallel park a car.  I 
> can drive and find places to park without having to park that way so 
> let's eliminate that from the written or driving part of the test.  If 
> it is too stupid to have to know the distance we should park from a stop 
> sign then lets forget it and take that out of the test too.....
> 
> Now, you may not EVER use code after you get your license, but that is 
> not the point.  Some doctors never operate after their surgery rotation, 
> but they become pediatricians treating only kids.  I dont hear my 
> grandkids pediatricians bitching about having to do a surgery or psych 
> rotation that they never make use of.  
> 
> Bottom line is ...  now days EVERY time people find things a little 
> difficult to do, or they just dont want to do it,  their hue and cry 
> seems to be "ELIMINATE IT" under the guise of coming into the 20th 
> century type of thinking, "ensuring the survival" of whatever it is, and 
> just plain making it easier.    Instead, we should be saying "GET OFF 
> YOUR BUTT AND WORK AND THINK A LITTLE BIT MORE".
> I was a teenager when I learned the code.  Code was easier for me than 
> the theory was, even though it took lots of practice.  BUT, I learned 
> both and passed the test, and now have been a ham for over 35 years.
> 
> All this bellyaching about the code being hard and not needed fits very 
> well under Shakespear's "The sound, the fury ... signifying NOTHING"
> 
> Ray  WA7ITZ
> 
> waldan at cox.net wrote:
> 
> >But, I don't want them to retain the CW requirement. The CW requirement is the mail thing keeping ham radio from entering the 20th century.
> >
> >Wally
> >KD5ZJP
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >>From: <k3hx at verizon.net>
> >>Date: 2005/08/06 Sat AM 08:21:48 EDT
> >>To: icom at mailman.qth.net
> >>CC: kenwood at mailman.qth.net
> >>Subject: [Kenwood] [Fwd: Fw: Help save CW]
> >>
> >>
> >>Subject: Fw: Help save CW
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Please submit a comment to the FCC asking them toretain the Morse Code requirement.  It's easy. Go to: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfsClick on "Submit A Filing"The Proceeding Number is 05-235 (include the -)Just fill in the blanks and type in your comment. Thanks, John Getz, AD8J
> >>John's Travel and Cruises
> >>3905 South Monet Court
> >>Allison Park, PA  15101-3220
> >>Telephone:  412-487-4733
> >>Fax:  412-487-0338
> >>E-mail:  johngetz at comcast.net
> >>
> >>______________________________________________________________
> >>Kenwood mailing list
> >>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/kenwood
> >>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> >>Post: mailto:Kenwood at mailman.qth.net
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >______________________________________________________________
> >Kenwood mailing list
> >Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/kenwood
> >Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> >Post: mailto:Kenwood at mailman.qth.net
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 