[Lowfer] Alternate Morse code test

Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:32:34 -0400

John D,

Your feelings expressed below on CW literate vs CW non-literate folks are 
close to what I feel. I think that the success or non-success of future Ham 
radio could have a lot more to do with 'other' factors than whether or not 
there is a requirement for copying 5 WPM code. As the result of dropping the 
code requirement there could in fact be a greater number of new Hams 
entering into the hobby that have similar interests in constructing 
equipment, and contributing to the art (like most of us) than the 'CB type' 
(which is another stereotype, I suppose). The 'good' element could have been 
kept out BECAUSE of the code requirement.

In my own case I really look forward to getting into CW communication and 
just listening to the sound of it turns me on. However, I have spend 10s of 
hours tying to master only 5 WPM and it is not easy. My neurological time 
response is just not quite fast enough to comprehend 15 WPM character rates 
in spite of the rather slow 5 WPM word rate. According to the tests I have 
run I can easily copy10 WPM characters at an overall 5 WPM word rate. To 
suggest, as some have, that this inadequacy disqualifies guys like me from 
becoming a 'good' Hams seems to be somewhat short-sighted.

Off the soap box for now....

Bill A

>From: "John Davis" <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: [Lowfer] Alternate Morse code test
>Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 18:00:13 -0400
>
>Did I inadvertently log into the luddite@qth mailing list?
>
>Sorry for not comprehending just how proving you can do something one
>time --something you may or may not ever voluntarily USE again thereafter--
>would improve my character, cleanse my soul, or make me any more thoughtful
>an amateur operator.
>
>As the engineering manager of a radio and television transmitter fleet, I 
>am
>accustomed to matching the experience and training of applicants to the
>skill sets necessary to perform our work.  Not once in 40 years of
>broadcasting have I seen the ability to, say, play the violin, translate
>into the ability or desire to keep frequency and power and modulation 
>levels
>within prescribed limits, troubleshoot circuitry to component level,
>communicate diplomatically with our audience, or fill out station logs.
>Strangely, neither have I seen the ability to send and receive Morse
>translate into those same skills.
>
>We maintain an amateur-friendly shop here, in contrast to many broadcasters
>these days.  We value the technical skills, and more than that, the
>ingenuity of some of our ham operators in getting the job done even when we
>lack the resources to do everything by the book.  I have noticed no
>difference in this trait between our no-code Technicians and our old-timer
>Extras.  The only distinction I have seen is that the ones who are ACTIVE 
>in
>the hobby make better broadcast engineers than the ones who 
>aren't--whatever
>the modes they use.
>
>I say this to make the point that I'm certainly NOT anti-ham, as if that
>could even remotely be suggested.  I am merely code-neutral.  It's like
>learning DOS was for me a decade ago--not something I'll personally be
>interested in, unless or until it will enable me to do something else 
>that's
>even more interesting.  And I'm not interested in coping with the many lids
>on 20m or 75m these days, any more than the ones on 11 meters.  An LF ham
>band would be a different matter, if the regs still require code by that
>time.  And if they don't, I'll be no less knowledgable or courteous an
>operator simply because of it.  Nor will most people.  LF is not an
>attractive place for appliance operators.
>
>While it appears recent developments may be perceived by some members of
>this list as a personal affront, I am disappointed to see how quick some of
>the guiding lights of our hobby have been to express such bitter negativity
>in this fundamentally off-topic thread.  Some of those sentiments being
>expressed can be taken personally too, after all.
>
>Or are the name-callers right?  Maybe I'm just guilty of being...
>
>--A Dummy
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>From the Lowfer mailing list
>Send messages to: [email protected]
>To sub/unsub visit: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online  
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963