[Fwd: Re: [PaQSO] CW proposal]

[Bob Wiseman]

WHAT is this supposed to mean????  -- "CW is the ONE & ONLY aspect of 
the present Amateur Radio Examinations, where the examinee CANNOT FAKE 
IT ! ??"

When is the last time you took a morse code exam?  It is a multiple 
choice question and you can "guess" and maybe get a passing grade..You 
can "Fake It" in that sense...I'm a VE and give tests, and no one is 
going to cheat while I'm there, but they can "guess" and still pass.

I too passed my test at 20 wpm quite a few years ago and get upset that
now anyone can get an Extra License without having to learn morse code
like I did -- I also got upset about it back it 2000 when it was dropped
to 5 wpm.

But reread Jim's email below -- we are having trouble getting new folks
into the hobby -- and there are lots of eager and bright kids out there
experimenting -- with cell phones, the Internet and Wi-Fi -- they could
help out our hobby and they can bring in new ideas but don't won't to be
faced with learning morse code.  So why are we brushing them away?

I've spent a lot of time running classes for new Hams, and classes
helping to get Technicians up to a General class license or above -- the
stumbling block has always been morse code as I have usually been able
to get them up to speed on learning electrical theory, etc.  -- and face
it -- some folks have trouble learning morse code -- try as I have 
sometimes I have lost students due to this requirement --

And Goody's original email really summed it up .... And, I know Goody --
he works nothing but morse code...And, his original comment was ----

"CW will be saved by us CW ops who will show the magic of it to new
hams, not comments to the FCC or a testing requirement.  Want to save
CW?  Become an Elmer and a role model for new hams."

Bob  WB3W


Jim wrote:
> I’m not sure why the CW issue came up here, but I will
> give my two cents on it.  I have made many CW contacts
> over the years.  I passed the Extra exam the old way,
> with the 20 wpm test.  Having said that, here we go:
> 
> CW can be fun, once you master it, but from a
> practical perspective, it has outlived its usefulness.
>  Many of us believe that since we suffered to learn
> it, that all others after should, too.
> 
> CW testing discourages people from becoming hams.  I
> have tried many times over the years to convince
> highly educated people I went to school and worked
> with, to give ham radio a try.  I explained the
> licensing, which they expected, but once I got to the
> CW part, all of them backed out.  I have never been
> able to convince anyone to learn CW.  Common reasons
> given for not attempting CW were irrelevancy in the
> modern world, lack of free time to learn, difficulty,
> etc.  One person couldn’t believe that CW was
> required.  He said that it sounded primitive, when one
> considers all of the high-tech gadgets we have today. 
> This person was interested in SSB, digital modes, etc.
>  
> 
> I can understand this perspective.  I liken it to
> riding a horse.  If you CHOOSE to learn how to ride a
> horse, you can, but since we have cars today, it is
> optional.  No one will stop anyone from learning CW,
> if they so choose.  
> 
> Putting it another way, what if the FCC required all
> hams to demonstrate that they can change their own oil
> in a car.  Most people don’t do this, and never will
> use this knowledge, but let’s require it to make
> people suffer, anyway.  Same logic, different example.
>  See my point?  
> 
> I do not see ham radio having much of a future unless
> we can do something to attract younger people.  Once
> the elders move on, who is left?  Couple that with the
> increased commercial demand for spectrum, it’s a
> recipe for disaster.  If we can’t come up with
> something soon to get the youngsters involved, our
> situation will be dire.  Actually, I think that the
> survival of our hobby is much more important than the
> other pursuits we follow.  There will be no contests
> if we have no spectrum.  
> 
> I fully expect that this will crank up some people,
> but we must consider our future.  What will ham radio
> look like in 15 years if we don’t get new members in
> our ranks?
> 
> Another good idea.  I saw that they had an experiment
> called the Wi-Fi shootout.  The goal was to connect to
> an access point from as far away as possible, without
> amplification.  I think it’s now up to 55 miles!  What
> if a few hams publicized this event, or attended to
> explain ham radio.  These people are quite smart and
> our microwave bands are similar to Wi-Fi.  Our future
> depends upon doing cool stuff and mixing technology,
> not just the same old stale ideas.  Hams and non-hams
> can do many similar things together and share common
> interests, that can only be good.
> 
> Jim
> N3PBH 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> _______________________________________________
> PaQSO mailing list
> PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso
> 
>