[Qcwa] CW

Sat, 6 Jul 2002 06:28:19 -0700

Come on folks!!

As I said before, who really cares what mode you operate, we are all hams
and everyone will seek their own level in the hobby, weather it be CW, SSB,
or another mode.  I know some hams who are light-years ahead of me
technically, but can't send their own call in Morse.  Are they any less
hams?  I say no.  There is room for everyone!

Mr. Harvey, I must address a couple of points you brought out.  First of
all, I am a 13wpm Extra and I am sorry if that doesn't sit well with you.  I
get on the air almost everyday and 95% of my QSO's are CW, I enjoy the mode
and enjoy the folks I meet below .100.  Have I "dumbed down" the hobby?  I
know many Extras who have the taken the 20wpm exam and rail about the very
same thing you and others do regarding the change in code requirements, but
I never hear them in the CW sub-bands.

BTW, before you use a fact to illustrate a point, get it right, there are no
multiple choice CW exams.  5 minuets of code at 5wpm followed by a
fill-in-the-blank exam, if the examinee fails that, then copy is checked for
1 minuet of errorless copy.

Have you been to Military boot camp?  I have and spent 20 years in the
service to my country.  Yes, I will agree that boot camp has changed from
when I attended to when my Father did and there may be separate
requirements.  Good, bad or not, those young men and "woman" who now serve
are out there everyday defending your right to be able to express your
opinion on this reflector.  I think we can overlook the fact boot camp may
be different for men and women.

I have been licensed continuously since 1977, and still hold my original
call.  It is a matter of pride with me that at 41, I am a member of QCWA and
one of the "old-timers" in my local Ham club.  I have enjoyed this hobby
over the years and could never give back what it has given to me.  Lately
though, I feel there is too much "bad-mouthing" going on, on this and other
reflectors I belong to, why?  It is just as wrong for the SSB op to
bad-mouth the CW op as its is for the CW op to do the same.  Why the need to
try and separate our hobby, ridiculous!

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong!

Bruce / WB7RHT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Harvey" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 2:14 AM
Subject: [Qcwa] CW

>
>
> Gentlemen:
>
> It seems to me that the only people I ever hear complain about
> CW are those who aren't proficient at it.  Their bitterness over this
> lack of skill seems to color all they say.
>
> For my money, it's not whether the CW requirement outweighs the
> Technical exam, it's a sign that we, too, are heading into a cycle of
> "dumbing down" which every other part of our culture is now experiencing
> (with some few exceptions).
>
> Don't like the SAT?  Claim it's biased against
> minorities/females/the disadvantaged/recent immigrants.  Military boot
> camp too hard?  Separate requirements for Women so they can't fail.
> Medical/law school admissions tests too hard?  Separate requirements and
> lower required scores for the "disadvantaged".  CW requirement for the
> Extra Class exam too difficult?  KEEP the exam, but lower the required
> speed to a level which the majority already have, and make the exam
> multiple-choice so that any fool can figure out the letters they missed.
>
> I can't fly a 747.  I'd like to, but I don't have the skill.
> Can I please demand that the standards for flight school and the FAA
> exam be lowered enough for me to qualify?  Why?  Because I want it, and
> I've been frustrated, angry, and bad company for many years over it.
>
> When this whole CW debate started, I figured even the hams
> without the various CW exams under their belt would recognize the value
> of keeping the exams and the tradition going.  I am really sorry to see
> I was mistaken.  See you below .100!
>
> Bob Harvey
> K2PI
> 1991 Extra, 1997 callsign :)
>
> _______________________________________________
> QCWA mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa
>
>