[Qcwa] CW - One last to put a cap on it (I hope)

[Bruce & Gaby]

OK Bob, enough already!  Your points are noted.  

Bruce / WB7RHT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Harvey" <robert.harvey@pandora.be>
To: <qcwa@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 12:49 PM
Subject: [Qcwa] CW - One last to put a cap on it (I hope)


> 
> Bruce, WB7RHT and the rest of the group:
> 
> First, let's not make the attacks personal.  Reasoned debate on
> the reflector seems appropriate;  personal "flaming" is petty.  My beef
> was with the tenor of some of the notes, i.e., because you don't feel CW
> is worth using you believe it is not worth having.  This is lousy logic,
> and bad for Amateur Radio as well.  We are on a rather slippery slope
> here in regards to licensing, and I feel a duty to stand up and say
> something.
> 
> 40 years ago, things that are considered "rights" today were not
> even given consideration.  A few laws here and there, some legislation,
> and a very slick PR campaign and now we have a plethora of found
> "rights" which allow just about any activity, regardless of the
> consequences to society.  I see Ham Radio heading down the same path.
> 
> Just because someone has not yet brought suit to ensure all Ham
> Exams are offered by the Examiners in every possible language doesn't
> mean it won't happen.  Just because someone has not yet claimed the
> exams are culturally biased doesn't mean they won't ever do so.  When
> you come from a culture in which Electricity itself is a luxury, it's
> going to be hard to convince the courts the suit has no merit.  And
> they'll win.  Mark my words.  I hesitate to point out all the possible
> scenarios for fear of putting a bug in someone's ear, but the fact
> remains;  we reduce standards at our peril, in Ham Radio as in every
> other facet of our society.  Ok, Ok, not multiple choice, but
> "fill-in-the blanks".  A difference that makes no difference at all
> really, but you got me.
> 
> I personally enjoy CW, very much.  I also enjoy the various RTTY
> modes and am less inclined to SSB operation.  Do I rail against the
> outmoded carrier-suppressed voice modes, and demand we move forward into
> digital speech now?  No, of course not.  I have zero, nada, zilch, skill
> with some other aspects of electronics and ham radio.  The exam
> questions on some of these still exist;  I don't demand they be removed
> because I either don't enjoy them or find them personally irritating.
> 
> I AM proud I took the exam back before the exams were changed.
> Does that make you less worthy of your license class?  It does if you
> don't feel some remorse that you weren't tested against more stringent
> requirements and overcame them.  I certainly have felt that way about
> many things in my life;  "gimme's" always made me feel like I
> accomplished much less.  Back in the heyday of Amateur Radio, every
> amateur designed his own rig, had to draw schematics of their station
> for the Radio Inspector, and generally do much more "hands on" than I
> did when first licensed.  I do feel I was shortchanged somewhat; whether
> by the march of technology or just by being born in the current "modern
> era".  Life was simpler in the early days of Amateur Radio, but someone
> with a Ham license applying for a technical job was hired on the spot,
> because the interviewer absolutely knew what minimum skills the Ham had.
> Not so today.
> 
> Now before I get slammed for hating modern technology, please
> refrain.  I am someone who devours it;  I have 3 computers, 3 PDA's, MP3
> Players, GPS's, and of course all that Ham gear overflowing my house.  I
> love it, but I can't build it.  There's the rub;  A Ham of 50 years ago
> most likely understood and could build all the consumer electronics
> around him, providing he had the parts.  Those days are over.
> 
> I have not previously ever discussed the 13 WPM change in the
> Extra exam with anyone, off or on the air.  But several notes I saw
> seemed to have a flavor of, let's say "gloating", that the previous
> testees were somehow suckers for having to take a harder exam, while the
> currently examined don't.  I didn't like that tone, because it missed
> the whole reason the test was changed;  to bring those who were having
> difficulty with CW into the fold.  It seems rather ungrateful to now
> mock those whose support for the change, active or passive, brought it
> about.
> 
> As a final note, I too am 41, and have also been licensed since
> 1977.  And I did my military service in the Marine Corps, boot camp at
> Parris Island.  As I remember back 20 years ago to that time, I recall
> it was kind of hard.
> 
> I am currently working for the US State Dept. and have served in
> several war zones, including Chad and Cambodia (2 long years apiece).  I
> don't think I need to establish my bona fides any further.
> 
> 73, Bob Harvey
> K2PI
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> QCWA mailing list
> QCWA@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa
>