At 12:16 AM 1/27/99 -0500, Ed Tanton wrote:
>
>Keep it all in perspective, guys-and do NOT get nasty towards anyone. I
>think Bob represents a much less self-interested point of view than either
>CQ Magazine, or the infamous "Fred"-and like it or not, agree with it or
>not, we need to eliminate the anger and the fear of lost bandwidth, and give
>Bob-et al-your attention...
Hello Ed
Thank you for the courtesy of presenting my point of view. My post was in
response to the thread initiated by Larry Ravlin. I am a subscriber to the
AMPS list. I felt that his thread begged for a response. I hit 'Reply All'
in that response.
I certainly appreciate you forewarning those that would respond with
something less than civil discourse but rest assured I am a skilled debater
and that stuff along with any and all personal attacks will roll off my
back. What I will not tolerate is being selectively quoted in such a manner
so as to alter the content or meaning of what I'm saying! All of the
editting I do is to squeeze the water out of an arguement. I have been
victimized once and on my guard. I included the opening sentence of the
Ravlin post to give any readers who were totally unfamiliar with the
subject matter an understanding of what was going on. I never intended to
say that cw was archaic.
>And Bob, make no mistake, I believe no-code-period is, indeed, the Enemy.
Enemy, That's a pretty strong term. Which leads me to ask what exactly are
you referring to when you say no-code. The concept of granting an Amateur
Radio license to someone who has not taken a code test? The individuals who
may be granted these licenses? (as in Techs/CBers) To use such a term you
obviously feel threatened.
>I am personally convinced no-code across the board,
>internationally, will eventually/ultimately result in NO (specific)
>code-only bands-e.g. a free for all.
For approximately the last 20 years Japan has been granting a no-code
license which conveys priveledges on all HF Bands except 20 meters. Because
of this Japan has one of the largest Ham Radio populations in the world.
During the last 2 Solar Peaks and the one we are experiencing now do you
hear these "CB-Hams" overrunning the cw band? To be sure there is a great
deal of QRM in the 40 Meter cw band. It's coming from illegal use of HF
radios in Indonesia Commercial Logging operations. The Indonesian violation
is real, the No-Code threat is perceived. I wondering if this item
(Indonesian violations) is drawing any posts on this list? The focus on
no-code to the exclusion of actual threats makes me question if cw is
really the issue here?
>If absolutely-no-code IS adopted, that WILL be the result, sooner or
>later. And that is the no-code goal Bob. Whether it's YOUR goal is not
>relevant for the discussion-since this is not meant to insult you personally
>in any way.
Given the fact that cw is far more spectrum efficient and the substantial
crowding that currently exists on the HF bands a very compelling arguement
can be made to the FCC and the ITU to keep cw.
So explain to us how you became convinced that no-code will result in a
free-for-all?
>In what specific way does it differ? Do they envy and seek (for now)
>portions of our sub-bands? Sure they do. Do they want there to be no-code
>anywhere? Sure they do. They-for whatever reason-want to get out of learning
>**ANY** code at all-even 5 wpm? Sure they do. Yet we have 5 and 6 year olds
>learning the code. I feel pretty sure I could teach one of the Orangs at
>Yerkes the code-it'd be slow because he/she'd have to sign it but I'm
>certain it could be done. What does that say about "the no-code-ers" and
>their ACTUAL desire to become hams? Not very much, not very much at all.
This is one of the themes that is stated in a multitude of ways by those
that advocate for mandatory rigid code requirements. What it boils down to
is this: Failure to learn Morse Code is not reflection of ability but
rather a character flaw.
>Perhaps it is symptomatic of our present day society to do things the "easy
>way". And if the easy way is not the rule... why change it to suit. When we
>have Army recruits in Basic Training able to tell their Drill Sergeants "I
>don't want to try and climb that obstacle" on the Obstacle Course, and
>actually then BE ALLOWED to skip it, why does the idea that not learning the
>code might be kinda sorta an obstacle many people don't want to have to
>climb. I don't know what else to call this kind of behavior except AVOIDANCE
>DUE TO LAZINESS.
Because there are a number of reasons why a recruit is made to run an
obstacle only one of which is to build physical strength that may be useful
later on. This analysis goes to a weakness in Human Nature. The idea that
someone is getting away with something. The ole "I went threw the Mill now
you do" which leads me to believe for some this has nothing to do with cw
at all!
More Charcacter Flaw analysis
>
>I remember a quote to the effect that a thing's value and pride of ownership
>to a person is most often directly proportional to the effort required to
>achieve it. Tell the pilot shot down in Desert Storm about how archaic CW
>is. But of course, since it saved his life he may disagree with you.
>
>Tell me how archaic something I GREATLY enjoy is... and I will surely
>disagree with you. Listen to the SSB portions of 75M, or 20M-SSB and tell me
>how archaic CW is. Maybe you also consider the NTS to be archaic... but ask
>them which mode can get through with higher volumes of-for example-emergency
>traffic... the answer won't be SSB... not for REAL situations, with REAL
>trouble... Packet/etc. if you can... CW if you cannot do "data".
I addressed the archaic issue at the openning of this post.
>
>I don't care whether you call it a gate, a right of passage, or a non-Ham's
>worst nightmare...
I called it none of these...I called it a barrier to entry
>it has been an integral part of ham radio from DAY 1. It
>should remain a part of it, even if it is only celebrated in usage by a few
>of us in the years to come. No matter, if you want to BE a HAM: LEARN THE
>CODE!!!
>
>The two modes are NOT Enemies, just the people who wish to "put CW in it's
>place"-and would prefer that place was "nowhere"... or, as 'they' call it:
>no-code.
>
OK Then let me pose a hypothetical for you and the group to ponder: Given
the choice between 2 strategies with the following possible outcomes which
would you choose
1 Go for broke, no compromise, bet the ranch, take no prisoners. Pursue the
Code requirements for all, forever. And risk the very real possibility of
being perceived as unreasonable and intransigent which results in the total
loss of CW.
2 Turn the arguement around. And accept a class of license that provides
for HF priveledges without a code test in exchange for guaranteed cw
exclusive subbands for XX years.
73s
Bob K1TA
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|