Subj : Da Di Dit Dit - Rulz To : STAN PHILLIPS From : Roy Witt Date : Tue Aug 08 2000 10:11 am Hello STAN. 05 Aug 00 22:49, you wrote to MODERATOR: M >> No-Code vs Code is a viable topic for discussion here. SP> From what I have been reading (and hearing), the debate is not really SP> about 'code' as such. It is about having a test that will keep people SP> who are not really interested in Ham radio out. I.E. as a 'filter'. I belong to a (world-wide) group that advocates the relaxing and eventual end to the morse code requirements. The idea to end that requirement isn't motivated by anything to do with testing to determine whether someone is worthy of becoming a HAM. SP> For example, many comments about the new code speed (U.S.A.) from SP> those who have qualified with high speed code, are about the SP> 'standards being lowered and fear of 'C.B. type behaviour' creeping SP> in to H.F. operation. I've heard those statements and all I can say is, they have to be the old guard in Amateur Radio who believe they're somehow better qualified to judge those who would like to be in Amateur Radio. There's a lot of room in this hobby that would allow us to make room for those who are technically inclined, but have no desire to use CW as a means of communication. SP> If it was really about 'code' then the comments would be more SP> about a possible reduction of people available to communicate in SP> 'high speed code'. It is all about the code. One of the things about code was that in the past during a war, HAMs could join the services and immediatly become useful as a radioman. Today, the services do not use CW as a means of communications anymore. Neither do the maritime services. In fact, CW is dead throughout the entire world, except for the die-hards in Amateur Radio. SP> The reality is that standards can be made higher at the technical SP> written exam level, and to have their 'on-air performance' monitored SP> and a qualified 'monitor' certify that they meet standards of SP> operation. This, together with the FCC going after those who do not SP> behave themselves on the air, should work towards 'clean air waves'. Exactly. When the FCC phased out the 13wpm & 20wpm morse code tests, they introduced new written exams that required more technical knowledge. SP> Coming back to "Code", Personally, I think that code SHOULD be still SP> be required. IMHO, the code should be memorised. This is no different SP> from learning the rules and regs or Ohms law for that matter. speed SP> is NOT the important thing, ability to communicate using it is. Code is still required here to upgrade from the 'no-code' entry level license to the General or Amateur Extra Class licenses, albeit at a mere 5wpm. SP> It allows communication using the simplest transmitters/receivers. SP> For example, a few years ago at Dayton, a wife waiting in the car SP> started calling her husband using the car horn. LOL! And every HAM in the neighborhood new what was up... M>> CB radio is not a tabu here, but I also moderate the CB_RADIO M>> conference SP> Very good. It is a LONG time since I have used CB, however there are SP> some local 'senior citizens' who have a 'CB' chat in the mornings. As SP> I am now a 'senior citizen' perhaps I should get one and join in now SP> and again. (will need a vertical antenna for 28 Megs!!!!) I have 2 or 3 here. I enjoy a chat with the 'other' world on occasion. SP> What is the full name of the conference? Which reminds me, I have to update the echo rules. I had to kill that echo due to a lack of traffic. .... The Uggerumph, the Rettysnitch and the Wouff-Hong can serve again! --- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000 * Origin: KB6PI's Antenna Farm * Santa Ysabel, CA * (1:10/22) .