From: jcraig@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Re: Speaking of code...
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:56:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.165213.19662@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
> In article <1992Nov6.093538.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca> jcraig@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:
>>In article <1992Nov05.213616.6628@mixcom.com>, kevin.jessup <kevin.jessup@mixcom.mixcom.com> writes:
>>> I have an MSEE.  I am not a HAM (yet).  My specialty is software
>>> and Digital Signal Processing (read: I know my analog!).  
>>> Why do I have to learn code to become a HAM (below 30 MHz)?
>>> Just what is the fascination with this archaic means of communication?
>>> I understand the "romance" with the old days but give me a break!
>  additional commentary by Kevin deleted for brevity...
>>
>>Hey, I felt exactly the same way when I was 14 while studying for my
>>ticket. "Bloody code... can't wait till I get my advanced to get on SSB"
>>(back in those days you had to operate CW for 1 year before you could
>>write your advanced test which included 15 WPM). 
>>Well a year passed and then another... 6 years later I wrote the advanced.
>>SSB was a complete letdown. I may have had 100 contacts.  I tried RTTY and
>>packet too. They lost their appeal once I got bored with them.
>>CW is my favourite and if I didn't have the damn Morse rammed down my
>>throat, I wouldn't be on the air today.  
>>   
>>The CW basher--> CW lover transition isn't exceptional. I'd be interested
>>in seeing some stats on how many amateurs have experienced this.
>>
>>If you don't want to try CW, then I believe your FCC allows 
>>experimentation with the digital modes on VHF without a code test.
>>Good luck and have fun!
>>Joe, VO1NA 
> 
> Unfortunately nothing in Joe's reply to Kevin provides any logical

   I think you missed the point!

> justification/response to Kevin's query.  The fact that Joe ultimately 

   And MANY other amateurs

> loved CW does not serve as a valid reason for everyone to be required to
> learn CW at speeds greater than 5wpm (if at all) in order to utilize
> the HF non-CW modes.  Seems to me that a perosn of Kevin's background

   I agree wholeheartedly, but my point is if you don't try it, you'll
never know if you'll like it. By try I mean 25+ wpm conversational code.
I agree it is wrong to force CW on new amateurs when a portion of these 
will never use the mode.  If there were some way of determining _a priori_
whether a potential amateur would not enjoy CW then I'd be in favour of 
eliminating the CW requirement for such a  candidates.  

> 
> As a tech++ ham for 30 years, I have not operated CW since my novice
> license expired.  At least one poster made the accusation that I must
> just be lazy to not take the time/effort to work up to 13wpm.  Sorry
> to disappoint that individual, but I'll compare activity schedules to
> anyone that chooses to take such a knee-jerk position.  My operation
> today is confined to 2m/70cm FM because that's all the time and space
> I can devote to it for now.  Guess that makes me lazy too.  
> 
> For those that love CW, great, enjoy it to your hearts content.  I'll
> be the first to defend your right to continue using it forever, BUT
> please don't assume that EVERYONE else will share that love.  Lastly,
> and I'm not about to support retesting, I'd be curious to see just
> what percentage of current general class hams can still receive 13wpm?
> I'd bet there's a sizeable percentage of those generals that have
> not operated CW for years that wouldn't "measure up."  I'd also bet that
> many of those generals that might not be able to copy 13wpm are very
> valued members of the ham community.  Just something
> to consider:-)
> 
> Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)

5 or 13 WPM is too slow to be fun. I'd lose interest too!  But a good 
question raised.  What percentage of extras never use CW? 

Joe VO1NA