Hi All
From the standpoint of a tech+ (yes I passed the 5 wpm exam
after letting my license expire, went in cold & passed, came
back no problem) the higher class licensees who sneer at us
"poor" techs & tech+'s might want to have a reality check. I
have an operatoinal 1296 eme station (you can't buy that off
the shelf, it takes some know how to build & maintain) plus
I have repaired or built equipment for several higher class
ops who don't have a clue how to begin a project if they
can't buy it & plug it in. The arrl has really taken a
technical dive from when I was first licensed (1974) to when
I retook the test (1994 missed renewing by 2 months). Qst
used to have articles that made me go & look up how & why it
was done, now they aim at the hamshack on a belt crowd &
don't even challenge them with tech articles. BTW why write
a tech article, the arrl will stick it in qex & I flat out
refuse to subscribe to multiple rags when membership dues
should get ALL the articles submitted to the organization.
CW has its place but people should not be held back because
they can't receive 13wpm cw, if they can demonstrate
technical ability well above the license class they hold
they should be allowed to upgrade to a higher class license
instead of being stuck because they can ONLY receive cw at
whatever speed (yes 5 wpm should be a requirement for a
license, anybody who doesn't have a legitimate handicap can
learn & copy 5 wpm even if they have to write down the dots
& dashes & go back & figure it out, at least they tried!)
Enough said
Mark
Jim Reid wrote:
>
> It was written:
>
> >>I hardly think that cw is an archaic mode of communication
>
> And another wrote, in part:
> >What do you base that on? I've been licensed for 25 years and have met
> >quite a few hams that have remained Techs despite having worked for years
> >to get there code speed up to 13 WPM. Most have demonstrated technical
> >abilities far beyond many Extras I know.
>
> So then, it is the ARRL's CW mode position, as put forth in their
> restructuring
> proposal, and the earlier incentive licensing advocacy, that has
> caused the decline of amateur equipment vendor's numbers and their
> ads to support the editorial content within QST? Interesting
> supposed connection, hmmmmm. How many good technical
> articles have been submitted to QST for publication by Tech
> license holders vs. those of Extra Class license holders --
> seeds for another survey of past issues I suppose.
>
> Surely you have noticed that most of the technical material
> in QST comes from we amateur contributors, and not the
> ARRL staff, save for the equipment technical review
> materials. Guess my stuff on advanced techniques
> to QRQ CW skills in the ARRL's educational manual
> is to be considered also to be archaic, oh well, it
> is still a fun mode, and has hundreds, yes
> thousands using it about the globe daily. How many
> CW operators contacted ZL9CI I wonder? They
> logged 90+ thousand QSO's!
>
> 73, Jim, KH7M
>
> --
> 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
--
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
|