Subj : Da Di Dit Dit - Rulz To : TOM WALKER From : STAN PHILLIPS Date : Sun Aug 13 2000 10:42 am Hi Tom, TW> -> For example, many comments about the new code speed (U.S.A.) from TW> -> those who have qualified with high speed code, are about the TW> -> 'standards being lowered and fear of 'C.B. type behaviour' creeping TW> -> in to H.F. operation. TW> Well a little listening on some of the HF bands to Those 13 & 20 WPM TW> types Soundly Disproves that one. The "CB Mentality" is Alive and Well TW> amongst the Generals, Advanced and Extra Types. It sure is. TW> -> Coming back to "Code", Personally, I think that code SHOULD be still TW> -> be required. IMHO, the code should be memorised. This is no different TW> -> from learning the rules and regs or Ohms law for that matter. speed TW> -> is NOT the important thing, ability to communicate using it is. TW> TW> Now that is a CROCK. I have been fighting to learn but never winning TW> the "Code Battle" since 1948. And I have tried it ALL Methods. TW> Some years ago(1992) I finally gave up and became a No Code Tech. I suspect that you have been trying to learn code communications at high speed (10 WPM or more). I initially took the 5 wpm and later the 12 WPM for the Canadian full licence. I am NOT suggesting that even a 5 WPM code be the standard (even though it is rather slow). I would like to see that all the code characters could be recognised and sent at any speed. Contrary to much of what we hear, there are still areas where code is used. Navigation beacons for example. Satellites give ID in code, mostly on every transponder. Use of code with physically handicapped people is increasing. TW> One group I ran across that had held soem TW> Licence Classes was actualy telling people that a Ham Radio can be TW> concidered a "FREE CELL Phone"!!! :-( :-( :-) I am very sad to hear it. 73 Stan * If voting changed anything, it would be made illegal. --- þ RoseReader 2.52á P003387 * Origin: FONiX Info Systems * Berkshire UK * +44 1344 641625 (2:252/171) .