BTW, I went to the web site to find an examiner for my test. Sent an e-mail
but never got a reply. Anyone know where I can find an examiner for the
Houston, TX area?

--


Keith
__
Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
"L." wrote in message
rio.net...

"Jack Erbes" wrote in message
...
Doug Dotson wrote:

I guess I'm a little behind as well. If I recall correctly, when the
last rule change happened that made 5WPM the speed for
General and Advanced, it was stated that the ITU requirement
was the reason that it could not be dropped entirely. Once the
ITU dropped the requirement, the FCC would iniate action
to follow suit. Personally, I think the code should stay.

Doug, k3qt
s/v Callista

I agree with keeping the 5 WPM requirement. Being able to read an SOS,
read a repeater ID, etc., etc., is a good thing. And it does not hurt
anyone at 5 WPM. At that speed you can take a cheat sheet with you and
look the longer, harder to remember ones as they are sent. Of course, I
suppose there is someone that will have trouble as soon as they got to
those really tough ones with both dits and dahs... :)

-.- .---- .--- .... .

--
Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA - jacker at midmaine dot com

A CHEAT SHEET???????????????

Buddy, if you're not ready for an exam, you're going to fail. Come to my
exams and be caught and the exam is OVER and YOU FAIL. And that is the
least
you can expect. Being turned into the FCC for any possible action will be
up
to them.

L.

FWIW I bought a 13 WM Morse ID'r because it was cheaper and satisfied FCC
rules & wont replace it til FCC makes me.
Howard, K3DWW

"Doug Dotson" wrote in message
...
I suspect that repeater IDs in morse will be dropped as
when if the code requirement completely goes away. In any
case, I believe the ID is sent at 13WPM.

Doug, k3qt
s/v Callista

FCC IDers used to be set for 20wpm.... "I" personally don't know if that has
changed or not. But if it is listed as FCC Compliant, then I wouldn't worry
about it. Actually, some commercial Iders do sound a bit slower now days!
I've not checked the rules lately OR the market to see what is out there. If
you're using the IDer for Ham use, I don't know that the FCC will bother
you. For commercial, maybe!

L.

"Vito" wrote in message
...
FWIW I bought a 13 WM Morse ID'r because it was cheaper and satisfied FCC
rules & wont replace it til FCC makes me.
Howard, K3DWW

"Doug Dotson" wrote in message
...
I suspect that repeater IDs in morse will be dropped as
when if the code requirement completely goes away. In any
case, I believe the ID is sent at 13WPM.

Doug, k3qt
s/v Callista

IF there are any Ham groups near you, stop by a meeting... OR go to a
hamfest near you if you happen to hear of one being held. There are usually
walk in sessions held. I don't know where you got the address from, but W5YI
keeps a list of theirs. IF it was "their" list, then contact them directly
via e-mail or phone since you're in Texas (if it is a local call for you) -
let them know you got no response, maybe they can refer you to another.

L.

"Keith" wrote in message
...
BTW, I went to the web site to find an examiner for my test. Sent an
e-mail
but never got a reply. Anyone know where I can find an examiner for the
Houston, TX area?

--


Keith
__
Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
"L." wrote in message
rio.net...

"Jack Erbes" wrote in message
...
Doug Dotson wrote:

I guess I'm a little behind as well. If I recall correctly, when the
last rule change happened that made 5WPM the speed for
General and Advanced, it was stated that the ITU requirement
was the reason that it could not be dropped entirely. Once the
ITU dropped the requirement, the FCC would iniate action
to follow suit. Personally, I think the code should stay.

Doug, k3qt
s/v Callista

I agree with keeping the 5 WPM requirement. Being able to read an
SOS,
read a repeater ID, etc., etc., is a good thing. And it does not hurt
anyone at 5 WPM. At that speed you can take a cheat sheet with you
and
look the longer, harder to remember ones as they are sent. Of course,
I
suppose there is someone that will have trouble as soon as they got to
those really tough ones with both dits and dahs... :)

-.- .---- .--- .... .

--
Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA - jacker at midmaine dot com

A CHEAT SHEET???????????????

Buddy, if you're not ready for an exam, you're going to fail. Come to my
exams and be caught and the exam is OVER and YOU FAIL. And that is the
least
you can expect. Being turned into the FCC for any possible action will
be
up
to them.

L.

W5YI lists two http://www.w5yi-vec.org/exam_locations_ama.php
TX Houston 77039 Gary Eades N4IOQ (281) 590-7261 (281)
512-1547
TX Houston 77020 Eduardo Rangel N1LR (713)
672-6528 (713) 299-2245


"Keith" wrote in message
...
Anyone know where I can find an examiner for the
Houston, TX area?

All the repeaters I use ID in voice now. The CW ID is still there thoughI
suppose to comply with the rules.

Doug, k3qt
s/v Callista

"Vito" wrote in message
...
FWIW I bought a 13 WM Morse ID'r because it was cheaper and satisfied FCC
rules & wont replace it til FCC makes me.
Howard, K3DWW

"Doug Dotson" wrote in message
...
I suspect that repeater IDs in morse will be dropped as
when if the code requirement completely goes away. In any
case, I believe the ID is sent at 13WPM.

Doug, k3qt
s/v Callista

"Jack Erbes" wrote in message
...
--
Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA - jacker at midmaine dot com

Nice to see a downeaster on here from Ellsworth. I was stationed at Winter
Harbor in 1974-79 and again 1981-84. Moonlighted as a service tech for the
old County Communications near Ellsworth. We had commercial, 20 wpm IDs on
Bald Mountain between Ellsworth and Bangor, also CAP and Ham repeaters
running as high as 35 wpm.
Doug, K7ABX, CTMCS (USN Retired)

L. wrote:

Calm down? First of all, I'm not "upset". But - you are kidding, right? You
"thought" it was ok to have one? Cheat sheets are NEVER allowed. You weren't
allowed them in school, you surely aren't now either. IF any team EVER let
anyone use one, then it was a fraudulent exam session - pure and simple. ANY
"honest"' VEC and the FCC would stand by that.

Yes, as a matter of fact I was kidding. It was a sarcastic comment, not
based on fact, not a recommendation, just a comment. Don't take it too
seriously please.

See my comments above...... regarding the cheat sheets - if you were given
"latitude".....

The latitude I was referring to was in in the way the code test was (or
should have been?) administered and graded. That there were some
options for passing it other than to just copy the code on paper and
hand it in. When the FCC was giving the tests in the mid 60's it was
quite different than it is now. You copied the code and handed it in
and it spoke for itself as I recall it.

Be careful what you admit to... snip

Admit to? Am I on trial here? Do you want to read me my rights? I
passed the tests, code and theory, fair and square in a venue that was a
little disorganized maybe. And I guess my memory is still haunting me.
I remember taking the code test and then taking the written theory
test. You're saying there should be a written test on the stuff sent in
the code test? Maybe there was, I don't remember.

Then if you were that good, you shouldn't have needed a "cheat sheet".

I didn't have a cheat sheet. And I didn't need one, I knew the code.
Again, I said that sarcastically, it was a throw away remark.

Then they should have stopped the test and got the tape qued and started
over. That was not a good example of testing.....

You're right. But I didn't want to get up and stop it. I thought it
might bother the other people who were already copying it thinking the
test had started. Some of them were pretty apprehensive about the test
and being able to pass it.

Congradulations - if you did it "honestly".

Your suggestion that I might not have done it honestly ****es me off.
But for the record, I did. I copied the code, all of it (and maybe
answered some questions too?). Then I took the written theory test, and
got a license.

snip lecture

I bet the Navy made you study SOMETHING. And, if you had to do Morse in the
service, then why are you bitching about it now? Surely if you did it there,
you can do it here WITHOUT A CHEAT SHEET.

Yeah, it did. The taxpayers got their money's worth out of me. And I
am not bitching about learning the code. I was on the "leave the code
in the test" side of the argument. I like the code, remember. Try
rereading my post maybe.

..- .-.

--
Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA - jacker at midmaine dot com

"Jack Erbes" wrote in message
...
L. wrote:

Be careful what you admit to... snip

Admit to? Am I on trial here? Do you want to read me my rights? I
passed the tests, code and theory, fair and square in a venue that was a
little disorganized maybe. And I guess my memory is still haunting me.
I remember taking the code test and then taking the written theory
test. You're saying there should be a written test on the stuff sent in
the code test? Maybe there was, I don't remember.


NO you are not "on trial". "Some" could have taken your words of the testing
as it having been done improperly. Whether it was your fault or not. That
could result in a retest.

Then if you were that good, you shouldn't have needed a "cheat sheet".

I didn't have a cheat sheet. And I didn't need one, I knew the code.
Again, I said that sarcastically, it was a throw away remark.


Good..... but we're not all mind readers to know where you were going with
that remark.

Then they should have stopped the test and got the tape qued and started
over. That was not a good example of testing.....

You're right. But I didn't want to get up and stop it. I thought it
might bother the other people who were already copying it thinking the
test had started. Some of them were pretty apprehensive about the test
and being able to pass it.

Congradulations - if you did it "honestly".

Your suggestion that I might not have done it honestly ****es me off.
But for the record, I did. I copied the code, all of it (and maybe
answered some questions too?). Then I took the written theory test, and
got a license.


No, I'm not suggesting "YOU" didn't do it honestly. The whole thing the way
you wrote about it, just didn't sound good. If you earned it, YOU EARNED
IT.... Who am I to judge? You alluded to improper testing procedures, cheat
sheets be they off the wall remarks or whatever.... None of it sounded up
front. You lead to the conclusion of improprieties, not us. But I went over
the procedures as they are supposed to be. That is how we do it. We go by
the book, not someone's idea of what they "think" it should be.

snip lecture

I bet the Navy made you study SOMETHING. And, if you had to do Morse in
the
service, then why are you bitching about it now? Surely if you did it
there,
you can do it here WITHOUT A CHEAT SHEET.

Yeah, it did. The taxpayers got their money's worth out of me. And I
am not bitching about learning the code. I was on the "leave the code
in the test" side of the argument. I like the code, remember. Try
rereading my post maybe.

.- .-.

--
Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA - jacker at midmaine dot com

And I'm damned sure the country, or at least some of us are glad you were
part of the service to the country. To that, I say thank you.

No, basically all I'm saying is it is all in how it was presented......

L.

I think the discussion on code has been pretty much beat to death on
every forum I know of. Comments below.

Doug, k3qt
s/v Callista

"Jack Erbes" wrote in message
...
L. wrote:

The latitude I was referring to was in in the way the code test was (or
should have been?) administered and graded. That there were some
options for passing it other than to just copy the code on paper and
hand it in. When the FCC was giving the tests in the mid 60's it was
quite different than it is now. You copied the code and handed it in
and it spoke for itself as I recall it.

Traditionally, code was graded based upon accuracy of copy. That is
because one was generally copying code that was then sent to the intended
recipient. The FCC finally realized that in ham radio, the only thing that
was
important was that the information contained in the message was all that
was important. If one could extract the information based upon context
then that was sufficient. Thus a quiz about the copied info was given.
The quiz was bypassed in the event that perfect copy was achieved.

I remember taking the code test and then taking the written theory
test. You're saying there should be a written test on the stuff sent in
the code test? Maybe there was, I don't remember.

There has been a test on the stuff in the code test for at least the last
20 years or so. That is unless you got perfect copy.

You're right. But I didn't want to get up and stop it. I thought it
might bother the other people who were already copying it thinking the
test had started. Some of them were pretty apprehensive about the test
and being able to pass it.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you were taking the test not
administering it.