mpackard@uok.UUCP (07/04/84)
#N:uok:2800005:000:601 uok!mpackard Jul 3 16:04:00 1984 :-) I didn't attack anyone personally and I hope no one felt that way. I only asked a question (sarcasticaly, sorry) and voiced an opinion. Several people responded with good arguments for getting rid of code in the upper freq's but I haven't seen any good arguments for keeping the requirement, maybe there isn't one. The idea of my learning code isn't the subject, as I've already learned it and then stopped using it. I don't recall the writers name but (s)he used the comparison of learning the bit patterns of ASCII or BAUDOT in order to operate on ham radio. This was well put. uok!mpackard
stephany.WBST@XEROX.ARPA (07/17/84)
JUST ONE LAST WORD ON NO-CODE: ASCII code cannot be read off the air by ear morse code can be. You cannot compare ASCII with Morse and claim ASCII is a substatute. Morse is still the final backup system when all else fails. To know it is to have communication skill. I don't see how anyone can claim to be skilled in Radio without knowing it. The U.S. Navy requires 10 % of its radiomen to be skilled in Morse. They have to be skilled to become petty officers and therefore they must learn it within 2 years after entering or else not get promoted. All radio men aboard polaris and trident subs must know morse. The Ultimate backup communication system of the U.S. navy is morse. They send it at 300 H.z Joe N2XS.