Re: Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?

[Slow Code]

wrote in
ups.com:

> John Smith wrote:
>> wrote:
>> > ... They are written *by* me, but they are not *about* me. ...
>>
>> I strongly disagree with the above. They are about you. They
>> describe, and I feel quite accurately, the depth, width and breadth of
>> you, your thinking and your abilities.
>
> Well, I disagree somewhat. My posts simply state my thoughts and
> observations on certain subjects. They do not "describe,....., the
> depth, width and breadth of you, your
> thinking and your abilities."
>
> There's more to me than what I post on Usenet. In fact, I try to post
> as little about myself here as possible.
>
> OTOH, they *do* say something about me, their writer. They don't say
> everything, but they do say something. So you do have a point - they
> *are* about me to some extent.
>
>> I ask you, "If not, then why would you not structure your words
>> differently?"
>
> I structure my words as best I can to convey the meanings intended.
> That does not mean my postings are flawless!
>
>> NOTE: This message makes NO statement as to your words worth. It only
>> points out the error in your statement.
>
> Good point. Thanks
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY


Anyone that enjoys CW and supports keeping the requirement is okay in my
book.

SC