"Dave Heil" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
(snip)

I'm sorry, I can't agree with your new age
"everyone's opinion has value" when the
topic is something in which someone has
no background. (snip)


Really? So, if you have no background in senior levels of government or no
background in the issues at hand, you don't offer opinions when the
government decides to makes policy decisions (taxes, immigration, welfare,
social security, foreign affairs, and so on)? I find that highly unlikely,
Dave. Code testing is a government decision/policy. And the right of the
people to have a say in government decisions and policies is not "new age"
thing.


I take it that you believe that your opinions
on child birth would be meaningful or
relevant to a woman who has had several
children and that your views on space flights
would be found useful to NASA engineers.


Nice dodge, Dave. But we're not talking about a woman with several
children or NASA engineers - this is a discussion about government policy.
And, when it come to that (even abortion and NASA financing), I do expect my
views to matter. After all, my tax dollars are paying for it. Code testing
is also a government policy and the radio frequencies involved belong to all
Americans.


I didn't know a "special" knowledge or
background was required. It doesn't take
great knowledge, or an indepth background,
to see that Morse code is a declining skill
throughout the radio world.

Not in amateur radio, it isn't. Now you see that
you and Len share a common mistaken view.
Each of you might have a desire to see it as a
truth but reality doesn't seem to bear it out.


What mistaken view - that the rest of the radio world must be considered
when discussing code testing? If so, you're the one mistaken here. The FCC
itself has even taken that view in the Report & Order following the last
round of restructuring when they said;

"We are persuaded that because the
amateur service is fundamentally a
technical service, the emphasis on
Morse code proficiency as a licensing
requirement does not comport with
the basis and purpose of the service.
We note, moreover, that the design of
modern communications systems,
including personal communication
services, satellite, fiber optic, and high
definition television systems, are based
on digital communication technologies.
We also note that no communication
system has been designed in many years
that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy
or the ability to receive messages in
Morse code by ear. In contrast,
modern communication systems are
designed to be automated systems.
Given the changes that have occurred in
communications in the last fifty years,
we believe that reducing the emphasis on
telegraphy proficiency as a licensing
requirement will allow the amateur service
to, as it has in the past, attract technically
inclined persons, particularly the youth of
our country, and encourage them to learn
and to prepare themselves in the areas
where the United States needs expertise."

The FCC went on to later say;

"We also note that most amateur radio
operators who choose to provide
emergency communication do so,
according to the amateur radio press,
using voice or digital modes of
communication, in part, because
information can be exchanged much
faster using these other modes of
communication. Further, we note that
in traditional emergency services, such
as police, fire, and rescue, there is no
requirement that emergency service
personnel hold amateur radio licenses
or any other license that requires
telegraphy proficiency. We conclude,
therefore, that telegraphy proficiency is
not a significant factor in determining an
individual's ability to provide or be
prepared to provide emergency
communications."

Note the references throughout to other radio services and to other,
non-Amateur, radio technologies. If we're going to remain a valuable radio
service, worthy of the massive frequencies we hold and unlike personal radio
services (CB), then our ability to fit with and contribute to those outside
Amateur Radio must be a factor in this discussion.


Lets be honest here, Dave. I seriously doubt
his lack of a license, or comments (condescending,
outragious, or otherwise), would really bother you
that much if those comments agreed more with
your own views.

Really? Have you noticed a single occasion where
I've supported the posts of Bruce?


I also haven't noticed an ongoing effort to criticize and ridicule Bruce's
posts as you've done with Len's.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/