John S. wrote:

Peter Maus wrote:

beerbarrel wrote:


On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:33:52 -0500, "Count Floyd"
wrote:



On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:41:48 UTC, beerbarrel
wrote:



On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, dxAce
wrote:



Joel Rubin wrote:



On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:33:36 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:



http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-05-143A1.doc

John


Code ability should be one alternative among other technical tests. It
seems very odd to freeze a technical test in a museum of bygone
technology.

If one cannot learn at least a minimal 5 WPM code then they have absolutely no
business obtaining an amateur license.

dxAce
Michigan
USA



Agreed!

Then you should also learn how to ride a horse in order to deliver the
mail on time.



That's apples to oranges....Cw is the most efficient form of
communication in ham radio...




That's a truth not limited to ham radio...pilots have known that
VOR stations identify in Morse coded since the beginning of VOR. As
did/do ADF stations before them. Charts are marked with frequency,
station indentifier, and the Morse equivalent. Knowing the code
saves a lot of time and helps reduce confusion when navigating by
radio.


But what possible connection is there between licensing a ham for
communications on 40 meters and the ability of a pilot to interpret
station designators. Unless the FCC and FAA are merging and they will
be offering one combined license for the amateur Hamilot



I'll let you think about that remark before you retract it.