Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
From: on Fri 4 Nov 2005 17:16
Dee Flint wrote:
I would disagree with this approach. Here's why.
Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic
ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio.
Why is it that you only want volunteers to take up the burden of
learning morse code on "thier" free time and equip morse code radio
stations at their own expense?
...just because...
There's got to be some deeper motive.
There is no deeper motive. Notice that Len Anderson has made no comment on
my approach to using CW when the license structure changes. He chooses to
comment on a section that is clearly identified as opinion. I'm entitled to
my opinion just like any one else.
And I am glad that you express your opinion. My only sadness is that
it is straight from the ARRL playbook.
Why wouldn't you want paid, professional radio operators and radio
users to know Morse Code? Especially paid emergency communicators and
emergency responders.
If the government needed or wanted morse code radio operators, they
should create a GS5-7-9-11 series and get them.
Dee must imagine that ONLY hams are First Responders to
any emergency/crisis/disaster.
If so then Dee needs to back off and let first responders respond
first.
Notice that Len Anderson injects something into my post that was not there,
was not implied, and has not been stated or implied in any of my posts.
Then you do demand that 911 operators and responders hold an FCC GROL
with Morse Code endorsements?
Or do you only demand it of amateur radio volunteers?
I
am firmly in favor of first reponders responding first and other groups
standing by until they are needed and then only going in if they are needed.
However as you can see, rather than addressing the concept that I was
discussing, Len Anderson has gone off on one of his tangents and trying to
distract people from my actual statements. This is why I killfiled him long
ago.
Ouch! You should have kill-filed me as well because I cannot
understand that you demand unpaid volunteers to be "more highly
qualified" than paid communicator/responders.
I see that you started the paragraph with "if so...." You are wise to doubt
his statements. Investigate for yourself.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
I am merely wise in the ways of ARRL-speak and lies told by Tennessee
Nurse: Steven J Robeson, LPN.