Opus- wrote in
:
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 19:19:15 -0400, "Dee Flint"
spake thusly:
"Opus-" wrote in message
. ..
I have been watching this thread for a while and now I must join the
fray.
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:34:18 -0400, Dave spake
thusly:
George Orwell wrote:
Al Klein said:
Eliminating a requirement is dumbing things down. But no one would
expect you to be able to understand that.
Well, let me ask, from the point of view of a potential noob to the
hobby. What use is the code requirements?
The 'use' is something you just can't understand. The 'use' is a
commitment of
time and talent which adds value to the license. The 'use' is
investment.
The term "investment" is very misleading. To explain my position, I am
in agreement that CW testing should go the way of the dinosaurs. I
have no problem with technical testing, as a way to ensure that
potential Hams can operate their radios properly, without causing
interference with neighbors and other Hams world wide. There is also a
safety factor, with transmitters that can kick out a LOT of
potentially dangerous power. So, technical exam = good idea.
Here in Canada, CW is not required IF you achieve at least 80% on your
technical exam. You need at least 55% WITH CW.
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/inter.../sf08435e.html
This seems fair, to me.
As for the "investment", not all investments are valuable. I invested
years of training to be a fully qualified mechanic. There is
considerable value in that investment, obviously, as it is my bread
and butter.
But, would my investment be more valuable if, for example, if an
additional year of carpentry training were required for me to be
certified? I mean, after all, cars had wood frames and bodies at one
time so a mechanic would have needed carpentry skills...back in the
1930's. Such an investment would be a bad one. The skills would have
no value and do nothing to enhance my skills as a mechanic. The extra
investment would have no return with regards to being a mechanic.
Carpentry would not make me a better mechanic and would not prove to
the world that I really wanted to be a mechanic.
CW is as useful to todays Hams as carpentry is to a mechanic. A good
thing to learn, and potentially useful, but should not be a barrier.
This is where your analogy falls apart. CW is currently very useful to
hams. It is in daily use. However, the arguments have already been
presented and those with closed minds have rejected them.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
Sorry, but your wrong, my analogy is just fine for this subject. CW to
a ham, like carpentry to a mechanic, can be useful BUT is NOT
NECESSARY for each to do what they want to do effectively and
properly.
Don't be one of those closed minds.
Yes, a ham CAN use CW if he wants and more power to him/her to do so.
A mechanic CAN learn to be a carpenter if he wants to and more power
to him/her to do so. But carpentry will not make a mechanic a better
mechanic, no more than CW will make a ham operator a better ham
operator. More useful to themselves and others, but NOT better.
Just because carpentry COULD maybe be useful to a mechanic does not
mean that he should be required to learn carpentry to be a mechanic. A
mechanic can be a damn good mechanic without picking up a hammer and a
ham can be a damn good ham without touching a key.
I said it before and I'll say it again. 70 years ago a good mechanic
needed carpentry skills but no more. 70 years ago a good ham needed to
know code but no more. A code test for todays prospective hams is like
a carpentry test for todays prospective mechanics.
When you have to spend time building a skill, you spend more time learning
other related things as well. Hams that haven't had to study to pass a 13
wpm CW exam, probably don't know the written portion of the exam as will
as hams that did. If I hadn't had to pass 20 wpm for my Extra, I would
have taken the exam a lot sooner, but as I had to build my CW abilities, I
also spend more time learning the theory too. It made me a better ham.
You people don't want knowledgable hams anymore. CB'ers dont have to
learn CW, are they better?
SC