Dick Carroll; wrote:
wrote:
"Dick Carroll;" writes:
Wrong again, Bill. I define limited interest in ham radio as limited
interest in ham radio.
Where Ham Radio isn't Ham Radio if the CW testing requirement is
dropped. I approve of keeping the requirement, but I dispute your
right to define the ARS in terms like these.
Oh. So you don't believe that limited interest is actually limited
interest. I see.
And Morse code wasn't mentioned, at least by me. REQUIREMENTS for the
license was.
I'm a bit confused by this whole thing, Dick. Even though we are
talking about requirents - one of which is indeed the Morse code test -
this whole argument is NOT about whether Morse code is good bad
indifferent or whether it SHOULD be tested for or not.
It's about it being a tested requirement, and that being the case, a
person's interest can be gauged by their willingness to get a license or
not, based on their dislike of that test requirement.
If people don't want it to be about Morse code, substitute:
"I won't becoame a ham because I don't want to take a written test."
I won't become a ham, because I don't want to pay the testing fee."
I won't become a ham because I don't think there should be any
questions about RF safety."
And I originally brough this up, so I know what I was speaking of.
I'm saying that a person who is willing to meet the requirements for a
ham license is more interested in being a ham than a person who is not
willing to meet the requirements.
Nothing mentioned about mode, or which particular requirement, nothing.
Just meeting the requirements.
But some people seem to know what we're gonna say even before we say it.
There are only a few real arguments against my statement. That would be
if a requirement were illegal, immoral, or causing harm to others. And
last time I checked, there was nothing in the ARS licensing requirements
that did that! 8^)
- Mike KB3EIA -