"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

JJ wrote:

Dick Carroll wrote:

JJ wrote:


Dick Carroll wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:



You
are (IMHO) clearly not up to the task of recruiting new hams
by proactively advocating CW use.




Just as I would have skipped learning the code if it hadn't been a
licensing
requirement, too.

Then what is your problem with the fact that some have a no-code
license and possibly the code requirement will be dropped?
Goodness, if code testing were not a requirement and you skipped
learning the code, then you would not be a "real" ham.


Evidently you skipped code or you'd have some idea what ham radio
would/will
be without it. NO? no surprise, coming from you. That leaves you
clueless, but we
already knew that.

Hate to burst you bubble Dickie, but I sat in front of an FCC
examiner in the Dallas office and took my code test.

If that's true it would seem reasonable that you would be aware that a ham
who can
operate a
radiotelegraph station is better qualified than one who cannot. So why
aren't youi?

The ONLY aspect that the ham can claim is that s/he is better
qualified at CW. The other, non-CW hams may be far superior
hams than the coded ham in all the other aspects of ham radio
operation and technical.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK