"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

Sorry, but that is a judgment that you are not
qualified to make. I'm not even going to bother
to mention how wrong this judgment is, because
it comes from someone who is incapable of
rendering a credible judgment of the Morse/CW
mode because of his lack of experience therein.


Of course, it is indeed a judgement I'm qualified to make. I certainly
know as much about overall code USE in this country and elsewhere as you do.
I also know just as much as you do about its NECESSITY to meet the goals and
purpose of Amateur Radio. And those are the only things required to make a
judgement on its value as a testing requirement.


Incorrect. Dan and I are just speaking the truth
based on practical experience.something you
don't have when it comes to Morse/CW.


What experience is that, Larry? What experience do you have that makes you
uniquely qualified to judge the value of a specific testing requirement? The
answer is, of course, absolutely nothing - you're not uniquely qualified to
make value judgements about testing requirements.


(snip) but I'm eminently qualified to judge the value
and currency of the Morse/CW mode based on my
experience. (snip)


The issue isn't about the value of Morse Code itself, Larry. Instead, it's
about the value of Morse Code as a testing requirement (read the subject
line at the top of these messages). And you're no more "eminently qualified"
to make judgements about that than any other ham radio operator. In fact,
your inability to keep track of the overall subject from one message to the
next makes me doubt you're even as qualified as other operators. Most people
can keep up with the subject without constant reminders.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/