In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"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.

Dwight:

How many CW contacts have you made in your ham "career?" I'm into
the multiple thousands. If you have less than 500, then you're not even
close to being qualified to render a judgment against code testing.

I also know just as much as you do about its NECESSITY to meet the goals and
purpose of Amateur Radio.

Except, of course, when it comes to the issue of retaining a testing
requirement for a valuable basic communications skill. However, this type
of selectivity is certainly nothing new in the human condition.

And those are the only things required to make a
judgement on its value as a testing requirement.

Incorrect, but the above is probably the main reason why we're losing
our culture here in the United States.

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?

Twenty-two plus years of OTA HF experience as a radio amateur, which has
been about 80 percent CW, 19 percent RTTY and other digital modes,
and 1 percent phone. What's your breakdown?

The
answer is, of course, absolutely nothing - you're not uniquely qualified to
make value judgements about testing requirements.

I can see why you'd think that way, Dwight, especially when my own
objective evaluation of those requirements does not advance your own
agenda to gain full HF privileges without any necessity to make the
effort to learn the valuable communications skill of Morse code.

(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).

I have consistently directed my comments toward the testing requirement
as opposed to the mode itself. The confusion there is primarily an NCTA
problem.

And you're no more "eminently qualified"
to make judgements about that than any other ham radio operator.

Unless, of course, that "other" ham radio operator has OTA HF/CW
experience at least equal to my own. And, unfortunately for the NCTA,
most hams who do have CW experience similar to mine are usually
PCTA's.

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.

Now you're grasping at straws, Dwight. Trying to find some way to
discredit me any way you can. This is always the indication that you've
run out of logical, reasonable arguments. I'll give you partial credit for
not having resorted to name calling -- yet.

73 de Larry, K3LT