"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

Perhaps, but the accuracy of those judgments are
definitely affected by having had those experiences,
or not. Someone who has never experienced a
house fire, a terrorist attack, life under a tyrannical
dictator, or a business failure is certainly capable
of making the entirely incorrect judgment about any
of the above. (snip)


Gladly, we don't live in a trial and error world today. I would hope the
bridge designer would have enough knowledge to build a safe bridge without
having to watch one (perhaps this one) fall down first. People can learn
about the specifics of a subject without personally experiencing every
aspect of it. We generally trust that system for a great many things in this
world today (for example, the bridges we routinely drive over).


I do not disagree. However, experience has shown
that people who aren't required to be code tested
usually don't bother to learn and use the Morse
code, so the issue does relate to code use, only to
the extent that the lack of a requirement would tend
to cause a decline in the use of the Morse/CW mode
in the fullness of time.


If that were true, I think a test requirement is the worst way to
accomplish what you're seeking. Instead, a better solution is to find ways
to attract new people to that aspect of ham radio. You're obviously not
going to have much success with that effort today because "no coders" have
made their choice about code while focusing solely on the license
requirement (the license requirement dominates the issue in their minds).
Later, when that license requirement is gone, the mode itself becomes the
focus. At that point, I think many more will be interested in taking a
second look at code. Obviously, there is no way for me to prove that now,
but I just have a feeling about this (perhaps the same way you have a
feeling about the above).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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