"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dwight
Stewart"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Here, try this one:

"All else being equal, a radio amateur who has Morse
Code skills is more experienced, more qualified, and
has more radio communications options available than
a radio amateur with no Morse Code skills."


Without a desire to communicate with Morse Code, there is no truth to
that
statement at all.

I disagree!

Apply that logic to some other skill or knowledge. For example, the Smith
Chart. All else being equal, is a ham who knows how to use the Smith Chart
to
solve transmission line and impedance matching problems more experienced
and
more qualified than one who does not?

Or how about Ohm's Law? The phonetic alphabet? Typing skills?

Even with that (the all being equal aspect), there is no
truth to the "more experienced" or "more qualified" when it comes to
absolutely anything beyond Morse Code.

You think that skills do not transfer in any way? I disagree!

Therefore, those two have no place in
that paragraph without Morse Code, not the radio amateur, specified as
the
"more" being discussed. Therefore, only the "more radio communications
options" has any significant ring of truth to it.

Sorry Dwight, you're simply off base on this one. I cannot see how you can
deny
that having Morse code skills makes a ham more experienced and more
qualified -
all else being equal.

All else being equal, having Morse skills makes a ham more experienced and
more
qualified than not having them. But that fact is not a proof that those
skills
*must* be tested.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In today's society, it is politically incorrect to consider one person
better than another in almost any field regardless of how much they know in
that field and how little the other person knows.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE