"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

The same argument can be used for Smith charts since
Techs are not required to learn that either.


Its not an argument about whether one is required to learn something. The
issue is what makes one person "more qualified" or "more experienced" AS A
HAM RADIO OPERATOR than another person. Now, unless the Smith charts become
the sole criterior for that judgement, the total sum of what it takes to be
a ham radio operator, the premise that one person is "more qualified" or
"more experienced" as a ham radio operator simply because he knows the Smith
charts is flatly wrong.


Morse code is a skill used in amateur radio so someone
who knows it is a more qualified operator than someone
who doesn't whether or not it is a required skill. Just as
knowing how to use a Smith chart makes one more
qualified.


Likewise, Morse code is not the sole criterior for juding whether a person
is "more qualified" or "more experienced" as a ham radio operator either.
Therefore, the very premise behind your statement is fundamentally flawed.
Since Morse Code is no longer required to be a ham radio operator (note the
200,000 Techs), it is absurd to judge someone as "less qualified" or "less
experienced" as a ham radio operator simply because that person doesn't know
Morse code.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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