In article , Mike Coslo writes:


My statement is that there is no direct relationship.

Mike:

Your statement is correct. The connection between code testing/use
and technical insufficiency among radio amateurs is one of the most
specious, improbable, and self-serving arguments ever contrived by
the NCTA.

Anyone ready for a real discussion without the barbs? Can we do it?
First person to start throwing insults only makes it look bad for
his/her side.

Speaking from personal experience, the hams I've known who were the most
likely to be technically involved were also those who both embraced the use
of the Morse/CW mode, and supported the concept of code testing as a
licensing requirement. They were always the ones most active on the air,
not only on HF but on VHF as well -- and I mean weak-signal VHF, not FM.

I have also known a lot of highly technical "no-coders," but their contribution
was mainly in the arena of FM repeaters. However, they have, for the most
part, been unconcerned about the code testing issue, since they had no
aspirations to operate HF. I highly value their efforts, and consider them to
be full-fledged hams. This assessment is strengthened by the fact that they
left themselves out of a debate over a topic they knew little or nothing
about.

The whole ball of wax boils down to one thing -- the willingness of a certain
group of prospective hams to meet licensing requirements which support
the learning and use of what is unquestionably one of the most versatile and
useful modes of radio communication -- CW using Morse code. Since the
ability to effectively employ this mode holds the unique requirement that the
operator acquire a physical skill, and considering the fact that many other
modes which do not levy this skill development "overhead" exist, has caused
many people to vent their frustration at this requirement, rather than make an
honest attempt to overcome it. In so doing, they have tried almost every
trick in the book, including the "code = technical decline" argument.

One cannot ignore that the principle motivation of the NCTA is just plain,
old-fashioned laziness. This is a human trait, and we are all guilty of it, to
some extent. That is not a "barb," it is just honesty. I consider myself
qualified to make that judgment, since I squandered what is now 28% of
my lifetime being on the wrong side of the code/no-code testing ideology.
My problem was I was too lazy to be bothered to learn the code and
become a licensed radio amateur. When my desire to become a ham
finally overcame my laziness, everything else fell into place in very short
order. The sooner we recognize the true motivation of the NCTA, the
sooner they will be shown to be wrong.

73 de Larry, K3LT