"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
news
Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

I just saw another accusation of Pro-Coders as technically backwards.


Unfortuneately, extremist comments are present on both sides.


Yet some of the most progressive RF Engineers and Technicians I know
(who are Hams) are really enamored of Morse CW.


Nothing wrong with that. The issue isn't about USE it is about
the lack of any rational reason to retain code testing as a
license requirement now that the ITU mandatory code knowledge
requirment has ended.

But that isn't my question or argument, Bill. It isn't really about the
test. I don't care if they make the taking the test punishable by
inprisonment.

My question was related to the statements that Pro coders are
technically backwards.




I would challenge the NCTA's to show some proof that those who believe
that the morse code test should be retained are in a technical
backwater.


It isn't that the individuals that want code retained are in a technical
backwater, but rather that their procode test arguments fail
as to any technical reason for retaining code testing. On that point,
don't take my word on it, read the FCC R&O on NPRM98-143
and you'll find every argument being put forth today has already
been made to the FCC and rejected by the FCC.


I would also challenge them to do it without being abrasive or
insulting.


Feel free to let me know if I fail that challenge.


You did just fine from the civility standpoint, but perhaps I didn't
make myself clear. This isn't about the test.


Just facts or intelligent informed opinions.


As above, for the facts and the ultimate opinion (the only
opinion that in the end means anything) can be found in 98-143 R&O.

Bill, it isn't about the test.


Pro coders can help by refraining from name calling too.


Agreed.


My statement is that there is no direct relationship.


Not sure what relationship you are referring to.

I'm alomost confused here Bill! I'm saying there is no direct
relationship between being Pro-Code and technical ability.

OK, I agree.

My point is that the arguments should and can be made
without regard to personal aspects of either side.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK