In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:
Kim:
Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use.
In the absence of a code testing requirement, there will be progressively
fewer hams who have never been exposed to learning the code as a
result of the requirement. Since the requirement was the principle
motivation to learn the code, code use *will* decline once code testing
is abolished. Therefore, testing and use are two closely interrelated
concepts.
1) To use the test element as a reason to proliferate CW users is not
acceptable to me. The reason is because the test requirement is a
government sponsored requirement. If we use your expectation for the
requirement above, then I respond that the continuance of the mode of CW is
not the responsiblity of the government, nor should it be. The FCC, the
government, has decided that CW is no longer needed for its expectation and
interpretation of what the ARS is about. To argue with that is merely
spinning our wheels at this point--it's a done deal. So, if your basic
support of the CW test as a requirement for ham radio is that it will keep
people learning and using the mode, then I would wholehertedly disagree.
2) Using the statement you make, above: would you not also agree then, that
the choice by some people to stop short of HF privileges, simply because of
a CW test requirement, depletes the overall supply of HF, therefore CW,
users anyway? I'd rather dismiss the test requirement for CW and have HF
thrive and active for the ARS. In article ,
"Kim W5TIT" writes:
Kim:
Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use.
In the absence of a code testing requirement, there will be progressively
fewer hams who have never been exposed to learning the code as a
result of the requirement. Since the requirement was the principle
motivation to learn the code, code use *will* decline once code testing
is abolished. Therefore, testing and use are two closely interrelated
concepts.
1) To use the test element as a reason to proliferate CW users is not
acceptable to me. The reason is because the test requirement is a
government sponsored requirement.
Kim:
The written exams required by the FAA for one to obtain a pilot's
license is a "government sponsored requirement."
If we use your expectation for the
requirement above, then I respond that the continuance of the mode of CW is
not the responsiblity of the government, nor should it be.
Why should the government have the responsibility to "force" people
to take exams in order to obtain a pilot's license? Where is the
government's "responsibility" to create a growing number of licensed
aircraft pilots?
The FCC, the
government, has decided that CW is no longer needed for its expectation and
interpretation of what the ARS is about. To argue with that is merely
spinning our wheels at this point--it's a done deal. So, if your basic
support of the CW test as a requirement for ham radio is that it will keep
people learning and using the mode, then I would wholehertedly disagree.
Well, you have a right to that disagreement, Kim. That doesn't mean
you are correct in your thinking, however.
2) Using the statement you make, above: would you not also agree then, that
the choice by some people to stop short of HF privileges, simply because of
a CW test requirement, depletes the overall supply of HF, therefore CW,
users anyway?
I've never had any problem with hams who decide to stop themselves at
the Technician class, unless and until they begin to whine about code
testing, and make insulting inferences about those who support code testing.
I'd rather dismiss the test requirement for CW and have HF
thrive and active for the ARS.
There was never a problem with HF use "thriving" even when we had
code testing up to 20 WPM, Kim, so what will be the difference in the
ECTA?
The influence of good amateur radio
operators who appreciate the value, tradition, and history of CW will always
be a positive effect on the maintenance of the population of CW users.
A lot of those CW users only became CW users because of the
requirement to be tested in Morse code proficiency. How does "history"
and "tradition" play a role in causing prospective licensed pilots to
learn and master a wide variety of knowledge necessary for the safe
operation of an aircraft?
Again, it is not up the government to be the arm of CW continuance.
Again, why is it up to government to be the arm of the continuance of
aviation -- and how do the FAA's pilot licensing requirements meet that
need?
Until, (UNTIL, *until*) it is clearly understood that seeking the end of
the
CW test is not the equivalent of seeking the end of CW as a mode, this
debate will never fall within the realm of "friendly" debate at all. I
think it's even hazardous to use the PCTA/NCTA labels.
PCTA = Pro-Code Testing Agenda; NCTA = Anti-Code Testing Agenda.
Those terms are accurately descriptive of the intent of their respective
groups. Where is the "hazard" in honesty?
73 de Larry, K3LT
The hazard, Larry, is in the derogatory slams that have been bantered back
and forth while using those terms. The term "******" (excuse me, to anyone
who is offended by that word--me included)
I am offended by that word, Kim -- and if you are yourself, why did you use it?
I personally have sanitized that word from my vocabulary, both spoken and
in writing. I never mention it even in jest or as an example.
isn't derogatory until some
bigoted person uses it against another person, either. No hazard, at all,
in being honest.
That word is always derogatory because it is calculated to be demeaning to
people who happen to be of the Negro (Latin for black) race. The fact that
you use it even in an attempt to prove some nebulous point about honesty
suggests that you are, indeed, prejudiced and bigoted.
73 de Larry, K3LT
|