In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim"

writes:

Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*)
debate.
The
minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met
with
an
attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or called
for.

Kim:

Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use.

I would assert that being forced to learn code to gain access to HF
"soured" more people on code use than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked code and continued to
use it, but MANY simply endured something they had no interest in
to get past the test, then "threw away the key."

Remember the old adage "honey is better than vinegar."

OK, fine, your opinion is well stated.

Now consider that same logic applied to the written test.

Jim ... I am not going to waste time, energy, and bandwidth
debating the elimination of written tests, with you playing
"devil's advocate" for elimination thereof ...

That's fine, Carl. You don't have to.

I do not, and never will support the elimination or watering down
of the written tests.

Neither do I.

I have stated over and over again that I
personally feel they could be made better (where "better" and
"more difficult" are not necessarily synonymous ...).

Agreed - and we have detailed ways that could be done within the present
system.

I don't mean to come across as condescending, but your attempts
to equate Morse testing's irrelevance to the written tests in an effort
to support continued Morse testing is something I'm getting tired of.

You've got it backwards.

And I'm not going to play that game.

My point is simply this: When someone or some group challenges the *written*
tests - particularly the parts beyond the regulations and safety - how are we
going to defend them from a regulatory point of view? Particularly if they use
the exact same arguments as used against the Morse test?

You and I and many others will say "Those writen tests are relevant and
reasonable". But how can we *prove* it?

Before restructuring, it took 5 written tests totalling 190 questions to get
full privileges. Now it takes 3 writtens totalling 120 questions. Did we lose
anything by that change?

Have you read KL7CC's paper on NCVEC's vision of the future of amateur radio? I
invite you and everyone else to take a look, with particular attention to the
parts other than code testing.

It ain't a pretty vision.

73 de Jim, N2EY