b.b. wrote:
b.b. wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
"Paul Traina" wrote in message
oups.com...
You could be right, sigh. I feel a little guilty for doing it this
way, but if the FCC says it's good, then who am I to argue. Besides, I
bet a few of them couldn't pass the new element 3. I took it in
1978-9 timeframe, and it's a new ballgame.


No need to feel guilty. Besides if look at the history of licensing the
earliest requirements were only 5wpm on code.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


break
I've been pointing that out for years, but the PCTA tend to ignore that
aspect of testing.

And another thing. I recall Jim or Kelly or some other Extra explain
that prior to the first 5wpm code exam, that there was no code exam.
But it was important to be able to understand code so that a government
station could tell you that you were interfering with them. And so
they implemented the 5wpm exam. And now that no other service uses
code...

indeed fromt he History I have read at first their were just hams (no
tests etc) then code testing was introduced for exactly the purpose of
allowing Govt to warn us off their freqs

Indeed that was why what became s25.2 can into existance in the first
place