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

Kim W5TIT wrote:


Dee, no doubt CW has its benefits. Contrary to a lot of the "pro-CW"

folks,

the "anti-CW" folks recognize its capabilities. (It's silly to even put

the

groups in such diverse categories.) However, that does not negate the
argument that, even though it may be quite beneficial, there are those

of us

who simply choose not to learn it well enough for practicability (eh?).


You don't have to use it, just learn it. I don't like the stupid
satellite questions on the test, but I had to learn them. (sorry
satellite folks)


Actually you didn't have to learn the satellite stuff to
get a passing grade on the test. I have no problem adding
a couple of questions to the question pool for any license that
asks about CW as a mode. That is, however, a distinctly
different situation than having an exclusive and separaelty
graded test element as Morse code does today.


If we threw out all the parts that some people did not
want to learn, there would soon be no test whatsoever.

Let's make the case:


None of the cases below now have a separate pass
fail test element so the "case" or analogy fails.

I wasn't making a pass/fail argument Bill, My argument is that you take
a test based on what the test is. Another made the argument that they
will never use Morse, so why should they have to take the test. In that
context it is relevant.



Satellite stations - this is a very mode-specific section

Strike

Band edges - most hams I know have a ARRL band page by their
rigs.

Strike

Theory - Many hams never plan to homebrew and some even have
other people wire their stations for them.

Strike

Packet questions? Mode specific and most hams aren't interested
in packet

Strike

Questions about SSTV Mode specific, and many hams never plan to
use SSTV

Strike

Baudot code questions? Give me a break!

Strike

Test equipment questions? In this day of appliance operations,
who needs those sort of questions?

Strike

I'll stop now, but for every type of question on the test, there is a
person who thinks it doesn't belong there.
- Mike KB3EIA -


I repeat:
None of the cases above now have a separate pass
fail test element so the "case" or analogy or argument fails.

Okay, I'll repeat:

I wasn't making a pass/fail argument Bill, My argument is that you take
a test based on what the test is. Another made the argument that they
will never use Morse, so why should they have to take the test. In that
context it is relevant.

Your's is a different argument. On that, there *is* a case to be made
as to Morse code being an anachronism, and that it is one element in
that a failure will cause you to fail the intire test - disregarding
the certificate that you get for passing the test.

But that's not the specific argument here - tho there isn't anything
prohibiting taking it in that direcion, 'ceptin' some likely confusion!

- Mike KB3EIA -