Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Kim W5TIT" writes:
wrote: I believe in keeping the CW requirement, and even adding a few more requirements, precisely to enhance the loyalty of licensees and to discourage those who wouldn't be active anyway, or would engage in bad practice... Len, not to be argumentative, but there are numbers of hams who got their license even under more stringent testing requirements than the past few years, who are inactive and, of those still active, have terrible, terrible operating practices. You're right; it's a battle that can never be won. Refusing to fight it only makes matters worse, unfortunately. CW doesn't prove loyalty, staying active, or provide for positive operating practices. We won't know until we have hard data--which we won't have until the requirement is dropped. Then we can ask: how many people got their no-code extras? How many are active? How long did they stay active? The issue is compounded because valid statistics on the current situation are probably not available, so a comparison can never be made. All we can do is theorize, which is (as one poster said) nothing but blowing smoke. Again, I don't believe in "weeding out" anyone who can and wants to pass the requirements to get a ham license. Me neither. I believe in "weeding out" those who won't. Exactly where to place the bar is a danged good question. And passing CW doesn't weed out anything, heck, listen to any of the HF frequencies that we all have heard with the creeps and nitwits on. Let's go vigilante and give their names to Riley--you and me. Whaddaya say? The only "area" in which the frequencies may prove out your belief is, literally, on the CW bands, where--simply because of the mode of operation--bad operating practices aren't easily facilitated. That's one of the reasons I expect to use CW as my primary mode. CW alone doesn't equal good operating, etc. Never said it did. Raising entry barriers to the right level, on the one hand, and beefing up enforcement, on the other, can sure help. Regards, Len. PS Of course I'm also interested in CW for historical reasons, but that alone probably wouldn't make me advocate it as a licensure requirement. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|