Now let's look at that phrase "pool of trained radio operators" Dee. The
vagueness of that can create some issues, such as what type of training???

Being able to handle message traffic, would be an extremely important detail
in training IMHO. How many people can formulate a formal messagegram??
Even though I am one of those low-life codefree techs, I still can.



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
Except that ham radio is not mission critical for most of us. If
conditions are poor on HF SSB, I can just QSY to a repeater, or read a
book or watch TV, for that matter.

One reason that we are able to justify ourselves to the government is that
part of our mission as hams is to be a "pool of trained radio operators."
So since I want ham radio to continue to be allowed, I consider it mission
critical to be familiar with the various modes whether or not I like them.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Now let's look at that phrase "pool of trained radio operators" Dee. The
vagueness of that can create some issues, such as what type of training???

To clarify any "vagueness" that may exist in some folks' minds ...

******
From the FCC's Report and Order in WT Docket No. 98-143:

(at para. 30)
"We are persuaded that because the amateur service is fundamentally a
technical service,
the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not
comport with
the basis and purpose of the service. We note, moreover, that the design of
modern
communications systems, including personal communication services,
satellite, fiber optic,
and high definition television systems, are based on digital communication
technologies.
We also note that no communication system has been designed in many years
that depends
on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive messages in Morse code by
ear. In
contrast, modern communication systems are designed to be automated systems.
Given the
changes that have occurred in communications in the last fifty years, we
believe that reducing
the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement will allow
the amateur service
to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons,
particularly the youth of our country,
and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the
United States
needs expertise."

(and at para. 31)
"
We also find unconvincing the argument that telegraphy proficiency is one
way to keep amateur

radio operators ready to be of service in an emergency. In this regard, we
note that most

emergency communication today is performed using either voice, data, or
video modes. We

also note that most amateur radio operators who choose to provide emergency
communication

do so, according to the amateur radio press, using voice or digital modes of
communication, in

part, because information can be exchanged much faster using these other
modes of

communication. Further, we note that in traditional emergency services,
such as police, fire,

and rescue, there is no requirement that emergency service personnel hold
amateur radio licenses

or any other license that requires telegraphy proficiency. We conclude,
therefore, that telegraphy

proficiency is not a significant factor in determining an individual's
ability to provide or be prepared

to provide emergency communications."

******

So, you can see, in the FCC's own words, in their view, the "trained pool of
operators"
thing has essentially nothing to do with Morse, but, rather, with technical
and operating
skills in the modes that are PREDOMINANTLY used in comtemporary emergency
communications.

Being able to handle message traffic, would be an extremely important
detail
in training IMHO.

Much message traffic is handled via voice or digital modes ... those that
still
pass NTS traffic (or emergency traffic, for that matter) in CW almost
invariably
do so as a matter of personal preference, NOT out of necessity.

How many people can formulate a formal messagegram??
Even though I am one of those low-life codefree techs, I still can.

So can I ... but I have found that in real-world emergency communications
there is little demand for formal radiograms ...

Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Now let's look at that phrase "pool of trained radio operators" Dee. The
vagueness of that can create some issues, such as what type of training???

To clarify any "vagueness" that may exist in some folks' minds ...

******
From the FCC's Report and Order in WT Docket No. 98-143:

(at para. 30)
"We are persuaded that because the amateur service is fundamentally a
technical service,
the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not
comport with
the basis and purpose of the service. We note, moreover, that the design of
modern
communications systems, including personal communication services,
satellite, fiber optic,
and high definition television systems, are based on digital communication
technologies.
We also note that no communication system has been designed in many years
that depends
on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive messages in Morse code by
ear. In
contrast, modern communication systems are designed to be automated systems.
Given the
changes that have occurred in communications in the last fifty years, we
believe that reducing
the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement will allow
the amateur service
to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons,
particularly the youth of our country,
and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the
United States
needs expertise."

(and at para. 31)
"
We also find unconvincing the argument that telegraphy proficiency is one
way to keep amateur

radio operators ready to be of service in an emergency. In this regard, we
note that most

emergency communication today is performed using either voice, data, or
video modes. We

also note that most amateur radio operators who choose to provide emergency
communication

do so, according to the amateur radio press, using voice or digital modes of
communication, in

part, because information can be exchanged much faster using these other
modes of

communication. Further, we note that in traditional emergency services,
such as police, fire,

and rescue, there is no requirement that emergency service personnel hold
amateur radio licenses

or any other license that requires telegraphy proficiency. We conclude,
therefore, that telegraphy

proficiency is not a significant factor in determining an individual's
ability to provide or be prepared

to provide emergency communications."

******

So, you can see, in the FCC's own words, in their view, the "trained pool of
operators"
thing has essentially nothing to do with Morse, but, rather, with technical
and operating
skills in the modes that are PREDOMINANTLY used in comtemporary emergency
communications.

Being able to handle message traffic, would be an extremely important
detail
in training IMHO.

Much message traffic is handled via voice or digital modes ... those that
still
pass NTS traffic (or emergency traffic, for that matter) in CW almost
invariably
do so as a matter of personal preference, NOT out of necessity.

How many people can formulate a formal messagegram??
Even though I am one of those low-life codefree techs, I still can.

So can I ... but I have found that in real-world emergency communications
there is little demand for formal radiograms ...

Carl - wk3c

Carl,

I'm going to do something that you some might not expect me to do,
agree. I think that in the frenzy to defend CW testing, some have
tried many different angles. Not that these angles aren't correct wrt
CW itself, just not the retention of CW testing. This is where the use
of the FCC to defend the dropping of CW testing becomes almost
silly...because to be quite honest, the FCC really doesn't care all
that much about the ARS anyway and ANYTHING that'll ease the
administration over the same is more than welcome. So saying "we don't
have to do our homework because daddy says so" doesn't mean that the
homework is unimportant, it means that daddy doesn't care.

Sadly, many have lost sight of what this was really all about. Element
1 (Domestically, that is.) Rather than investing some time and effort
to satisfy a very basic requirement that is an extremely important
part of AR tradition, many chose to cry to daddy that their homework
was too hard and presented a "barrier" to their pursuits. Daddy will
be more than happy to oblige, for now he won't have to check the
homework. So let the rejoicing begin, but to a newcomer who came into
the fray unbiased...it appears to be one big celebration of
underachievement.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...

Carl,

I'm going to do something that you some might not expect me to do,
agree. I think that in the frenzy to defend CW testing, some have
tried many different angles. Not that these angles aren't correct wrt
CW itself, just not the retention of CW testing. This is where the use
of the FCC to defend the dropping of CW testing becomes almost
silly...because to be quite honest, the FCC really doesn't care all
that much about the ARS anyway and ANYTHING that'll ease the
administration over the same is more than welcome. So saying "we don't
have to do our homework because daddy says so" doesn't mean that the
homework is unimportant, it means that daddy doesn't care.

I don't agree with the analogy ... the FCC *does* care about the
Amateur Radio Service ... they just don't belive that requiring Morse
tests serves any legitimate regulatory purpose any more (other than
complying with requirements in the ITU Radio Regs that require(d)
Morse tests for folks whose licenses granted privs in the bands
below 30 MHz ... a requirement that has ceased to exist as of
July 05, 2003 ...) (Read the quotes from their R&O again ... it's
quite clear.)

Sadly, many have lost sight of what this was really all about. Element
1 (Domestically, that is.) Rather than investing some time and effort
to satisfy a very basic requirement that is an extremely important
part of AR tradition,

"Some time and effort" can vary widely across the spectrum of
individuals ... for some it can be easy, for others it's nearly impossible.
Just as some folks can't "carry a tune in a bucket" with respect to
singing ability, Morse involves a "mode-specific aptitude" that folks
possess (or don't) in widely varying degrees.

I really wish that folks would stop trying to lean on "tradition" ...
maintaining "tradition" is NOT a legitimate regulatory goal that
should drive the requirements for licensing, plain and simple.

As to how "important" Morse is ... YMMV ... to some it is
the "be all and end all" of ham radio ... to others it is of no
importance whatsoever ... from the FCC's decisions, it's
clear that, while there was a time when Morse was important,
that time ended long ago and the FCC no longer views Morse
as important in terms of licensing requirements.

Those who believe that Morse testing should remain a requirement
forever will, for the most part, probably never change their minds,
but they are increasingly becoming a minority. Furthermore, their
view, based more on "tradition" and "emotional attachment" thereto,
is not relevant in terms of what the license requirements should
reasonably be.

Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...

Carl,

I'm going to do something that some might not expect me to do,
agree. I think that in the frenzy to defend CW testing, some have
tried many different angles. Not that these angles aren't correct wrt
CW itself, just not the retention of CW testing. This is where the use
of the FCC to defend the dropping of CW testing becomes almost
silly...because to be quite honest, the FCC really doesn't care all
that much about the ARS anyway and ANYTHING that'll ease the
administration over the same is more than welcome. So saying "we don't
have to do our homework because daddy says so" doesn't mean that the
homework is unimportant, it means that daddy doesn't care.

I don't agree with the analogy ... the FCC *does* care about the
Amateur Radio Service ... they just don't belive that requiring Morse
tests serves any legitimate regulatory purpose

Please stop right there. What's the hang-up with this "regulatory
purpose" stuff. I don't believe it's ALL about regulatory, it's has
something to do with a rich tradition wrt a mode that is still widely
used today. Tradition really does count for something and requiring
folks to learn the very basic level in order to pass a 5-wpm hardly
constitutes a "barrier." This is very likely how many will get their
only taste of Morse. Neither CW or it's proponents will sell it on
it's own merits. Sad to say, but many of today's generation just don't
understand why they "have to" learn all that stuff they'll never use.
The recent Regents fiasco is a grim reminder. Only 12 students passed
the test that was really no harder than many folks had taken in years
past. The first reaction..."the test's too hard," from both the
parents and the kids. Rather than take the heat, the DOE is going to
give them an easier test. Behold the result of second generation
underachievement. I strongly disagree, Carl. I think it's a "spot-on"
analogy. It'd almost be amusing if it weren't so sad.

any more (other than
complying with requirements in the ITU Radio Regs that require(d)
Morse tests for folks whose licenses granted privs in the bands
below 30 MHz ... a requirement that has ceased to exist as of
July 05, 2003 ...) (Read the quotes from their R&O again ... it's
quite clear.)

No need, the words of those who are seeking less administrative work
are hardly meaningful. Hmmm, avoiding work...some commonality.

Sadly, many have lost sight of what this was really all about. Element
1 (Domestically, that is.) Rather than investing some time and effort
to satisfy a very basic requirement that is an extremely important
part of AR tradition,

"Some time and effort" can vary widely across the spectrum of
individuals ... for some it can be easy, for others it's nearly impossible.
Just as some folks can't "carry a tune in a bucket" with respect to
singing ability, Morse involves a "mode-specific aptitude" that folks
possess (or don't) in widely varying degrees.

If by "mode-specific aptitude," you mean sitting ones you-know-what
down for 20 mins./day for a mo. and trying some good old-fashioned
study/practice, you'd have a point.

I really wish that folks would stop trying to lean on "tradition" ...
maintaining "tradition" is NOT a legitimate regulatory goal that
should drive the requirements for licensing, plain and simple.

I wish folks would stop leaning on "regulatory" as if it's ok just
because big brother says so. Especially at the 5-wpm level, puh-lease.

As to how "important" Morse is ... YMMV ... to some it is
the "be all and end all" of ham radio ... to others it is of no
importance whatsoever ... from the FCC's decisions, it's
clear that, while there was a time when Morse was important,
that time ended long ago and the FCC no longer views Morse
as important in terms of licensing requirements.

A 5-wpm test where you have to peg 25 in a row....with numbers,
puctuation marks, and prosigns count double...and you get lotsa time
to fill in the blanks at the end...the "be all and end all" of ham
radio?! ROTFL Like I said, Carl, it'd almost be amusing... :'-(

Those who believe that Morse testing should remain a requirement
forever will, for the most part, probably never change their minds,
but they are increasingly becoming a minority.

That's funny. Sure isn't the sentiment I hear on HF. I guess that
"minority" must be on HF. Sadly, I wouldn't expect the welcome
wagon...but I hope I'm wrong about that.

Furthermore, their
view, based more on "tradition" and "emotional attachment" thereto,
is not relevant in terms of what the license requirements should
reasonably be.

We all have our crutches, Carl. Be thankful that the FCC need less
works too.

Carl - wk3c

73 de Bert
WA2SI

(Bert Craig) wrote in message . com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...

Carl,

I'm going to do something that some might not expect me to do,
agree. I think that in the frenzy to defend CW testing, some have
tried many different angles. Not that these angles aren't correct wrt
CW itself, just not the retention of CW testing. This is where the use
of the FCC to defend the dropping of CW testing becomes almost
silly...because to be quite honest, the FCC really doesn't care all
that much about the ARS anyway and ANYTHING that'll ease the
administration over the same is more than welcome. So saying "we don't
have to do our homework because daddy says so" doesn't mean that the
homework is unimportant, it means that daddy doesn't care.

I don't agree with the analogy ... the FCC *does* care about the
Amateur Radio Service ... they just don't belive that requiring Morse
tests serves any legitimate regulatory purpose

Please stop right there. What's the hang-up with this "regulatory
purpose" stuff. I don't believe it's ALL about regulatory, it's has
something to do with a rich tradition wrt a mode that is still widely
used today. Tradition really does count for something and requiring
folks to learn the very basic level in order to pass a 5-wpm hardly
constitutes a "barrier." This is very likely how many will get their
only taste of Morse. Neither CW or it's proponents will sell it on
it's own merits. Sad to say, but many of today's generation just don't
understand why they "have to" learn all that stuff they'll never use.
The recent Regents fiasco is a grim reminder. Only 12 students passed
the test that was really no harder than many folks had taken in years
past. The first reaction..."the test's too hard," from both the
parents and the kids. Rather than take the heat, the DOE is going to
give them an easier test. Behold the result of second generation
underachievement. I strongly disagree, Carl. I think it's a "spot-on"
analogy. It'd almost be amusing if it weren't so sad.

any more (other than
complying with requirements in the ITU Radio Regs that require(d)
Morse tests for folks whose licenses granted privs in the bands
below 30 MHz ... a requirement that has ceased to exist as of
July 05, 2003 ...) (Read the quotes from their R&O again ... it's
quite clear.)

No need, the words of those who are seeking less administrative work
are hardly meaningful. Hmmm, avoiding work...some commonality.

Sadly, many have lost sight of what this was really all about. Element
1 (Domestically, that is.) Rather than investing some time and effort
to satisfy a very basic requirement that is an extremely important
part of AR tradition,

"Some time and effort" can vary widely across the spectrum of
individuals ... for some it can be easy, for others it's nearly impossible.
Just as some folks can't "carry a tune in a bucket" with respect to
singing ability, Morse involves a "mode-specific aptitude" that folks
possess (or don't) in widely varying degrees.

If by "mode-specific aptitude," you mean sitting ones you-know-what
down for 20 mins./day for a mo. and trying some good old-fashioned
study/practice, you'd have a point.

I really wish that folks would stop trying to lean on "tradition" ...
maintaining "tradition" is NOT a legitimate regulatory goal that
should drive the requirements for licensing, plain and simple.

I wish folks would stop leaning on "regulatory" as if it's ok just
because big brother says so. Especially at the 5-wpm level, puh-lease.

As to how "important" Morse is ... YMMV ... to some it is
the "be all and end all" of ham radio ... to others it is of no
importance whatsoever ... from the FCC's decisions, it's
clear that, while there was a time when Morse was important,
that time ended long ago and the FCC no longer views Morse
as important in terms of licensing requirements.

A 5-wpm test where you have to peg 25 in a row....with numbers,
puctuation marks, and prosigns count double...and you get lotsa time
to fill in the blanks at the end...the "be all and end all" of ham
radio?! ROTFL Like I said, Carl, it'd almost be amusing... :'-(

Those who believe that Morse testing should remain a requirement
forever will, for the most part, probably never change their minds,
but they are increasingly becoming a minority.

That's funny. Sure isn't the sentiment I hear on HF. I guess that
"minority" must be on HF. Sadly, I wouldn't expect the welcome
wagon...but I hope I'm wrong about that.

Furthermore, their
view, based more on "tradition" and "emotional attachment" thereto,
is not relevant in terms of what the license requirements should
reasonably be.

We all have our crutches, Carl. Be thankful that the FCC need less
works too.

Carl - wk3c

73 de Bert
WA2SI

Great post Bert, ya sed it all, I wish I'd written it. Your Regents
analogy was masterful. They don't have the gumption to achieve so dumb
the exams to "their" achievement level and their "problem" goes away.

w3rv

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...

Carl,

I'm going to do something that some might not expect me to do,
agree. I think that in the frenzy to defend CW testing, some have
tried many different angles. Not that these angles aren't correct wrt
CW itself, just not the retention of CW testing. This is where the use
of the FCC to defend the dropping of CW testing becomes almost
silly...because to be quite honest, the FCC really doesn't care all
that much about the ARS anyway and ANYTHING that'll ease the
administration over the same is more than welcome. So saying "we don't
have to do our homework because daddy says so" doesn't mean that the
homework is unimportant, it means that daddy doesn't care.

I don't agree with the analogy ... the FCC *does* care about the
Amateur Radio Service ... they just don't belive that requiring Morse
tests serves any legitimate regulatory purpose

Please stop right there. What's the hang-up with this "regulatory
purpose" stuff.

The FCC is about "regulatory purpose." If there's no legitimate
purpose for a regulation, the regulation should not exist.

I don't believe it's ALL about regulatory, it's has
something to do with a rich tradition wrt a mode that is still widely
used today. Tradition really does count for something

Yada, yada, yada ... regulators have no business making/keeping
rules that serve no purpose other than to "maintain tradition."

I wish folks would stop leaning on "regulatory" as if it's ok just
because big brother says so.

I'm not saying "its OK because big brother says so," I'm saying
"Big brother shouldn't be making/maintaining regulations that
have no legitimate purpose."

Carl - wk3c

Bert Craig wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
.com...

Carl,

I'm going to do something that some might not expect me to do,
agree. I think that in the frenzy to defend CW testing, some have
tried many different angles. Not that these angles aren't correct wrt
CW itself, just not the retention of CW testing. This is where the use
of the FCC to defend the dropping of CW testing becomes almost
silly...because to be quite honest, the FCC really doesn't care all
that much about the ARS anyway and ANYTHING that'll ease the
administration over the same is more than welcome. So saying "we don't
have to do our homework because daddy says so" doesn't mean that the
homework is unimportant, it means that daddy doesn't care.

I don't agree with the analogy ... the FCC *does* care about the
Amateur Radio Service ... they just don't belive that requiring Morse
tests serves any legitimate regulatory purpose


Please stop right there. What's the hang-up with this "regulatory
purpose" stuff. I don't believe it's ALL about regulatory, it's has
something to do with a rich tradition wrt a mode that is still widely
used today. Tradition really does count for something and requiring
folks to learn the very basic level in order to pass a 5-wpm hardly
constitutes a "barrier." This is very likely how many will get their
only taste of Morse.

You would think so, but its too hard!


Neither CW or it's proponents will sell it on
it's own merits. Sad to say, but many of today's generation just don't
understand why they "have to" learn all that stuff they'll never use.

Dude! It's like such a waste of time, yaknow? I'll never be interested,
and like "Americon Idol" is on tonight!


The recent Regents fiasco is a grim reminder. Only 12 students passed
the test that was really no harder than many folks had taken in years
past. The first reaction..."the test's too hard," from both the
parents and the kids.

Of course! how is little Buffy and Adrian going to get into a good
college if they don't have the grades? S make those tests easier.


Rather than take the heat, the DOE is going to
give them an easier test. Behold the result of second generation
underachievement. I strongly disagree, Carl. I think it's a "spot-on"
analogy. It'd almost be amusing if it weren't so sad.

Carl thinks we make dum analogies.

any more (other than
complying with requirements in the ITU Radio Regs that require(d)
Morse tests for folks whose licenses granted privs in the bands
below 30 MHz ... a requirement that has ceased to exist as of
July 05, 2003 ...) (Read the quotes from their R&O again ... it's
quite clear.)


No need, the words of those who are seeking less administrative work
are hardly meaningful. Hmmm, avoiding work...some commonality.


Sadly, many have lost sight of what this was really all about. Element
1 (Domestically, that is.) Rather than investing some time and effort
to satisfy a very basic requirement that is an extremely important
part of AR tradition,

"Some time and effort" can vary widely across the spectrum of
individuals ... for some it can be easy, for others it's nearly impossible.
Just as some folks can't "carry a tune in a bucket" with respect to
singing ability, Morse involves a "mode-specific aptitude" that folks
possess (or don't) in widely varying degrees.


If by "mode-specific aptitude," you mean sitting ones you-know-what
down for 20 mins./day for a mo. and trying some good old-fashioned
study/practice, you'd have a point.

Takes longer in some cases. Took me six months of hard work. but so what?


I'll go out on a limb, and say that a person that does not have the
time to learn the material does not have the time for the hobby. Written
or Morse.

That is really what my whole argument is. I don't give a hoot if a
person uses or doesn't use Morse. I really don't. I suck at it. I've got
some physical attributes that make morse code unenjoyable for me.

But I don't like lazy people one little bit. Sorry, but I don't. And
behind all the rhetoric and bluff and bluster, in almost all cases it
boils down to laziness.

I really wish that folks would stop trying to lean on "tradition" ...
maintaining "tradition" is NOT a legitimate regulatory goal that
should drive the requirements for licensing, plain and simple.


I wish folks would stop leaning on "regulatory" as if it's ok just
because big brother says so. Especially at the 5-wpm level, puh-lease.

Wouldn't it be great if all the PCTA people would just go away?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"Some time and effort" can vary widely across the spectrum of
individuals ... for some it can be easy, for others it's nearly
impossible.
Just as some folks can't "carry a tune in a bucket" with respect to
singing ability, Morse involves a "mode-specific aptitude" that folks
possess (or don't) in widely varying degrees.


Please read "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". The problem that people
generally have in learning the code are incorrect study methods and
unrealistic expectations. Yet when proper training methods are employed,
achieving 20wpm is within the reach of almost everyone whether or not they
have any talent for it. Now setting world records does require talent but
you don't have to have talent to be OK at something.

The same applies to learning to sing. The number of people who are truly
tone deaf is miniscule. However there are a large number of people who
"can't carry a tune in a bucket" because they have not been taught how to
discriminate and reproduce different pitches although they can hear them as
different tones. Some people come by this ability to differentiate
naturally and some have to be taught. Those who can't carry a tune are in
the latter category. Anyone that can hear the notes can be talked to sing
passably well although not everyone will be a Pavarotti. Unfortunately a lot
of so called vocal instructors don't know how to teach it. Read the book
"The Joy of Music". A church choir member was going to be asked to leave
because he "could not sing". His real problem was pitch matching. Once he
found a teacher who knew how to address the problem, he rapidly developed a
truly magnificant singing voice.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"Some time and effort" can vary widely across the spectrum of
individuals ... for some it can be easy, for others it's nearly
impossible.
Just as some folks can't "carry a tune in a bucket" with respect to
singing ability, Morse involves a "mode-specific aptitude" that folks
possess (or don't) in widely varying degrees.


Please read "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". The problem that
people
generally have in learning the code are incorrect study methods and
unrealistic expectations. Yet when proper training methods are employed,
achieving 20wpm is within the reach of almost everyone whether or not they
have any talent for it. Now setting world records does require talent but
you don't have to have talent to be OK at something.

I *was* "OK" at Morse ... but I have NO interest in using that mode and
will likely never do so again in my life. I would have been a much more
valuable asset to the amateur community if I'd had access to HF those
years I didn't simply because of Morse ...

The point is that amateur radio is, per the FCC's own pronouncments
(and they are the ones that set the rules of the game), primarily a
technically-oriented service ... they see no need for making people
practice an ear-hand coordination drill (which has nothing technical
about it) to acquire proficency that isn't necessary and many, if not
most, won't use.

I just cannot grasp how otherwise (presumably at least reasonably)
intelligent people can cling to insistence on the acquisition of such
a mechanical skill in such a quasi-religious fashion. It's about
as ridiculous as asserting that all hams should be tested for their
ability to hop on one foot, while patting themselves on the head
with their left hands and talking on an HT with their right hands
at the same time without losing their balance. Some folks could
do it easily, some with more difficulty, and some would probably
fall over. Insisting on Morse skill for to obtain what are for the
most part TOTALLY UNRELATED privileges is absurd ... there
is no other way to describe it.

Carl - wk3c