"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