"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
Kim is having some trouble with her newsreader, so
I'm forwarding this reply post with her permission.

(snip)

I appreciate and respect the tradition of CW as a
part of ham radio. I appreciate and respect most
(excluding some here in this newsgroup only) CW
operators and operation. I can't tell you how many
times I've felt quite privileged to watch a CW
operator at Field Day. I will defend to the end of
ham radio that CW is wonderful, a skill that only
few will learn and use, and that it has a rich
tradition and history in ham radio. But I will not
defend saying that having it as a testing
requirement proves a dawgoned thing, because it
just plain doesn't.


Well-written comments, Kim. So well written, there is nothing else to
add.
So I'll wait to see how the responses fall. And thanks for posting Kim's
message, Mike.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


Thank you, Dwight. There will be none, save yours. The naysayers totally
ignore poignant statements and seem to like more, getting involved with the
idiocy...

For example:
Dave Heil still hasn't told me if he has ever, in any way, broken the law.
Dick Carroll still has not described the items he would need to set up a CW
station in a disaster situation.

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to