In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Put it that way, Mike, yes. It is hard to argue that removing *any* part
of
a test is not a reduction in the amount of knowledge needed to pass a test.
But, that is simply a word game and nothing else.

It's more than a word game. Encouraging radio knowledge of all types is one of
the most basic reasons to have the ARS exist at all. The tests are there to
insure a minimum knowledge level. ("Knowledge" including skills, concepts,
facts, etc.)

The point is, what does passing a CW test prove in the way of
knowledge--other than that one can pass a CW test?

It proves that:

1) The person has learned a useful radio skill at a very basic level.
2) The person was willing and able to devote the time and effort necessary to
learn that skill.
3) The person has been exposed to a useful, widely-used-by-hams radio
communications mode other than voice or data.

What does passing the
written tests prove in the way of knowledge--other than that one can pass a
written test?

It proves that:

1) The person has learned some useful radio knowledge at a very basic level.
2) The person was willing and able to devote the time and effort necessary to
learn that knowledge.
3) The person has been exposed to several aspects of the amateur radio service
(regulations, operating practices, technology).


If you see the parody in both of those questions, then I go
one step further and say: What does passing a CW test have to with anything
related to overall knowledge of ham radio?!!!!!???? In my mind, *NOTHING*

Then your knowledge of amateur radio is very lacking. Like it or not, CW/Morse
is a very big part of amateur radio today. Of course, that by itself doesn't
prove we must have a code test.

It's bad enough that the written tests don't prove a whole lot, without the
added argument of CW in the mix. To continue to support CW as some form
of
proof that people know more about ham radio, know more about
communication,
know more about the standards and technology of ham radio, et al, is to
continue to do nothing but whine about a tradition--which is really all CW
really is: A TRADITION that no one wants to see fade away.

You are mistaken on several counts there, Kim.

1) The written tests are what they are. They are in a continuing state of
development.

2) ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, a ham who has Morse skills knows more about amateur
radio than one with no Morse skills.

3) Morse/CW has certain advantages to hams beyond being "just another mode".
4) Morse/CW is more than "just a tradition". It's a useful mode of radio
communication enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of hams.

5) There do exist folks who want Morse/CW USE (not just the TEST) by hams to
simply go away. They are a very small minority, but they do exist. Or at least
there are people whose rhetoric indicates they want Morse use by hams to end.

Of course, whether all of that "proves" we must have a code test is simply a
matter of opinion.

Passing CW is nothing.

Maybe not to you. To others, it's a big deal.

And it proves nothing to anyone else, except that
they studied CW and passed it in a test. I've seen idiots on every side of
ham radio, so it does nothing to prove quality or *interest* as everyone
seems to like to argue. If CW was that kind of instrument, then we'd have
no jerks on ham radio and, believe me, I've heard them.

That's simply illogical. No test, no matter how contrived, will filter out
every single "jerk" from the ranks of amateur radio. Or anything else, for that
matter.

Look at how much it takes just to become a physician. The training and testing
required is phenomenal, and designed to weed out the incapable. The hard work
and dedication required just to get into medical school are extraordinary, and
yet that's just the beginning. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

And yet there are some physicians who are jerks, pure and simple. Not many, but
some. And they make life hell for the rest, through things like high
malpractice insurance premiums and over-regulation.

Using CW as a test to prove "diligence" to the desire of wanting to be a
ham
radio operator is pure crap in my not-so-humble opinion.

OK, fine. At least you note that it's your opinion.

It is wrong to
even attempt to measure someone's desire and interest.

Why? I'd rather have an ARS consisting of a few hundred thousand interested,
active, dedicated, skilled, knowledgeable hams than one of a few million
inactive, apathetic, unskilled, ignorant ones who could not care less. Code
test or no code test.

If I have an Extra
license and I have no equipment or haven't even been on the radio in years,
then what did passing CW prove, in terms of proven interest? Nothing. And
it never will.

Incorrect. It proved that at one time the person had the interest.

Yes, CW is a useful communication skill. Hell, *ANY* type of communication
skill is useful. If we place such importance on CW, then why not RTTY,
phone, ATV, etc.

Because those modes don't require the acquisition of new skills for their use.

You know what I'm saying.

Not really.

And, if CW proves a higher
plane of dedication and knowledge, then why are there extremely skilled CW
operators out there, who are real jerks?! And you know there are.

No, I don't. Name some. If your only reference is how a few folks behave in
this newsgroup, it should be remembered that lots of folks on both sides of the
code test fence have behaved like real jerks in their posts here.

So, how
can someone, *anyone* then turn around and say that CW proves *anything*?
It proves nothing but that the person studied for and passed the CW
requirement.

Seems to me that you want the Morse code test to be a perfect "jerk" filter.
And of course no test can do that.

But note this plain, simple fact: Almost all of the FCC enforcement actions for
"jerk-like" on-air behavior (obscenity, jamming, failure to ID, exceeeding
license privileges, etc., etc.) are against hams using PHONE modes, not
CW/Morse or data modes. ALL of us have taken written tests detailing what we
should and should not do on the air, but it seems like violations are much more
prevalent among the talkers than the brasspounders or keyboarders. Why?

73 de Jim, N2EY