In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
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.

But what about Morse is so important that it is "equal to all else" in terms
of a "pass or don't get an HF license" ???

Actually, I think the written test should be broken down into subelements that
each require a passing grade. Safety, Regs, and Theory would be one possible
split.

2) The person was willing and able to devote the time and effort necessary
to learn that skill.

This goes to "work ethic" and "quality of operator" arguments that have
already been rejected by the FCC ... let's not keep beating that horse.

I'm simply pointing out what passing the test proves. Doesn't prove the test
must exist.

3) The person has been exposed to a useful, widely-used-by-hams radio
communications mode other than voice or data.

So???

That exposure is a good thing. Doesn't mean it must exist, though.

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.

Correction ... a ham who has Morse skills is able to operate better Morse
than one with no Morse skills. PERIOD.

No, that's not correct, Carl.

Since Morse code is a big part of amateur radio, the person with Morse skills
knows more about amateur radio than the person without those skills IF ALL ELSE
IS EQUAL. The same can be said for, say, the ham who understands and can use
Ohm's Law as opposed to the ham who cannot. Or the ham who can use the standard
phonetics skillfully, as opposed to the person who can't.

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.

So?

So it makes sense to promote things that are useful to hams.

That is no reason to make it a requirement,

Sure it is. But it's just one reason.

when the majority of hams
and would-be hams have no desire to use Morse.

How do you know they don't want to use Morse, Carl?

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.

Apples vs. oranges ... providing medical treatment is often a life and death
thing ... being able to operate/or not operate Morse is not.

You missed the point completely, Carl.

The bit about doctors was simply to point out that no test is a perfect "jerk
filter". Not even the rigorous training physicians go through results in a
completely "jerk free" profession. No amount of testing that is reasonable
could result in a "jerk free" ARS.

As far as the "character filter" thing goes ... the FCC has already ruled
on that ... it doesn't fly.

You miss the point: No test is a perfect filter. The 5 wpm code test certainly
isn't.

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.

You seem to leap to the conclusion that folks who are not interested in
Morse fall into the "inactive, apathetic, unskilled, ignorant" category.

WHERE do you get THAT?

Look again at what I wrote - I'm saying I prefer quality over quantity.

Note the last line: "CODE TEST OR NO CODE TEST"

False assumption, not based in any factual reality.;

Would you rather have lots of hams who are inactive, apathetic, unskilled and
ignorant, or fewer hams that are the opposite, Carl?

73 de Jim, N2EY