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

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

No matter what stance the ARRL takes or no stance at all, they will
alienate
a portion of the US amateur population [CRS insert ... I think you meant
to
put a "larger" here] than their membership. The number of
non-ARRL members supporting code testing is larger than ARRL's
membership
as
well as the group opposing code testing.

How did you arrive at that pseudo-fact?

The size of the ARRL membership and its demographics is documented. The
size and demographics of the overall ham population are also documented.
Anyone can do the math.


The various surverys that have been taken indicate that the ham
community
is
about 50/50 on this issue. That seems to hold true inside the ARRL
membership as well as outside it. Thus the ARRL will "alienate" half
the
US
ham population no matter what stance they take.

The "various surveys" have all been self-selecting and have no scientific
validity.

Plus, they are all several years old and the demographic and thoughts have
changed a lot since "restructuring."


There have been internet surveys within the past year. Although they have
all been "self-selecting", it still shows a pretty even split. It's the data
that is available to us at this time.

If you look at the numbers of licensees with less than General class
licenses,
do you really believe that anything approaching 50% of them are in favor
of continued Morse testing?

I seriously doubt it ...


Based on the Techs I know, it's possible. But that is not the point. The
available data, although limited and not of the best quality, still
indicates that overall there is a 50/50 split.

And do you really believe that all Techs and down want to ditch the code
test and all Generals and up want to keep it? That's not a valid assumption
at all.

Those licensees alone outnumber the ARRL's entire current membership.
Also, many current ARRL members (and a lot of NCI's members are
ARRL members, too), including holders of General, Advanced, and Extra
class licenses oppose continued Morse testing.

Do you really believe that the ARRL's membership includes no Technicians?
Just as in the overall ham population, the number of members with less than
General class licenses is approximately 50%.


Have you read the NCI Petition? If not, I would suggest you read it
with an open mind and give due consideration to its content.

Carl - wk3c


I made no comment on the NCI petition. My comments were simply to
demonstrate that the ARRL is in a position where it may not even be
reasonable for them to take a stance either for or against code testing.
With the nearly even split within the ARRL, any position that they take
could alienate approximately half the hams in their own membership let alone
the overall ham community. How does this become a comment on the NCI
petition?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

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


[snipped the unresolvable debate about survey validity, etc.]

Have you read the NCI Petition? If not, I would suggest you read it
with an open mind and give due consideration to its content.

Carl - wk3c


I made no comment on the NCI petition.

I didn't mean to imply that you did ... just encouraged you to read
it and give it due consideration.

My comments were simply to
demonstrate that the ARRL is in a position where it may not even be
reasonable for them to take a stance either for or against code testing.
With the nearly even split within the ARRL, any position that they take
could alienate approximately half the hams in their own membership let
alone
the overall ham community.

I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect to
the split in their existing membership. However, outside of their
membership
(in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe
that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side ...
thus,
I believe that the ARRL stands to pick up more members than they stand
to lose if they take a position that it's time for Morse testing to go.
(Not
Morse use, not taking away spectrum where Morse can be used, just the
test requirement ...)


How does this become a comment on the NCI petition?

It didn't, and as I said above, I didn't mean to imply that it did.

Carl - wk3c

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

I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect to
the split in their existing membership. However, outside of their
membership
(in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe
that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side ...
thus,
I believe that the ARRL stands to pick up more members than they stand
to lose if they take a position that it's time for Morse testing to go.
(Not
Morse use, not taking away spectrum where Morse can be used, just the
test requirement ...)

You believe but have NO data of any kind. Sorry but that doesn't fly.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect to
the split in their existing membership. However, outside of their
membership
(in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe
that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side ...
thus,
I believe that the ARRL stands to pick up more members than they stand
to lose if they take a position that it's time for Morse testing to go.
(Not
Morse use, not taking away spectrum where Morse can be used, just the
test requirement ...)

You believe but have NO data of any kind. Sorry but that doesn't fly.




And history runs counter also. No coders have mostly stayed away from
ARRL , and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. They just don't
see much in it for them.

Dick

"DickCarroll" wrote in message
om...
And history runs counter also. No coders have mostly stayed away from
ARRL , and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. They just don't
see much in it for them.

Dick,

Did you (or the ARRL Board of Directors, more importantly)
EVER CONSIDER the POSSIBILITY that the nocoders are
staying away from the ARRL (in droves) because they don't
want to contribute dues to an organization that's been dedicated
(and still is, by policy) to keep them off of HF???

If the ARRL would "get with it" and actively, openly support this
inevitable change, rather than fighting to keep the nocoders off
of HF until the bitter end, they might be able to restore the goodwill
they've lost exactly because of their Morse policy ...

Carl - wk3c

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

"DickCarroll" wrote in message
om...
And history runs counter also. No coders have mostly stayed away from
ARRL , and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. They just don't
see much in it for them.

Dick,

Did you (or the ARRL Board of Directors, more importantly)
EVER CONSIDER the POSSIBILITY that the nocoders are
staying away from the ARRL (in droves) because they don't
want to contribute dues to an organization that's been dedicated
(and still is, by policy) to keep them off of HF???

That's odd, Carl. I used the ARRL CD's to prepare for Element 1. When I had
specific questions, league employees responded promptly via e-mail with
helpful answers.

To this young (...and then no-code Technician class.) newbie, the ARRL
actually appeared very dedicated to helping me get ON HF.

If the ARRL would "get with it" and actively, openly support this
inevitable change, rather than fighting to keep the nocoders off
of HF until the bitter end, they might be able to restore the goodwill
they've lost exactly because of their Morse policy ...

I'm a league member, Carl. I (...and I suspect many others.) have written
the league informing them that I do NOT support the removal of Element 1.
While I stopped short of telling them that my family membership was at
stake, it may hve been inferred. (Fine by me.) I also made a point to inform
them of our demographic, young newbies who are NOT put off by the code test
and willing to meet the requirements for HF.

Carl - wk3c

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

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

"DickCarroll" wrote in message
om...
And history runs counter also. No coders have mostly stayed away from
ARRL , and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. They just don't
see much in it for them.

Dick,

Did you (or the ARRL Board of Directors, more importantly)
EVER CONSIDER the POSSIBILITY that the nocoders are
staying away from the ARRL (in droves) because they don't
want to contribute dues to an organization that's been dedicated
(and still is, by policy) to keep them off of HF???

That's odd, Carl. I used the ARRL CD's to prepare for Element 1. When I
had
specific questions, league employees responded promptly via e-mail with
helpful answers.

To this young (...and then no-code Technician class.) newbie, the ARRL
actually appeared very dedicated to helping me get ON HF.

Yes, IF you were willing to meet their criteria by jumping through the
Morse code hoop ...

Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"DickCarroll" wrote in message
om...
And history runs counter also. No coders have mostly stayed away from
ARRL , and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. They just don't
see much in it for them.

Dick,

Did you (or the ARRL Board of Directors, more importantly)
EVER CONSIDER the POSSIBILITY that the nocoders are
staying away from the ARRL (in droves) because they don't
want to contribute dues to an organization that's been dedicated
(and still is, by policy) to keep them off of HF???



Yep, I considered it, then rejected it as inaccurate. Nocoders aren't
about
to dole out $34 per year for *nothing* That's exactly what most of
then see
of value to them in ARRL membership, since they really aren't into ham
radio
beyond their HT, and have no use for al the many ARRL "bennies".


If the ARRL would "get with it" and actively, openly support this
inevitable change, rather than fighting to keep the nocoders off
of HF until the bitter end, they might be able to restore the goodwill
they've lost exactly because of their Morse policy ...



That's about as accurate as your prediction that no code will bring
hordes of geniuses into the hobby.

Yep, I considered it, then rejected it as inaccurate. Nocoders aren't
about
to dole out $34 per year for *nothing* That's exactly what most of
then see
of value to them in ARRL membership, since they really aren't into ham
radio
beyond their HT, and have no use for al the many ARRL "bennies".



Gee... I have more than just the "HT" as you elude to and still don't
believe in the value of the membership at the rates it currently is now.
Other than a really expensive magazine subscription, these "bennies" as you
elude to have yet to be proven.


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"DickCarroll" wrote in message
om...

And history runs counter also. No coders have mostly stayed away from

ARRL , and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. They just don't
see much in it for them.


Dick,

Did you (or the ARRL Board of Directors, more importantly)
EVER CONSIDER the POSSIBILITY that the nocoders are
staying away from the ARRL (in droves) because they don't
want to contribute dues to an organization that's been dedicated
(and still is, by policy) to keep them off of HF???

If they don't want to join the ARRL, there's no way you're gonna stop
'em! (apologies to Yogi)


- Mike KB3EIA -