"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
...

"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

Speak for yourself, Carl. I certainly did NOT have to jump through any
hoops. I set a goal, researched the requirements, and then set about meeting
said requirements.

I also make sure that in all the letters and e-mails I send to the league,
FCC, political reps, etc. I inform them that the current Morse code test was
no barrier for this newbie and did NOT "force" me to jump through any hoops.
So please don't allow any individual or group promoting the "barrier/hoop"
line of Bravo Sierra to include me in their demographic. I suspect there are
more NTs (As opposed to OTs or OFs) like me who dislike being associated
with underachievement. I hope they too will take the time to make their
views on the matter heard.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS# 9384

"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!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ...
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.



What I Said!