"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