In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect
to the split in their existing membership.

Very much so, I'd agree.

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 ...

What makes you think this? I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but I agree
with you about the polls being self directing. Therefore are you
operating on gut feeling, what your friends tell you, or what?

I'm going on what I hear from members, from clubs, from e-mails I
get from folks, etc.

With all due respect, Carl, I don't think that "self selected sample" is
representative of the entire amateur radio community. And I don't think you are
a totally objective observer...;-)

I'm ALSO going on the demographic of all those
nocode techs

Which demographic? The ARRL/READEX poll of 1996 showed that the youngest hams
were the most procodetest. Bert Craig, WA2SI, has told you here that he does
not consider Element 1 a "barrier" or "hoop". Other newcomers have said the
same thing. Don't they count?

who could get on HF were it not for a stupid Morse
requirement ...

Hmmm...."stupid Morse requirement"? It's been passed by elementary school
children, old people, people with severe disabilities, and everything in
between. Heck, under the old rules we had at least one 8 year old Extra!

The fact is that if Element 1 is dropped, all those non-code-tested Techs will
gain some SSB on 10 meters and four slices of HF CW. (Ironic) In order for them
to get more, they have to jump through another hoop...I mean, pass another
written exam.....;-)

You may not think the General or Extra writtens are very hard, nor that they
are "unreasonable", but the fact remains that they have not been shown to be
necessary for safe and legal operation of an amateur station.

Why is a Tech considered qualified to use any authorized mode/freq above 30 MHz
but unqualified to use all but CW and SSB on a few narrow slices of HF?

do you REALLY think they are "hot to learn Morse"???

Some of them are. Others aren't.

I don't ...

With all due respect, Carl, I don't see you as a good spokesperson for the
CW/Morse mode....

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.

It remains to be seen. Those for who the Morse test is too much trouble
may not be bothered to join the ARRL either.

ARRL membership provides a lot of benefits through QST, the website,
and all of the good things they DO do for amateur radio.

Sure - but a lot of hams, of all license classes, don't see those things. Or
they aren't interested. I know at least one ham here who gave up on HF because
she doesn't like the noise and distortion of HF. And, comparing even the best
HF SSB to typical VHF/UHF FM, I can understand her point of view.

Some are still mad about incentive licensing, of all things.

One of the real problems with the Tech license being defacto the entry-level is
that, for the most part, beginners nowadays are VHF/UHF centered, with their
main focus on voice operation and manufactured equipment. Those things are not
bad of themselves. They do, however, tend to distract new hams from nonvoice
modes, building their own equipment, and national interests vs. local ones.
IOW, they are more likely to join a local radio club than the distant ARRL.

However, selling
those benefits is difficult when the prospective buyer is someone who knows
his/her membership dues are going to an organization that's dedicated by
current policy to keep them off of HF ...

That's simply not true. Everyone has the same opportunity to pass the required
tests - code and written - and get whatever license they desire. There is no
policy to keep anyone off HF.

There is also the option of becoming a member, electing new directors, and
changing the policy.

it doesn't take Einstein or a Gallup
poll to figure that one out ...

How about the ARRL/READEX poll, and what it told us about hams under 24? 85% of
them were procodetest. Do you think that number has radically changed since
then?

The nocodetest position may carry the day when all is said and done. And then
we may well find that the whole issue was a red herring.

Consider this, Carl:

Once the license is in hand, getting on HF can be quite daunting for the
newcomer, compared to VHF/UHF.

All a newbie needs on VHF/UHF is an HT, if they are close to repeaters. For a
few dollars more, they can have a nice base/mobile duobander with antennas that
mount on TV hardware, and/or in the car with a few wires and a magmount.

HF requires much more hardware, big antennas, and a whole pile of other stuff.
There are 9 bands and a bunch of modes. Propagation varies all over the place,
and mobile is a different game altogether. More time, more space and more
money. If you have CC&Rs, things get even tougher.

You have a new house with plenty of space and more resources than perhaps 99%
of the rest of us, Carl. What sort of HF station do you have? Yes, I know
you're busy - we're ALL busy, though.

Surf on over to

http://www.dell.com

and check out what sort of computer setup $500 to $1000 will buy. That's the
competition.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"WA3IYC" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with
respect
to the split in their existing membership.

Very much so, I'd agree.

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
....

What makes you think this? I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but I agree
with you about the polls being self directing. Therefore are you
operating on gut feeling, what your friends tell you, or what?

I'm going on what I hear from members, from clubs, from e-mails I
get from folks, etc.

With all due respect, Carl, I don't think that "self selected sample" is
representative of the entire amateur radio community. And I don't think
you are
a totally objective observer...;-)

I'm ALSO going on the demographic of all those
nocode techs

Which demographic? The ARRL/READEX poll of 1996 showed that the youngest
hams
were the most procodetest. Bert Craig, WA2SI, has told you here that he
does
not consider Element 1 a "barrier" or "hoop". Other newcomers have said
the
same thing. Don't they count?

The ONLY thing that counts is the answer to the question: What is the
rational
for retaining any code test now that the ITU treaty has eliminated the
requirement from the treaty?

The FCC answered that in their R&O for 98-143. The FCC indicated
none of the arguments, comments or suggested reasons put forth by
pro-code test advocates were of sufficient rational or justification. to
keep any testing of morse.

who could get on HF were it not for a stupid Morse
requirement ...

Hmmm...."stupid Morse requirement"? It's been passed by elementary school
children, old people, people with severe disabilities, and everything in
between. Heck, under the old rules we had at least one 8 year old Extra!

The fact is that if Element 1 is dropped, all those non-code-tested Techs
will
gain some SSB on 10 meters and four slices of HF CW. (Ironic) In order for
them
to get more, they have to jump through another hoop...I mean, pass another
written exam.....;-)

You may not think the General or Extra writtens are very hard, nor that
they
are "unreasonable", but the fact remains that they have not been shown to
be
necessary for safe and legal operation of an amateur station.

Just where has that been shown and by whom? The FCC certainly hasn't been
convinced of that.

Why is a Tech considered qualified to use any authorized mode/freq above
30 MHz
but unqualified to use all but CW and SSB on a few narrow slices of HF?

You are now arguing privileges, not code testing. Others have already
suggested
a need for a different set of licenses and privileges. Jim, you and I have
long agreed
that privileges in many cases don't map well against the testing for a
particular license
class.

.........

ARRL membership provides a lot of benefits through QST, the website,
and all of the good things they DO do for amateur radio.

Sure - but a lot of hams, of all license classes, don't see those things.
Or
they aren't interested. I know at least one ham here who gave up on HF
because
she doesn't like the noise and distortion of HF. And, comparing even the
best
HF SSB to typical VHF/UHF FM, I can understand her point of view.

Some are still mad about incentive licensing, of all things.

One of the real problems with the Tech license being defacto the
entry-level is
that, for the most part, beginners nowadays are VHF/UHF centered, with
their
main focus on voice operation and manufactured equipment. Those things are
not
bad of themselves. They do, however, tend to distract new hams from
nonvoice
modes, building their own equipment, and national interests vs. local
ones.
IOW, they are more likely to join a local radio club than the distant
ARRL.

Again, that has nothing to do with code testing and everything to
do with license class and privileges being revisted.

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ...
"WA3IYC" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with
respect
to the split in their existing membership.

Very much so, I'd agree.

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
...

What makes you think this? I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but I agree
with you about the polls being self directing. Therefore are you
operating on gut feeling, what your friends tell you, or what?

I'm going on what I hear from members, from clubs, from e-mails I
get from folks, etc.

With all due respect, Carl, I don't think that "self selected sample" is
representative of the entire amateur radio community. And I don't think
you are
a totally objective observer...;-)

I'm ALSO going on the demographic of all those
nocode techs

Which demographic? The ARRL/READEX poll of 1996 showed that the youngest
hams
were the most procodetest. Bert Craig, WA2SI, has told you here that he
does
not consider Element 1 a "barrier" or "hoop". Other newcomers have said
the
same thing. Don't they count?

The ONLY thing that counts

Hold on a sec, Bill.

We've been told that:

- we have to get rid of the code test to increase growth in the ARS
- (most) young people aren't interested in learning the code
- The future is newcomers and young hams
- The current 5 wpm test is an unreasonable burden on the VECs and new
hams but written tests aren't

and the big one:

"the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side"

Now, do these things matter or not?


is the answer to the question: What is the
rational
for retaining any code test now that the ITU treaty has eliminated the
requirement from the treaty?

I think you meant "rationale"

And here it is:

1) Morse code is widely used in the ARS, particularly HF/MF amateur
radio.
2) Knowledge of morse code can only be measured by a practical skill
test.
3) Morse code offers unique advantages to the radio amateur, but these
advantages are only available if Morse code skills are learned.
4) All of the above support the Basis and Purposes of the ARS.

Does that constitute an irrefutable proof? Of course not. Neither does
the 20 pages of the NCI petition.

The FCC answered that in their R&O for 98-143. The FCC indicated
none of the arguments, comments or suggested reasons put forth by
pro-code test advocates were of sufficient rational or justification. to
keep any testing of morse.

Sure.

And this is the same FCC that thinks BPL is a good idea. Take a look
at the 120 page ARRL report and the videos, then tell me what kind of
"expert agency" should give such a system the time of day. Note that
the BPL'rs want the Part 15 levels RAISED!

This is also the same FCC that wanted to allow media giants to become
practical monopolies so that radio and TV programming become even more
homogenized.

This is the FCC that "solved" the freebander linear problem by
restricting the manufacture and sale of HF amplifiers, which ties the
hands of legitimate ARS manufacturers but hasn't kept one amp out of
any illegal's hands.

"Expert agency", they're called, right?

who could get on HF were it not for a stupid Morse
requirement ...

Hmmm...."stupid Morse requirement"? It's been passed by elementary school
children, old people, people with severe disabilities, and everything in
between. Heck, under the old rules we had at least one 8 year old Extra!

The fact is that if Element 1 is dropped, all those non-code-tested Techs
will
gain some SSB on 10 meters and four slices of HF CW. (Ironic) In order for
them
to get more, they have to jump through another hoop...I mean, pass another
written exam.....;-)

You may not think the General or Extra writtens are very hard, nor that
they
are "unreasonable", but the fact remains that they have not been shown to
be
necessary for safe and legal operation of an amateur station.

Just where has that been shown and by whom?

It's self evident. Common sense.

FCC considers a Tech to be competent to
design/build/repair/align/maintain and most of all OPERATE an amateur
transmitter on any authorized frequency above 30MHz, using any
authorized mode, at full legal power.

But it requires a General license for the FCC to consider someone to
be competent to design/build/repair/align/maintain and most of all
OPERATE an amateur transmitter on most authorizeds frequency below
30MHz, using any authorized mode, at full legal power. In fact,
Techs-with-HF are only authorized to use two modes and small slices of
four bands.

Why is a Tech considered competent to run a 1500 W transmitter on 51
MHz but not 29 MHz? Why is a Tech considered competent to use CW, SSB,
AM, FM, FSK, PSK, and a host of other modes above 30 MHz but only CW
and SSB below 30 MHz?
What is in the General written (besides a few regs) that is so
essential that it MUST be tested?

Now consider the Extra vs. General written. There's no difference
between what a General can do and what an Extra can do on the air
except that the Extra has a little more spectrum to do it in. Why is a
General considered competent to run a 1500 W transmitter on 3.530 MHz
but not 3.520 MHz?

The FCC certainly hasn't been convinced of that.

See above about convincing FCC.

Why is a Tech considered qualified to use any authorized mode/freq above
30 MHz
but unqualified to use all but CW and SSB on a few narrow slices of HF?

You are now arguing privileges, not code testing.

I am arguing that focusing on the code test as a "stupid" requirement
opens up the same can of worms on the writtens.

Others have already suggested
a need for a different set of licenses and privileges.

Yup - and a lot of those changes are not for the better. But how can
they be defended against?

Jim, you and I have
long agreed
that privileges in many cases don't map well against the testing for a
particular license
class.

Sure. And I see that situation getting worse, not better.


........

ARRL membership provides a lot of benefits through QST, the website,
and all of the good things they DO do for amateur radio.

Sure - but a lot of hams, of all license classes, don't see those things.
Or
they aren't interested. I know at least one ham here who gave up on HF
because
she doesn't like the noise and distortion of HF. And, comparing even the
best
HF SSB to typical VHF/UHF FM, I can understand her point of view.

Some are still mad about incentive licensing, of all things.

One of the real problems with the Tech license being defacto the
entry-level is
that, for the most part, beginners nowadays are VHF/UHF centered, with
their
main focus on voice operation and manufactured equipment. Those things are
not
bad of themselves. They do, however, tend to distract new hams from
nonvoice
modes, building their own equipment, and national interests vs. local
ones.
IOW, they are more likely to join a local radio club than the distant
ARRL.

Again, that has nothing to do with code testing and everything to
do with license class and privileges being revisted.

It has to do with the patchwork changes made to the license structure.
Our basic system dates from 1951.


73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
m...
I think you meant "rationale"

And here it is:

1) Morse code is widely used in the ARS, particularly HF/MF amateur
radio.

So??? That use is purely a matter of choice ... those who chose to use
Morse should have the freedom of choice to learn it and to so ... however,
at the same time, those who are not interested in using Morse should not
be forced to learn it in order to gain HF privileges ...

2) Knowledge of morse code can only be measured by a practical skill
test.

Excuse me ... I think you mean "proficiency in " not "knowledge of" ...
those are important distinctions ... I have no problem with test questions
on the theory of OOK Morse ("What's the necessary bw for x wpm?"
"What are "key-clicks" and how can they be prevented?" etc.) But a
proficiency requirement as a condition of access to HF is totally out of
line.

3) Morse code offers unique advantages to the radio amateur, but these
advantages are only available if Morse code skills are learned.

Other modes also offer "unique advantages" ... those advantages are in
the eye of the beholder and largely subjective ... those who believe that
it is advantageous to learn/use Morse will do so ... those who don't should
not be forced.

4) All of the above support the Basis and Purposes of the ARS.

The FCC disagrees ...

[snipped the remainder of debate on privs vs. license class as
irrelevant to the Morse question]

Carl - wk3c

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

"N2EY" wrote in message
m...
2) Knowledge of morse code can only be measured by a practical skill
test.

Excuse me ... I think you mean "proficiency in " not "knowledge of" ...
those are important distinctions

Those are inaccurate distinctions, Carl. Element 1 is IN NO WAY a test of
one's Morse code "proficiency." The 5-wpm test is just barely sufficient to
test the applicant's "knowledge of" the 43 required characters. IOW, did
s/he memorize the required character set. Are you intentionally trying to
spread this mistruth to rationalize NCI's "goal" or do you really consider a
newbie whose Element 1 CSCE hasn't even dried yet Morse "proficient?" Why
don't you just tap into the knowledge base, Carl? Ask the OT's and learn
from them That's what they're there for.

... I have no problem with test questions
on the theory of OOK Morse ("What's the necessary bw for x wpm?"
"What are "key-clicks" and how can they be prevented?" etc.)

With the answers unpublished?

But a
proficiency requirement as a condition of access to HF is totally out of
line.

I agree. I'm glad we don't currently have one.

3) Morse code offers unique advantages to the radio amateur, but these
advantages are only available if Morse code skills are learned.

Other modes also offer "unique advantages" ... those advantages are in
the eye of the beholder and largely subjective ... those who believe that
it is advantageous to learn/use Morse will do so ... those who don't
should
not be forced.

"Forced?" Lol!

4) All of the above support the Basis and Purposes of the ARS.

The FCC disagrees ...

I wonder how much you'd support the "big brother knows best" if they agreed?
Luckily, they too wish to reduce their work.

[snipped the remainder of debate on privs vs. license class as
irrelevant to the Morse question]

Carl - wk3c

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

N2EY wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ...
some snipage


I'm ALSO going on the demographic of all those
nocode techs

Which demographic? The ARRL/READEX poll of 1996 showed that the youngest

hams

were the most procodetest. Bert Craig, WA2SI, has told you here that he

does

not consider Element 1 a "barrier" or "hoop". Other newcomers have said

the

same thing. Don't they count?

The ONLY thing that counts


Hold on a sec, Bill.

We've been told that:

- we have to get rid of the code test to increase growth in the ARS
- (most) young people aren't interested in learning the code
- The future is newcomers and young hams
- The current 5 wpm test is an unreasonable burden on the VECs and new
hams but written tests aren't

and the big one:

"the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side"

Now, do these things matter or not?


It's all opinion and marketing. Marketing is what brings us milkshakes
that are so thick you can't get them through a straw. Marketing is what
gives us Ketchup that you can't get out of the bottle. but then "thicker
and richer" sells don't it. Marketing is what causes convenience stores
to sell "Ultra Mega" soda's with 144 ounces of soda and the resulting
calories, and fast food restaraunts to prepare us "Super doopersize"
2000 calorie meals when all we need is 300 calories.

The relation is that the marketing words (or contramarketing words)
thrown around sound like they might be a good thing. Here the NCTA's
have the edge too. Look at the words used and it s pretty clear,
"Outdated" "Future" all the marketing words are there.


And as anyone familiar with marketing knows, It does not make a damn
bit of difference if you are right or not.

The truth does *not matter* in this case, and besides, what exactly is
the truth? I guess it is who you hang out with.

PCTA's haven't done enough proper marketing of their product IMO.



is the answer to the question: What is the
rational
for retaining any code test now that the ITU treaty has eliminated the
requirement from the treaty?


I think you meant "rationale"

And here it is:

1) Morse code is widely used in the ARS, particularly HF/MF amateur
radio.
2) Knowledge of morse code can only be measured by a practical skill
test.
3) Morse code offers unique advantages to the radio amateur, but these
advantages are only available if Morse code skills are learned.
4) All of the above support the Basis and Purposes of the ARS.

Does that constitute an irrefutable proof? Of course not. Neither does
the 20 pages of the NCI petition.

NCI pettition is all opinion.




The FCC answered that in their R&O for 98-143. The FCC indicated
none of the arguments, comments or suggested reasons put forth by
pro-code test advocates were of sufficient rational or justification. to
keep any testing of morse.


Sure.

And this is the same FCC that thinks BPL is a good idea. Take a look
at the 120 page ARRL report and the videos, then tell me what kind of
"expert agency" should give such a system the time of day. Note that
the BPL'rs want the Part 15 levels RAISED!

This is also the same FCC that wanted to allow media giants to become
practical monopolies so that radio and TV programming become even more
homogenized.

This is the FCC that "solved" the freebander linear problem by
restricting the manufacture and sale of HF amplifiers, which ties the
hands of legitimate ARS manufacturers but hasn't kept one amp out of
any illegal's hands.

"Expert agency", they're called, right?

who could get on HF were it not for a stupid Morse
requirement ...

Hmmm...."stupid Morse requirement"? It's been passed by elementary school
children, old people, people with severe disabilities, and everything in
between. Heck, under the old rules we had at least one 8 year old Extra!

The fact is that if Element 1 is dropped, all those non-code-tested Techs
will
gain some SSB on 10 meters and four slices of HF CW. (Ironic) In order for
them
to get more, they have to jump through another hoop...I mean, pass another
written exam.....;-)

You may not think the General or Extra writtens are very hard, nor that
they
are "unreasonable", but the fact remains that they have not been shown to
be
necessary for safe and legal operation of an amateur station.

Just where has that been shown and by whom?


It's self evident. Common sense.

FCC considers a Tech to be competent to
design/build/repair/align/maintain and most of all OPERATE an amateur
transmitter on any authorized frequency above 30MHz, using any
authorized mode, at full legal power.

But it requires a General license for the FCC to consider someone to
be competent to design/build/repair/align/maintain and most of all
OPERATE an amateur transmitter on most authorizeds frequency below
30MHz, using any authorized mode, at full legal power. In fact,
Techs-with-HF are only authorized to use two modes and small slices of
four bands.

Why is a Tech considered competent to run a 1500 W transmitter on 51
MHz but not 29 MHz? Why is a Tech considered competent to use CW, SSB,
AM, FM, FSK, PSK, and a host of other modes above 30 MHz but only CW
and SSB below 30 MHz?
What is in the General written (besides a few regs) that is so
essential that it MUST be tested?

One of the reasons I heard was that the VHF bands are more localized,
and therefore the technician, if he or she did commit rules violations,
would at least confine it to frequencies that were not globe spanning.


Now consider the Extra vs. General written. There's no difference
between what a General can do and what an Extra can do on the air
except that the Extra has a little more spectrum to do it in. Why is a
General considered competent to run a 1500 W transmitter on 3.530 MHz
but not 3.520 MHz?

Who knows what the rationale is? Maybe a little bit less crowding for
the Extras?


The FCC certainly hasn't been convinced of that.


See above about convincing FCC.

Why is a Tech considered qualified to use any authorized mode/freq above
30 MHz
but unqualified to use all but CW and SSB on a few narrow slices of HF?

You are now arguing privileges, not code testing.


I am arguing that focusing on the code test as a "stupid" requirement
opens up the same can of worms on the writtens.

Bingo! I've been saying that for while now.

It's a fact that you do not need to be tested at all to operate high
power levels on HF. CB'ers do it all the time.

Let's try a little marketing talk ..............


"The written tests are an obsolete throwback to an earlier time when
Amateurs HAD to know how to put a station together using a lot of their
own handicraft. Now that HF rigs are no more complicated to put on the
air than hooking up a VCR to a television, it is pointless to insist on
the hazing requirement of forcing the prospective amateur to spend
countless hours learning things that he or she may have no use for."

There is nothing wrong with an Amateur having knowledge of the things
covered in the present and obsolete written examinations, but why should
a person who has no intention of ever doing anything but using his ready
made rig to talk to other hams be forced to learn these things that he
or she will never use.

Those who wish to know things like Ohms law, and various arcane laws
are encouraged to do so, but to require all hams to know such things is
a form of hazing, or is this a case of "I had to learn the band edges,
so by gaw, everyone has to"!

The written examinations are keeping people out of the ARS who refuse
to jump through these arbitray hoops set up by those who want to see the
ARS as some kind of elite service. Those elite people are destroying the
ARS by discouraging participation by all Americans.

Sound about right Jim? Reasonable arguments I think. Wrong, but reasonable.


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

PCTA's haven't done enough proper marketing of their product IMO.

It's really HARD to market a product that few want ... that's why the PCTA's
feel the need for a government-sponsored support system.

NCI pettition is all opinion.

No ... the NCI petition is loaded with the facts about how any legitimate
need for a government-mandated Morse test evaporated years ago, how
the FCC has determined that it does not comport with the purpose of the
ARS, how the test serves no regulatory purpose, how it doesn't "make for
a better, more well-behaved, more technically competent operator, etc., etc.

The petition is chock-full of facts ...

[snipped the rest because I refuse to get drawn into unrelated debates
about privs vs. license class, etc. that have nothing to do with the Morse
test issue ...]

Carl - wk3c

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

PCTA's haven't done enough proper marketing of their product IMO.


It's really HARD to market a product that few want ... that's why the PCTA's
feel the need for a government-sponsored support system.


NCI pettition is all opinion.


No ... the NCI petition is loaded with the facts about how any legitimate
need for a government-mandated Morse test evaporated years ago, how
the FCC has determined that it does not comport with the purpose of the
ARS, how the test serves no regulatory purpose, how it doesn't "make for
a better, more well-behaved, more technically competent operator, etc., etc.

The petition is chock-full of facts ...

Well, that's your opinion anyhow! 8^)

But seriously, if I could offer some advice. It is okay to have an
opinion. You have your's and I have mine.

It's even okay to try to turn your opinion into the law of the land. If
enough people agree, it will happen.

But there is a mistake of hubris in believing that ones own personal
opinion is fact.



[snipped the rest because I refuse to get drawn into unrelated debates
about privs vs. license class, etc. that have nothing to do with the Morse
test issue ...]

Probably a good idea...

- Mike KB3EIA -