"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With the answers unpublished?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