In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Incorrect. What "push"? Based on membership
numbers, NCI has fewer than 5000 members
worldwide (snip)


Oh, come on, Jim. What is this "what push" nonsense? The push to remove
code testing that so many pro-code test advocates, including yourself on
occasion, have been ranting about in this newsgroups for so very many years.

"Ranting"?

Perhaps I could have worded my post better.

My point is that the whole issue is not a mass movement. Clint claimed, without
any proof, that most hams want code testing gone. Yet surveys show the
opposite.

The fact remains that out of over 680,000 US hams, fewer than 1% have joined
NCI.

As you well know, NCI is only a tiny part of the overall movement to end
code testing - far more outside that organization are involved (including
some in this newsgroup you've personally discussed this issue with).

How do we know this?

The restructuring NPRM gathered fewer than 2500 comments, even though the
comment period was extremely long and the whole thing given lots of publicity
in the amateur press.

Compare that to how many comments the NOI on BPL has gathered in a much shorter
time.

To now
try to move the focus solely to NCI, while knowing full well that so many
others are involved, is just not being honest about the situation.

Who are "so many others", Dwight? If they really exist, why haven't they signed
on to NCI, which costs nothing more than a few mouse clicks?

Do you honestly think denying the push to remove code testing will somehow
make it go away? Do you honestly think denying the existence of others
outside NCI will somehow make them disappear? It isn't going to happen, Jim.

I'm not denying any of that. Sorry if it seemed that way.

The movement to end code testing has never been stronger. To deny that, in
light of all that has happened over the last few years, would bring into
question a person's sanity.

How about the claim that most hams want it, despite all the surveys showing the
opposite?

And if it's such a done deal, why didn't FCC just dump Element 1 back in July?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
"Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Incorrect. What "push"? Based on membership
numbers, NCI has fewer than 5000 members
worldwide (snip)


Oh, come on, Jim. What is this "what push" nonsense? The push to remove
code testing that so many pro-code test advocates, including yourself on
occasion, have been ranting about in this newsgroups for so very many
years.

"Ranting"?

I have to agree with Jim's ???... Jim has never been one
to "rant."

Perhaps I could have worded my post better.

I didn't see anything "ranting about it."

My point is that the whole issue is not a mass movement. Clint claimed,
without
any proof, that most hams want code testing gone. Yet surveys show the
opposite.

The fact remains that out of over 680,000 US hams, fewer than 1% have
joined
NCI.

So? The issue isn't to be decided by some unilateral vote of
only licensed hams. The issue is one of appropriate regulatory
test requirements.

As you well know, NCI is only a tiny part of the overall movement to end
code testing - far more outside that organization are involved (including
some in this newsgroup you've personally discussed this issue with).

How do we know this?

The restructuring NPRM gathered fewer than 2500 comments, even though the
comment period was extremely long and the whole thing given lots of
publicity
in the amateur press.

Compare that to how many comments the NOI on BPL has gathered in a much
shorter
time.

One could also argue that most hams don't really care that code testing
ends...certainly not enough to file comments that indicate a desire
to keep code....and probably because they know the end result
is only a matter of time.

To now
try to move the focus solely to NCI, while knowing full well that so many
others are involved, is just not being honest about the situation.

Who are "so many others", Dwight? If they really exist, why haven't they
signed
on to NCI, which costs nothing more than a few mouse clicks?

What difference does it make anyway?

Do you honestly think denying the push to remove code testing will
somehow
make it go away? Do you honestly think denying the existence of others
outside NCI will somehow make them disappear? It isn't going to happen,
Jim.

I'm not denying any of that. Sorry if it seemed that way.

The "push" has certainly been far more than just NCI. If it
was only NCI, how do you explain the ITU treaty change by
with not one vote against the change...and how do you explain
the IARU possision...again, almost a unanomous set of votes in
each region except for a couple of no votes and abstentions.

The movement to end code testing has never been stronger. To deny that,
in
light of all that has happened over the last few years, would bring into
question a person's sanity.

How about the claim that most hams want it, despite all the surveys
showing the
opposite?

The FCC doesn't care about percentages...and it shouldn't. See above
my comment about the decision being what is proper test requirments as
opposed to what any majority of hams may want. Additionally,
I never saw any true survey that could be justifiable stated as
accurately reflecting ALL hams.


And if it's such a done deal, why didn't FCC just dump Element 1 back in
July?

Process. Better in the government mindset to open the comments and
see what comes forward. So far, NOTHING new has been offered
by PCTAs that hasn't already been sifted through and discounted
by the FCC in prior reviews (e.g. NPRM 98-143 primarily).

Without doubt, absent the treaty requirement, the ball is totally in
the PCTA's court to justify keeping any code test...and so far
there's nothing new.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart wrote:

(snip)

My point is that the whole issue is not a mass movement.
Clint claimed, without any proof, that most hams want
code testing gone. Yet surveys show the opposite.


I certainly haven't seen a survey recently that could be said to
accurately represents the views of the entire ham radio community, Jim. I
believe you recenty posted the results of a survey done by some club that
shows the majority surveyed supported code testing. I don't doubt those
results at all. If you surveyed the local club here (and their friends
outside the club), the majority would also support code testing. Of course,
the club members here are fanatics in their support of code testing, even to
the point of openingly ridiculing Technicians who attend the meetings.
Because of that, few who oppose code testing, and even fewer Technicians,
attend that club's meetings or socialize with the members. Find me a survey
that is truly unbiased and I'll be glad to discuss the results. Until then,
discussing the results of surveys is simply a waste of time.


As you well know, NCI is only a tiny part of the overall
movement to end code testing - far more outside that
organization are involved (including some in this newsgroup
you've personally discussed this issue with).

How do we know this?


How do you know what? That you've talked to people in this newsgroup who
are not NCI members yet are still opposed to code testing? I suspect the
vast majority of those in this newsgroup who oppose code testing are not
members of NCI.


Who are "so many others", Dwight? If they really exist, why
haven't they signed on to NCI, which costs nothing more than
a few mouse clicks?


What is it with your obsession with NCI? Are you campaigning for members
or something? There is no requirement whatsoever that says those who oppose
code testing must join that organization. I haven't joined it. Neither has
my wife. In fact, I don't know anyone personally who is opposed to code
testing who has joined. Of course, there are many organizations in this
country I haven't joined. Therefore, NCI is certainly nothing special in
that regard.


And if it's such a done deal, why didn't FCC just dump Element 1
back in July?


As you well know, the FCC has rules and regulations to follow, Jim.
Because of that, they can't "just dump" anything. Something will happen
sooner or later. Give it time.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart wrote:

(snip)

My point is that the whole issue is not a mass movement.
Clint claimed, without any proof, that most hams want
code testing gone. Yet surveys show the opposite.

I certainly haven't seen a survey recently that could be said to
accurately represents the views of the entire ham radio community, Jim.

Neither have I, Dwight. As I have pointed out, the ARRL/READEX survey is 7
years old. But it's the most recent *scientific* survey we have. (Its 1500
respondents were chosen at random, not self-selected as is the case in many
"surveys".)

I
believe you recenty posted the results of a survey done by some club that
shows the majority surveyed supported code testing.

Not "some club". ARRL hired READEX (a professional survey organization) to
conduct the survey in preparation for WRC 1997.

I don't doubt those
results at all. If you surveyed the local club here (and their friends
outside the club), the majority would also support code testing.

The ARRL/READEX survey sampled the entire country and all license classes and
age groups. Surveying club members doesn't.

Of course,
the club members here are fanatics in their support of code testing, even to
the point of openingly ridiculing Technicians who attend the meetings.

That sort of behavior is unacceptable. Not "real ham" behavior.

Because of that, few who oppose code testing, and even fewer Technicians,
attend that club's meetings or socialize with the members. Find me a survey
that is truly unbiased and I'll be glad to discuss the results. Until then,
discussing the results of surveys is simply a waste of time.

Then consider the comments to the restructuring NPRM.

As you well know, NCI is only a tiny part of the overall
movement to end code testing - far more outside that
organization are involved (including some in this newsgroup
you've personally discussed this issue with).

How do we know this?

How do you know what?

How do we know that there are "far more outside that organization..involved"?

I see the same small number of people in this newsgroup, at qrz.com, eham, etc.

That you've talked to people in this newsgroup who

are not NCI members yet are still opposed to code testing? I suspect the
vast majority of those in this newsgroup who oppose code testing are not
members of NCI.

Most of those opposed to code testing I have encountered here *are* members of
NCI. But there are really not that many on either side who post here. How many
different people have posted to rrap in the past year?

Who are "so many others", Dwight? If they really exist, why
haven't they signed on to NCI, which costs nothing more than
a few mouse clicks?

What is it with your obsession with NCI?

No "onsession" at all. I'm just curious as to why someone who felt strongly or
even mildly that code testing should go would *not* join that organization.
Particularly given the ease of doing so. And particularly given the fact that
if the membership numbers got big enough, a majority could be claimed based on
those numbers alone.

Are you campaigning for members
or something?

Just the opposite ;-)

There is no requirement whatsoever that says those who oppose
code testing must join that organization. I haven't joined it. Neither has
my wife. In fact, I don't know anyone personally who is opposed to code
testing who has joined. Of course, there are many organizations in this
country I haven't joined. Therefore, NCI is certainly nothing special in
that regard.

That says nothing about how many actually are opposed or support code testing.

And if it's such a done deal, why didn't FCC just dump Element 1
back in July?

As you well know, the FCC has rules and regulations to follow, Jim.
Because of that, they can't "just dump" anything.

That's not what Phil Kane says. A complete NPRM cycle is not required for every
rules change. Particularly when the change is characterized as "removing a
burden"

It's also what both the NCI and NCVEC petitions say. Both of them contend that
FCC has the authority to just remove Element 1 immediately, and ask FCC to do
so. Are they mistaken?

Something will happen sooner or later. Give it time.

Something always happens, given enough time.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article k.net,
"Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart wrote:

(snip)

My point is that the whole issue is not a mass movement.
Clint claimed, without any proof, that most hams want
code testing gone. Yet surveys show the opposite.

I certainly haven't seen a survey recently that could be said to
accurately represents the views of the entire ham radio community, Jim.

Neither have I, Dwight. As I have pointed out, the ARRL/READEX survey is 7
years old. But it's the most recent *scientific* survey we have. (Its 1500
respondents were chosen at random, not self-selected as is the case in
many
"surveys".)

But in these last 7 years, the ham community probably lost
10% to SK status. Most of those were probbaly
pro-code and it is likely the survey, if done today,
would show the continuing shift away from support
of code testing.

believe you recenty posted the results of a survey done by some club that
shows the majority surveyed supported code testing.

Not "some club". ARRL hired READEX (a professional survey organization) to
conduct the survey in preparation for WRC 1997.

Asabove, too much time has passed for ayone to consider
those results to be accurate in relation to the current ham
population.

I don't doubt those
results at all. If you surveyed the local club here (and their friends
outside the club), the majority would also support code testing.

The ARRL/READEX survey sampled the entire country and all license classes
and
age groups. Surveying club members doesn't.

Of course,
the club members here are fanatics in their support of code testing, even
to
the point of openingly ridiculing Technicians who attend the meetings.

That sort of behavior is unacceptable. Not "real ham" behavior.

Unfortuneately, it is real ham behavior. Hopefully
it is just an aberration of some hams...although we have
seen such attitudes voiced in the newsgroups by
more than one or two posters in the past.

Because of that, few who oppose code testing, and even fewer Technicians,
attend that club's meetings or socialize with the members. Find me a
survey
that is truly unbiased and I'll be glad to discuss the results. Until
then,
discussing the results of surveys is simply a waste of time.

Then consider the comments to the restructuring NPRM.

I agree...surveys, votes, etc hold little sway with the FCC anyway.

As you well know, NCI is only a tiny part of the overall
movement to end code testing - far more outside that
organization are involved (including some in this newsgroup
you've personally discussed this issue with).

How do we know this?

How do you know what?

How do we know that there are "far more outside that
organization..involved"?

Who's on first? What? :-) :-)

I see the same small number of people in this newsgroup, at qrz.com, eham,
etc.

That you've talked to people in this newsgroup who

are not NCI members yet are still opposed to code testing? I suspect the
vast majority of those in this newsgroup who oppose code testing are not
members of NCI.

Most of those opposed to code testing I have encountered here *are*
members of
NCI. But there are really not that many on either side who post here. How
many
different people have posted to rrap in the past year?

Someone used to post a Top 10 every month.

Who are "so many others", Dwight? If they really exist, why
haven't they signed on to NCI, which costs nothing more than
a few mouse clicks?

What is it with your obsession with NCI?

No "onsession" at all. I'm just curious as to why someone who felt
strongly or
even mildly that code testing should go would *not* join that
organization.
Particularly given the ease of doing so. And particularly given the fact
that
if the membership numbers got big enough, a majority could be claimed
based on
those numbers alone.

A mojority is nice, but as we've already seen, not really
needed when the decision to keep code testing can't be justified
to begin with (ref: R&O of 98-143)

Are you campaigning for members
or something?

Just the opposite ;-)

Keep doing your "just the opposite" because it helps
let others know we exist.

There is no requirement whatsoever that says those who oppose
code testing must join that organization. I haven't joined it. Neither
has
my wife. In fact, I don't know anyone personally who is opposed to code
testing who has joined. Of course, there are many organizations in this
country I haven't joined. Therefore, NCI is certainly nothing special in
that regard.

That says nothing about how many actually are opposed or support code
testing.

Why does it matter anyway?

And if it's such a done deal, why didn't FCC just dump Element 1
back in July?

As you well know, the FCC has rules and regulations to follow, Jim.
Because of that, they can't "just dump" anything.

That's not what Phil Kane says. A complete NPRM cycle is not required for
every
rules change. Particularly when the change is characterized as "removing a
burden"

True, but the FCC isn't stupid either. A few months of process
helps avoid complaints down the road.

It's also what both the NCI and NCVEC petitions say. Both of them contend
that
FCC has the authority to just remove Element 1 immediately, and ask FCC to
do
so. Are they mistaken?

No, I don't think they are mistaken, I just think the FCC is
doing the process path because it is, in the end, less
controversial...(IMHO).

Something will happen sooner or later. Give it time.

Something always happens, given enough time.

Agreed.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article k.net,
"Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart wrote:

(snip)

My point is that the whole issue is not a mass movement.
Clint claimed, without any proof, that most hams want
code testing gone. Yet surveys show the opposite.

I certainly haven't seen a survey recently that could be said to
accurately represents the views of the entire ham radio community, Jim.

Neither have I, Dwight. As I have pointed out, the ARRL/READEX survey is 7
years old. But it's the most recent *scientific* survey we have. (Its 1500
respondents were chosen at random, not self-selected as is the case in
many
"surveys".)

But in these last 7 years, the ham community probably lost
10% to SK status.

Lessee...if the average ham is licensed 60 years (that doesn't mean every ham
is alive when the license expires), the death rate is 1/60th evey year. That's
about 1.6% per year.

10% SK in 7 years is a very reasonable guess.

Most of those were probbaly
pro-code

Not really! Here's the published results from page 55 of QST for February, 1997
(rounding may result in totals of 99% or 101%):

(results are listed by age group - favor/oppose/no answer):

0-24 years - 85%/15%/0%
25-34 years - 52%/45%/3%
35-44 years - 58%/34%/7%
45-54 years - 66%/26%/8%
55-64 years - 55%/36%/9%
65+ years - 65%/27%/8

All ages - 63%/30%/8%

While the 65+ group is 2% more procodetest than the overall average, the next
youngest group is 8% less procodetest.

and it is likely the survey, if done today,
would show the continuing shift away from support
of code testing.

Maybe - or maybe not! Faced with the possibility of complete elimination,
support for the code test might be greater. Lacking a more recent survey that
is at least as scientific as the ARRL/READEX survey, we just don't know.

believe you recenty posted the results of a survey done by some club that
shows the majority surveyed supported code testing.

Not "some club". ARRL hired READEX (a professional survey organization) to
conduct the survey in preparation for WRC 1997.

Asabove, too much time has passed for ayone to consider
those results to be accurate in relation to the current ham
population.

I disagree! You're assuming your conclusion.

The best we can say is "This is 7 year old data and must be regarded as such".

I don't doubt those
results at all. If you surveyed the local club here (and their friends
outside the club), the majority would also support code testing.

The ARRL/READEX survey sampled the entire country and all license classes
and age groups. Surveying club members doesn't.

Of course,
the club members here are fanatics in their support of code testing, even
to
the point of openingly ridiculing Technicians who attend the meetings.

That sort of behavior is unacceptable. Not "real ham" behavior.

Unfortuneately, it is real ham behavior.

It's real behavior by a few hams. No "real ham" behaves that way.

Hopefully
it is just an aberration of some hams...although we have
seen such attitudes voiced in the newsgroups by
more than one or two posters in the past.

In these parts, such behavior by club members would get them a good talking-to.
If it persisted, they'd be ex-members.

In any club I know of, anyway.

Because of that, few who oppose code testing, and even fewer Technicians,
attend that club's meetings or socialize with the members. Find me a
survey
that is truly unbiased and I'll be glad to discuss the results. Until
then,
discussing the results of surveys is simply a waste of time.

Then consider the comments to the restructuring NPRM.

I agree...surveys, votes, etc hold little sway with the FCC anyway.

The comments to 98-143 were majority in favor of at least two code test speeds.

As you well know, NCI is only a tiny part of the overall
movement to end code testing - far more outside that
organization are involved (including some in this newsgroup
you've personally discussed this issue with).

How do we know this?

How do you know what?

How do we know that there are "far more outside that
organization..involved"?

Who's on first? What? :-) :-)

I see the same small number of people in this newsgroup, at qrz.com, eham,
etc.

That you've talked to people in this newsgroup who

are not NCI members yet are still opposed to code testing? I suspect the
vast majority of those in this newsgroup who oppose code testing are not
members of NCI.

Most of those opposed to code testing I have encountered here *are*
members of
NCI. But there are really not that many on either side who post here. How
many
different people have posted to rrap in the past year?

Someone used to post a Top 10 every month.

Same 10 most months, too.

Who are "so many others", Dwight? If they really exist, why
haven't they signed on to NCI, which costs nothing more than
a few mouse clicks?

What is it with your obsession with NCI?

No "onsession" at all. I'm just curious as to why someone who felt
strongly or
even mildly that code testing should go would *not* join that
organization.
Particularly given the ease of doing so. And particularly given the fact
that
if the membership numbers got big enough, a majority could be claimed
based on
those numbers alone.

A mojority is nice, but as we've already seen, not really
needed when the decision to keep code testing can't be justified
to begin with (ref: R&O of 98-143)

We've already agreed to disagree on that.

Point is, the claim that most hams want to end code testing is pure
speculation.

Are you campaigning for members
or something?

Just the opposite ;-)

Keep doing your "just the opposite" because it helps
let others know we exist.

HAW!!!

There is no requirement whatsoever that says those who oppose
code testing must join that organization. I haven't joined it. Neither
has
my wife. In fact, I don't know anyone personally who is opposed to code
testing who has joined. Of course, there are many organizations in this
country I haven't joined. Therefore, NCI is certainly nothing special in
that regard.

That says nothing about how many actually are opposed or support code
testing.

Why does it matter anyway?

Only to the claim of what most hams want.

And if it's such a done deal, why didn't FCC just dump Element 1
back in July?

As you well know, the FCC has rules and regulations to follow, Jim.
Because of that, they can't "just dump" anything.

That's not what Phil Kane says. A complete NPRM cycle is not required for
every
rules change. Particularly when the change is characterized as "removing a
burden"

True, but the FCC isn't stupid either. A few months of process
helps avoid complaints down the road.

Really? ;-)

It's also what both the NCI and NCVEC petitions say. Both of them contend
that
FCC has the authority to just remove Element 1 immediately, and ask FCC to
do
so. Are they mistaken?

No, I don't think they are mistaken, I just think the FCC is
doing the process path because it is, in the end, less
controversial...(IMHO).

You just verified my point that FCC could, indeed, just dump Element 1 without
the whole NPRM cycle.

73 de Jim, N2EY

the club members here are fanatics in their support of code testing,
even
to
the point of openingly ridiculing Technicians who attend the meetings.

That sort of behavior is unacceptable. Not "real ham" behavior.

Unfortuneately, it is real ham behavior. Hopefully
it is just an aberration of some hams...although we have
seen such attitudes voiced in the newsgroups by
more than one or two posters in the past.

and that's why it's only a matter of time before the code testing is gone.
The PCTA crowd doesn't help itself much when it presents itself with
such an air of arrogance and aggressiveness. One ham in here actually
expressed an interest in having special new call signs issued to the new
hams that upgrade without the code test when it's dropped from the
testing requirements so "the old ham crowd will know who *not* to
talk to"... now, just what do you think the new hams are going to think
of this kind of behavior? it's not a wonder at all that the PCTA side
of the issue is losing.

Clint

"N2EY" wrote:

Neither have I, Dwight. As I have pointed out, the
ARRL/READEX survey is 7 years old. But it's the
most recent *scientific* survey we have. (Its 1500
respondents were chosen at random, not self-selected
as is the case in many "surveys".)


Okay, perhaps it wasn't you. Someone posted the results of a survey done
by some club or group in Minnesota, Michigan, or somewhere like that, just a
week or so ago and I thought you were talking about that survey. I haven't
seen the survey you're talking about here so can't really comment on it.


That sort of behavior is unacceptable. Not "real ham"
behavior.


Luckily, it is rare. The club in Washington was very open to all. This
club isn't. Sadly, the fact that a club elsewhere is different doesn't
really help those who are here. I've considered starting an alternative
club, but I'm afraid the strong position of that club will quickly turn
anything like that into a pro-testing versus anti-code testing situation
(fed by members of both groups) which will not really benefit anybody in the
long term.


How do we know that there are "far more outside that
organization..involved"?


Well, since most Amateur Radio operators don't join any type of club
(local, ARRl, or whatever), it's a fairly safe assumption.


Most of those opposed to code testing I have encountered
here *are* members of NCI. (snip)


Do you know that for a fact, or did you just assume they were members like
you did with me?


No "onsession" at all. I'm just curious as to why someone who
felt strongly or even mildly that code testing should go would
*not* join that organization. (snip)


Do you feel most who support code testing are members of FISTS or other
such clubs? I don't think so. Based on what I've seen, there is a general
trend throughout this country not to participate in clubs or other such
groups. About the only exception to that is national political groups, which
seem to be gaining members.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Neither have I, Dwight. As I have pointed out, the
ARRL/READEX survey is 7 years old. But it's the
most recent *scientific* survey we have. (Its 1500
respondents were chosen at random, not self-selected
as is the case in many "surveys".)

Okay, perhaps it wasn't you.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't me.

Someone posted the results of a survey done
by some club or group in Minnesota, Michigan, or somewhere like that, just a
week or so ago and I thought you were talking about that survey. I haven't
seen the survey you're talking about here so can't really comment on it.

It's now about 7 years old but is the most recent one that can be considered
"scientific" by any stretch of the imagination.

That sort of behavior is unacceptable. Not "real ham"
behavior.

Luckily, it is rare. The club in Washington was very open to all. This
club isn't.

Then it's not worth belonging to anyway. Hostility towards another ham just
because of license class - *any* license class - isn't the way 'real hams'
behave.

Sadly, the fact that a club elsewhere is different doesn't
really help those who are here. I've considered starting an alternative
club, but I'm afraid the strong position of that club will quickly turn
anything like that into a pro-testing versus anti-code testing situation
(fed by members of both groups) which will not really benefit anybody in the
long term.

dang - wish you were in this area, Dwight.

While some folks around here have strong feelings one way and the other about
code testing, it's considered very bad form to exclude or denigrate anybody
based simply on their code-test opinion. Of course, if someone starts excluding
or denigrating, they will often find themselves excluded and denigrated - even
by those who agree with their opinion.

Not that it helps things where *you* are.

How do we know that there are "far more outside that
organization..involved"?

Well, since most Amateur Radio operators don't join any type of club
(local, ARRl, or whatever), it's a fairly safe assumption.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

But it raises a good question: what are most hams actually doing? Look at the
number of Generals, Advanceds and Extras (hams with lots of HF privileges) -
the total is well over 300,000. If even 3% of them were on HF at any given
time, the bands would be packed bandedge to bandedge. (there's only 3550 kHz
from the bottom of 80 to the top of 10 - less space than 6 or 2 meters!)

Most of those opposed to code testing I have encountered
here *are* members of NCI. (snip)

Do you know that for a fact, or did you just assume they were members like
you did with me?

I have seen them sign with their NCI numbers or otherwise mention membership.
You're the exception.

No "onsession" at all. I'm just curious as to why someone who
felt strongly or even mildly that code testing should go would
*not* join that organization. (snip)

Do you feel most who support code testing are members of FISTS or other
such clubs? I don't think so.

True - but FISTS costs $15/year to belong to. NCI is free. And until recently,
FISTS did not take a position on code testing.

Based on what I've seen, there is a general
trend throughout this country not to participate in clubs or other such
groups. About the only exception to that is national political groups, which
seem to be gaining members.

Sad but true. A very big part of the reason, I think is lack of time. Not that
we have any more or less time people had in previous times, but that we use it
differently and have different expectations. In my case, for example, free time
comes in little bits and pieces in between responsibilities.

73 de Jim, N2EY