"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/