In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

and a "reward" for learning. I fail to understand why removing Morse
testing is any different from removing all aspects of RTTY knowledge
from the written test, e.g. "T8A10. What would you connect to a
transceiver for RTTY operation?".

Clearly AH0A can't understand (or accept) that the RTTY example
is "theoretical knowledge" and the Morse test is a test of a mechanical
skill ...

You mean "a practical skill".

Both are valuable to the radio amateur. Whether either should be tested is a
matter of opinion, nothing more.

But if a person has no interest in RTTY, why should that person be subjected to
questions on the subject?

Why can't a ham be trusted to learn about RTTY if/when the desire to use that
mode arises? RTTY is "just another mode", is it not? There's no requirement for
any ham to ever use it.

while I don't advocate it, a touch-typing test would be more
relevant to the future of ham radio than a Morse test.

Why touch-typing? Isn't hunt-and-peck good enough?

5 wpm code is like being able to hunt-and-peck type at 10 wpm, not
touch-typing.

[snip]

Anyway I want to assure you I that I put thought into the petition and
sincerely believe that CW testing for CW privileges was a compromise.

It appears that AH0A either did not read the R&O in 98-143 and the
denials of the Petitions for Reconsideration that were filed, or he didn't
understand/accept what the FCC clearly said.

Or maybe he just disagrees. FCC's decisions are simply FCC opinion, not some
form of absolute proof. (Note what has happened to FCC's decision on broadcast
media ownership rules. While something like that won't happen to the amateur
rules, it proves the point).

Of course it's clear from FCC actions that any petition that *increases*
testing complexity is going to have a very very small chance of being acted
upon by FCC.

73 de Jim, N2EY