In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


In over 32 years as an RF engineer, I have not had the same experience.
The most technical folks have seemed more interested in the technical
side of ham radio and there have been MANY who I could not recruit
into ham radio because they had no interest in and were unwilling to waste
their valuable time learing Morse to a level that would get them decent
HF privs. (some have capitulated and jumped through the 5 wpm hoop
since "restructuring" and are now extras, but many have refused, on
principal, to jump through the hoop, saying they'll wait until they don't
have to waste their time on Morse)

Carl:

Now, there's classic NCTA logic for you! You and your fellow
professional RF engineers, with your "code testing as a hoop"
mentality, have actually wasted more time by *not* learning the
code and passing the code tests than you have saved. For one
thing, as ham radio history has proved many times, those of
you who made the attempt to learn the code and upgrade through
the progressively higher-speed code tests may have very well
become enthusiastic CW operators, and ultimately, PCTA's.
All you've done is demonstrate that even professionally-qualified
electronics technicians and engineers can be just as lazy and
unmotivated to learn a useful communications skill as a truck
driver whose main RF experience is on 11-meters.

I would challenge the NCTA's to show some proof that those who believe
that the morse code test should be retained are in a technical backwater.

Most of the avid CW ragchewers/contesters I've known over the years
(remember, I'm a long-time ham) have been more interested in the operating
activity (ragchewing, contesting, paper-chasing) than the technical side.
My experience has been that they have been less technically inclined than
a lot of the no-code techs I've met, less inclined to participate in public
service/emergency communications, and more inclined to just being "users"
rather than tinkerers ...

And my experience, and that of many of the PCTA posters in this NG,
has been exactly the opposite.

Remember, this is my personal experience, and since it seems to differ from
yours, YMMV ...

Indeed, it does.

I would also challenge them to do it without being abrasive or insulting.

I think I've met the challenge ...

Hmmm. I think the statement that code testing is "jumping through
a hoop" is questionable, but I'll let it slide.

Just facts or intelligent informed opinions.

Since there are no authortative, scientific statistics (and probably never
will
be), I think that all you can expect to get are peoples accounting of their
own
personal experiences. Mine are admitedly coming from the fact that I'm "in
the business" of RF engineering ... but through local clubs and ARES/RACES
participation over the past 25+ years, my observations seem to hold, even
amongst contacts/acquaintences/friends who are not "in the profession."
Remember, YMMV ...

My experiences would seem to be the polar opposite of your own, and for
the exact same reasons. Yes, MM does V.

Pro coders can help by refraining from name calling too.

We shall see ...

Well, so far, I seem to have violated that injunction, since I have indulged
in calling NCTA's "lazy." However, I consider that to be honesty, not
name calling. Therefore, in fairness, that needs to "slide" as well.

My statement is that there is no direct relationship.

The evidence is anecdotal will, as I point out, vary from person
to person, depending on their location, profession, the "slant"
of the local club(s) they belong to, etc.

Agreed. However, my own experience is that technically involved
no-coders also tend to be reticent to indulge in stating their opinion
about code testing. It is the ones who just want a microphone in
their hot little hands who seem to be all worked up about it.

Anyone ready for a real discussion without the barbs? Can we do it?
First person to start throwing insults only makes it look bad for
his/her side.

I think I've taken the high ground ... we'll see how the other side deals
with it ...

Your high ground will hardly require the use of supplemental O².
Being on "the other side," I feel that I have taken an approach based
on honesty, since I've actually lived on *both* sides. I therefore claim
the same "high ground." Move over, Carl!

73 de Larry, K3LT