"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*) debate.
The
minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met with
an
attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or called for.

Kim:

Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use.
In the absence of a code testing requirement, there will be progressively
fewer hams who have never been exposed to learning the code as a
result of the requirement. Since the requirement was the principle
motivation to learn the code, code use *will* decline once code testing
is abolished. Therefore, testing and use are two closely interrelated
concepts.


1) To use the test element as a reason to proliferate CW users is not
acceptable to me. The reason is because the test requirement is a
government sponsored requirement. If we use your expectation for the
requirement above, then I respond that the continuance of the mode of CW is
not the responsiblity of the government, nor should it be. The FCC, the
government, has decided that CW is no longer needed for its expectation and
interpretation of what the ARS is about. To argue with that is merely
spinning our wheels at this point--it's a done deal. So, if your basic
support of the CW test as a requirement for ham radio is that it will keep
people learning and using the mode, then I would wholehertedly disagree.

2) Using the statement you make, above: would you not also agree then, that
the choice by some people to stop short of HF privileges, simply because of
a CW test requirement, depletes the overall supply of HF, therefore CW,
users anyway? I'd rather dismiss the test requirement for CW and have HF
thrive and active for the ARS. The influence of good amateur radio
operators who appreciate the value, tradition, and history of CW will always
be a positive effect on the maintenance of the population of CW users.
Again, it is not up the government to be the arm of CW continuance.


Until, (UNTIL, *until*) it is clearly understood that seeking the end of
the
CW test is not the equivalent of seeking the end of CW as a mode, this
debate will never fall within the realm of "friendly" debate at all. I
think it's even hazardous to use the PCTA/NCTA labels.

PCTA = Pro-Code Testing Agenda; NCTA = Anti-Code Testing Agenda.
Those terms are accurately descriptive of the intent of their respective
groups. Where is the "hazard" in honesty?

73 de Larry, K3LT


The hazard, Larry, is in the derogatory slams that have been bantered back
and forth while using those terms. The term "******" (excuse me, to anyone
who is offended by that word--me included) isn't derogatory until some
bigoted person uses it against another person, either. No hazard, at all,
in being honest.

Kim W5TIT