"N2EY" wrote


Not me. I EARNED mine. I encourage others to EARN theirs. Is that bad?
Shall I apologize for my accomplishments and sit idly by while others
try to trash a community I belong to?


Well, I knew it would all eventually get down to that simple statement.

(To focus "on topic", the question was if there should
be a vote on whether or not the FCC should retain
Morse code as a test for HF licensing.)

N2EY asserts he has EARNED his HF access, presumably because he passed a
Morse test, and he encourages others to EARN it by the same means. I
support his right to have that opinion, and he need not apologize for it.

What I do not support is his assertion that 'others' (IOW, those who do not
share his opinion on Morse testing) are trying to 'trash' amateur radio.

73, de Hans, K0HB

PS: N2EY pleads ignorance about the 1966 statement on this topic since he
was "not online", so I will take the liberty to repeat it here.




















-----

Hang around here long enough, and you will see someone write
something like:

" A really tough written test would surely separate those who
really have an interest in the hobby.", or..

" Other, more relevant, methods can establish an applicant's
dedication to the service.", or..

" ..... the key to maintaining the quality of hamming
is making it something to work for."

All of the above quotations, gathered from a recent thread,
were made by serious and well-intentioned licensees who want the
best for the Amateur Radio Service.

All of the above quotations also completely miss the mark, in
that they suggest that the examination process is the key to
ensuring that "the right kind of people" (those who are "worthy")
become licensed and, by extension, that "the wrong kind of people"
get filtered out.

First, the testing procedure is an "entrance" exam, not a
"graduation" exam.

Second, while "interest", "dedication", and "hard work" are
certainly hallmarks of good amateurs, the FCC and ITU regulations
do not specify levels of interest, dedication, hard work or other
measures of "worthiness" as requisites for a license. Therefor it
is not the function of the examination process to determine (even
if it could) if an applicant is "worthy" but rather to determine if
he/she is QUALIFIED to use the spectrum assigned. There should
be no "dumbing down", but neither can there be a requirement
that the examination process screens out lack of commitment.

Don't get me wrong here folks. I believe that the examination
process ought to be rigorous enough to determine proper knowledge
and skills so that a new licensee does not inadvertently trash the
bands, hurt themselves, or harm other users/uses of the spectrum,
but I have no expectation that the examination can filter out
"unworthy" applicants.

Even if it could, who then would become the arbiter of
"worthy"?








: Not gonna happen, Hans. No matter how much you try to twist what I
: wrote.
:
: 73 de Jim, N2EY