"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote:

I hate to say it, Jim, but this is one
of those intangibles that fall under
the catagory of "if you don't get it,
I can't explain it to you."

Kim's got it, but doesn't like it. I
can respect that. Bill's got it too,
but doesn't appear to want to let
on that he's got it. (Broken record
mode: But the FCC..., but the
FCC..., but the FCC...) Dwight?
No comment.


Bert: I just noticed this. I cannot believe you said that. I cannot
believe you are acting like that.

Why sure I said it…and I'm not even "acting." (As in pretending, get
it? That was a joke…a little levity.)

I *GET* that you like CW testing and you should *GET* that I don't.

I fine with that and stated as such. To clarify, you can substitute
"Kim's got it, (it being my opinion) but doesn't agree with it."

THAT is all there is to *GET*. It's that simple.

Not in my opinion. IMNSHO, folks are a tad too quick to remove the
character aspect from many daily activities, both professional and
personal. How many times have you heard "It's just business, nothing
personal" or "It's unfortunate, but it's the bottom line that
matters." Usually when you hear these words, it's in conjunction with
actions that are going to adversely affect somebody's life. I've seen
folks that have put in twenty plus loyal years of some seriously hard
work for a company and get released just so the bottom line showed a
ten percent profit margin as opposed to nine. (IOW, double instead of
single digit growth.) While there are many valid "business" reasons
that can be quoted to defend this, there are some moral or "character"
issues involved here. I know it wasn't always like this and at some
point in history loyalty was rewarded with loyalty at many companies.
That's a professional example.

At 5-wpm, I don't believe for one nanosecond that Element 1 is about
forcing people to become "proficient" in a mode, whether they plan on
using it OTA or not. Perhaps 13 or 20, but certainly not 5-wpm. The
FCC actually has some references to character, Jim, N2EY has provided
an example. I personally believe that *one of* the valid cases in
favor of retaining Element 1 is that it requires an individual to
demonstrate a certain level of self-discipline that is not achieved by
cramming a published Q&A pool.

Furthermore, I think that many of the folks want to do away with the
character aspect solely to remove a valid argument against the removal
of Element 1. ("But the FCC…, but the FCC…, but the FCC…") Just like
the professional who don't want to feel bad about "making the
unpopular decision" or following "good business practice" while
legitimately shafting good employees. So now we have a whole
generation of young folks that are prepared to enter the workplace,
possibly "earn" their way into a position where they can do some harm,
but won't care because they were taught that it's ok to step on and
use others as long as it fits a prescribed business plan. What'll it
be like in another sixty or seventy years?

It ain't so simple, Kim…at least not to this observer. Character means
something…in all of life's aspect. A hobby and/or service called
Amateur Radio is just one of them.

Kim W5TIT

73 de Bert
WA2SI