"Opus-" wrote in message
...

I have been watching this thread for a while and now I must join the
fray.

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:34:18 -0400, Dave spake
thusly:

George Orwell wrote:

Al Klein said:


Eliminating a requirement is dumbing things down. But no one would
expect you to be able to understand that.


Well, let me ask, from the point of view of a potential noob to the
hobby. What use is the code requirements?

The 'use' is something you just can't understand. The 'use' is a
commitment of
time and talent which adds value to the license. The 'use' is investment.

The term "investment" is very misleading. To explain my position, I am
in agreement that CW testing should go the way of the dinosaurs. I
have no problem with technical testing, as a way to ensure that
potential Hams can operate their radios properly, without causing
interference with neighbors and other Hams world wide. There is also a
safety factor, with transmitters that can kick out a LOT of
potentially dangerous power. So, technical exam = good idea.
Here in Canada, CW is not required IF you achieve at least 80% on your
technical exam. You need at least 55% WITH CW.
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/inter.../sf08435e.html
This seems fair, to me.

As for the "investment", not all investments are valuable. I invested
years of training to be a fully qualified mechanic. There is
considerable value in that investment, obviously, as it is my bread
and butter.

But, would my investment be more valuable if, for example, if an
additional year of carpentry training were required for me to be
certified? I mean, after all, cars had wood frames and bodies at one
time so a mechanic would have needed carpentry skills...back in the
1930's. Such an investment would be a bad one. The skills would have
no value and do nothing to enhance my skills as a mechanic. The extra
investment would have no return with regards to being a mechanic.
Carpentry would not make me a better mechanic and would not prove to
the world that I really wanted to be a mechanic.

CW is as useful to todays Hams as carpentry is to a mechanic. A good
thing to learn, and potentially useful, but should not be a barrier.


This is where your analogy falls apart. CW is currently very useful to
hams. It is in daily use. However, the arguments have already been
presented and those with closed minds have rejected them.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE