[AMRadio] Comment to a comment

[Michael Wilke]

Bingo!

Mike  WB4AQL


On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo at gmail.com> wrote:

> I disagree and here is why.  First, let me say that for some time I
> was in favor of doing away with CW testing.   I changed my mind
> because I realized that knowing CW is an important part of the basic
> building process.   How is this?  The most elementary (legal)
> transmitter is one that generates a continuous wave.  If you put a
> value on what is gained by building such a  transmitter then without
> CW there is no fulfilment in placing it on the air and using it to
> communicate.  I believe we are better off by encouraging new hams to
> experience some basic building along the lines of what was set forth
> in the old How to Become a Radio Amateur book the ARRL published, but
> the whole package depends on having CW as a basic skill by the time
> such a rig is ready to fire up and operate.  You can say that any one
> who wishes to do so can learn CW and do this now, but having it as a
> requirement to get a license insures that by the time an experimenter
> is ready to try out his work and get some feeling of accomplishment,
> he has the basic (i.e. slow) CW skill ready to use.
>
> Currently I think new hams are steered towards VHF FM and CB style
> communications and this has led to many hams getting bored and losing
> interest.  We need to go back to fostering electronics education and
> building and starting new hams out on HF.   CW is an important part of
> that.  No test of any time can "filter out poor character and
> unethical behavior" and that was never the intent of any FCC testing
> in the past as far as I know.  But an examination of some level of
> rigor can serve to attract people with a passion and love of radio and
> a curiosity of the science of radio.
>
> 73
>
> Rob
> K5UJ
>
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Kim Elmore <cw_de_n5op at sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> But, the idea that we can generate a test, of any kind, that will
> filter out poor character and unethical behavior is fiction.
> >
> > Which is part of the reason the FCC chose to remove the requirement,
> > as noted in their comments. Anyone who remembers listening to
> > WA4Doggie, "Fuzzy Zulu" and others from decades ago who passed the 13
> > or 20wpm test understand this all too well.
> >
> > The next project here is a 10m dipole in order to join in the fun of
> > excellent band conditions. Too many equipment repairs to list!
> >
> > ~ Todd,  KA1KAQ/4
> ______________________________________________________________
> Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net
> AMRadio mailing list
> Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/amradio@mailman.qth.net/
> List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html
> List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with
> the word unsubscribe in the message body.
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>