[CW] ARRL refused to support code requirement

[Ed Tanton]

At 07:50 PM 7/31/2003, Scott Rosenfeld [N7JI] wrote:

>I don't see this as necessarily the case.
>
>Let's be honest about it.  5 wpm really doesn't do much practical for
>anyone since you NEVER have to go further to upgrade.
>
>You'd ending up learning higher speeds because you want to.
>
>Which is pretty much the same as if there's no code element at all.




Yes that's true... BUT with no requirement at all, the significance of a 
code-only band segment becomes a good deal less tenable. Which is where we 
are now. I'm VERY grumpy about the ARRL abstention-yet I feel more or less, 
helpless. From several years ago, pessimistically enough, THIS has been 
coming.

The "FIGHT", if there is one left to us, is to retain those exclusive 
band-segments. Those segments are ALL WE HAVE LEFT. Somehow we have to 
convince them that they will not; they cannot, weasel about that.

>///snip

>so they took the weasel way out.
> >
> > Nancy WZ8C
> >

///snip


73 Ed Tanton N4XY <n4xy@earthlink.net>

Ed Tanton N4XY
189 Pioneer Trail
Marietta, GA 30068-3466

website: http://www.n4xy.com

All emails <IN> & <OUT> checked by
Norton AntiVirus with AutoProtect

LM: ARRL QCWA AMSAT & INDEXA;
SEDXC NCDXA GACW QRP-ARCI
OK-QRP QRP-L #758 K2 (FT) #00057

--------------------------------------------------
"He that gives up a little liberty to gain
temporary security will lose both and
deserve neither".
--Benjamin Franklin

"Suppose you were an idiot ...
and suppose you were a member of
Congress...  but I repeat myself."
--Mark Twain
--------------------------------------------------