[CW] ARRL refused to support code requirement

[Scott Rosenfeld [N7JI]]

I totally agree.

Had it not been for the 13/20 wpm requirements, I suspect I MIGHT have 
gone further, but maybe not.

With the 5 wpm test being ALL that's presently necessary, I see little 
difference between it and 0 wpm.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, David J. Ring, Jr. wrote:

> I don't think I would have progressed at all if all I ever learned was 5
> wpm.
> 
> I think I for one, needed to get up to at least 13 wpm to even see what CW
> was capable of.
> 
> If all I ever needed to know was 5 wpm, I probably would never operate CW.
> 
> Just like a flower, CW sprouts when it becomes mature.
> 
> If my flowers were only 5 wpm, I'd cut them down like weeds.  Even if it
> would be tragic, I'd have no way of knowing that when they got to be 20
> inches (wpm) high, they'd be a delight, but at 5 inches (wpm) they just look
> like weeds to me.
> 
> My only hope is that perhaps someone will hear some of the sweet singings of
> manual high speed morse and not cut down the plants until they flower.  (In
> other words, keep practicing until their skill becomes mature.)
> 
> 73
> 
> DR
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Rosenfeld [N7JI]" <ham@w3eax.umd.edu>
> To: "Nancy WZ8C" <nancy@tir.com>
> Cc: <cw@mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 7:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [CW] ARRL refused to support code requirement
> 
> 
> > 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.
> >
> > On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Nancy  WZ8C wrote:
> >
> > > I talked to the VEC at ARRL HQ and finally got a straight answer -- they
> abstained from voting at the VEC conference that Maia referred to in his
> petition.
> > >
> > > That has the same effect of not supporting the code requirement, since
> they knew it would allow Maia to truthfully say there was no opposition
> among the VEC's to eliminating the requirement.  The ARRL couldn't come
> right out and vote to eliminate it because it would cause too much of an
> uproar among the ham community, so they took the weasel way out.
> > >
> > > Nancy WZ8C
> > >
> > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> > > multipart/alternative
> > >   text/plain (text body -- kept)
> > >   text/html
> > > The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
> > > or had an attachment.  Attachments are not allowed.  To learn how
> > > to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html  ---
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CW mailing list
> > > CW@mailman.qth.net
> > > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Scott Rosenfeld  ARS N7JI
> > 541-684-9970  Eugene, OR  Land o' much rain
> > If you find me on the air, I'm probably in my car
> > ham@w3eax.umd.edu  http://w3eax.umd.edu/~ham
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CW mailing list
> > CW@mailman.qth.net
> > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
> >
> 

-- 
Scott Rosenfeld  ARS N7JI
541-684-9970  Eugene, OR  Land o' much rain
If you find me on the air, I'm probably in my car
ham@w3eax.umd.edu  http://w3eax.umd.edu/~ham