[Fists] ARRL, FCC and elimination of CW testing requirements.

[W1EOF]

Hi Bob,

Please explain your statement "The ARRL did have lots to do with the CW
changes."
Show FCC proposals, news releases, anything factual that supports your
position.

Venting - Everyone is free to speak here unless it gets personal and nasty
which we certainly don't need.

I'm glad to hear so many people, regardless of position on the law, be
supportive of making a massive effort to bring people into CW. That's
something we can all agree on, something we can
all work together toward.

73,

Mark W1EOF



> -----Original Message-----
> From: kb2fel at citlink.net [mailto:kb2fel at citlink.net]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 9:45 PM
> To: fists at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Fists] ARRL, FCC and elimination of CW testing
> requirements.
>
>
> Sending CC's may delay your post. If you feel that your post
> needs to go to more than one destination please send them separately.
>
>
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> Guess we all know what side of the fence you sit on.
>
> The ARRL did have lots to do with the CW changes.  If they wanted to
> support it they would have sent all sorts of mailings out....lawyers
> assigned to the cause and so on.
>
> Now go away and sit down and let Jozef vent if he needs to.
>
> Bob
> KB2FEL WV
>
> Quoting Dan KB6NU <kb6nu at w8pgw.org>:
>
> > Sending CC's may delay your post. If you feel that your post needs to
> > go to more than one destination please send them separately.
> >
> >
> > Come now. You're grossly exaggerating the hand the ARRL played in the
> > elimination of the Morse Code requirement. Once the international
> > treaty was modified to eliminate the international requirement for
> > Morse Code testing, it was only a matter of time before the test would
> > be eliminated here in the U.S. In fact, the ARRL's position was to
> > retain the test for Extra Class licensees.
> >
> > You go on further to state, "As a result of the CW requirements being
> > dropped, there are now two classes of ham radio operator: those that
> > pass a CW element and those that do not." How silly is that? Look, I
> > love operating CW as much or more than you do, but to imply that a ham
> > who has not passed a code test is of a lower class than one who has
> > passed a test is just ridiculous.
> >
> > The Morse Code test elimination is a done deal. Get over it. Then,
> > start working on getting as many of the no-code licensees on CW as you
> > can. I'll tell you one thing, though--with an attitude like the one
> > you've expressed below, you're certainly not going to win over very
> > many of them.
> >
> > Remember, it's not about passing a CW test, it's about using it
> on the air.
> >
> > 73!
> >
> > Dan KB6NU
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > CW Geek and MI Affiliated Club Coordinator
> > Read my ham radio blog at www.kb6nu.com
> > LET'S GET MORE KIDS INTO HAM RADIO!
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fists mailing list
> Fists at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fists