Mr Reid I included the opening sentence in the first paragraph to give the
readers a point of reference. My response was to the the second point. It
does not surprise me that those who would smear an entire group of fellows
hams as "lazy" would resort to selectively quoting a debater in such a
manner as to TOTALLY destort his point. Those are the tactics use by people
who have lost an arguement on its merits. I will therefore re edit further
>At 05:48 PM 1/26/99 -0800, Larry L. Ravlin wrote:
>...Snip....
>>I would venture to say
>>that 90% of the people who want to do away with cw are too lazy to put
>>forth the effort to acquire the skill to use it.
>
>What do you base that on? I've been licensed for 25 years and have met
>quite a few hams that have remained Techs despite having worked for years
>to get there code speed up to 13 WPM. Most have demonstrated technical
>abilities far beyond many Extras I know.
>
>>I don't have an extra
>>class yet but I am going to get it before another "dumbing down to
>>equiptment operator" from the FCC is put into effect.
>
>I've been licensed as Amateur Extra for 20 years, and there has been a
>great deal of "dumbing down" which includes a many Extras and CW Operators.
> The Appliance Operator phenomenon is not something that is unique to those
>licensed below General as some would have us believe. Most of the guys
>doing 60WPM in a contest do little or no construction inside their shacks.
>It's usually limited to various gadgets. Most construction that goes on is
>usually limited to antennas. A few hearty souls will build an amplifier
>every once in a while. As to cutting edge stuff like spread
>spectrum...forget it...
>
>>It is not
>>unreasonable to expect cw skills from an operator, this is "HAM RADIO' for
>>crying out loud, put forth some effort and be proud of your skills.
>
>What is unreasonable is requiring CW skills for access HF priviledges. One
>other misconception that needs to be cleared up is that those who advocate
>for such license class want CW done away with. That is a convient Strawman
>set up by those who advocate for CW simply because it is a barrier to entry.
>
>Mr. Ravlin seeks to question the pride one has in his/her license simply
>because they advocate for a no code HF license. Your going to have to do
>better than that.
>
The purpose of editting is to reduce the unnecessary wording, not misstate
or misdirect the statement of the debater.
Bob K1TA
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|