[TenTec] Re: [Icom] HAM License Restructuring on 4/15/2000

[Caitlyn Martin]

Hi, everyone,

My apologies for the cross posting.  What I see on the Icom reflector, or in
my inbox from some of the Ten Tec reflector people, is essentially the same,
so I think one response will do it.

I see the old CW arguments being rehashed, a lot of arguing, a lot of
disagreement and gnashing of teeth, and a lot of old fashioned (pardon my
language) bitching and moaning.  What good does it do?  What purpose does it
serve?  How does it advance the radio art, to use the FCC's terminology?  As
both moderators have said quite eloquently, it also does not belong on the
reflectors.

The facts are the facts, and we cannot turn back the clock.  The FCC
followed the lead of many other administrations by going to a minimal code
requirement.  What they did not do is refarm the bands.  The CW portions are
intact, and the Novice (let's now call it beginner code) portions are
intact.  Here is my challenge to the CW advocates out there:

Instead of complaining, do something positive.  Elmer some young people into
the hobby.  If you think CW has value, explain it to them.  If you think
it's fun, tell them that.  Perhaps some of that joy you get from the code
can be passed on to a new generation.  All that requires is effort and
enthusiasm.

This whole thing only became an issue because we (myself included) have done
a lousy job of promoting the hobby or the radio art.  Let's take this as a
challenge.  If you see it as a curse, I understand, but all of us can work
together to turn it into a blessing.  Not a bad resolution for the New Year,
is it?

73,
Caity
KU4QD



--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
Submissions:              tentec@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-tentec@contesting.com
Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm