"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

(snip) If one wants or needs to make other
than local contacts then yes code is
necessary. (snip) If the choice is to turn
off the radio or use code then I'd say that
code is indeed necessary whether or not
it is an emergency.


I think you missed the point. Other than the emergency or public services
we offer, any contact whatsoever is an avocation, not a necessity.
Therefore, any mode needed to facilitate that would also not be a necessity.

OK, fine.

Then SSB, AM, FM, RTTY, PSK-31, etc. are all non-necessities.

And the same can be said for any particular technologies used by hams.
For example, there is no absolute necessity to use a PLL-type
synthesized rig. It's just an operator choice.

If one wants to use code during those periods, one can do so by learning
code on his/her own.

If one wants to use any other mode or technology, one can do so by
learning
it on his/her own.

It is not necessary for the goals and purposes of the
Amateur Radio Service at this point to mandate that learning through a
testing requirement.

Then it logically follows that it is not necessary for the goals and
purposes of the Amateur Radio Service at this point to mandate that
learning through a
testing requirement.

In fact, except for the most basic of rules and regulations, your
argument leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is not necessary
for the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service at this point
to mandate *any* learning through a testing requirement.

Can you prove otherwise?

73 de Jim, N2EY