On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:10:21 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this
mindspring.com wrote:


"Old School" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 23:58:37 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this
mindspring.com wrote:


"mdd" wrote in message
...
Just so everyone knows, They both support the removal of the code
requirement, but SOMEONE has to play devils advocate.



If you're refering to me supporting the removal of the code element,
then
you are mistaken. I have NEVER supported the removal of the code element
in
the amateur testing, except for VHF/UHF ONLY license.

Dan/W4NTI


What would be so different where you would support it for VHF/UHF???


Because it is a un-necessary as a entry level license with RESTRICTIONS to
VHF/UHF only. In otherwords NO HF AT ALL. Which is exactly what the
ORIGINAL TECHNICIAL license offered. No ten meter stuff, which came later.

What? I dont understand jibberish!

Why the difference between HF and VHF ? Because HF requires more operator
ability to properly operate in the crowded invironment there. And to
fullfill why ham radio even exists. To help provide a trained group of
radio operators and electronic personnel in the event of national emergency.

The only reason its crowded like you state is because your VFO is
stuck in one spot. Have you ever turned the thing to see what else was
going on in the world around you? Amateur radio is a hobby, Not a
national emergency group of people.

If one is able to do CW. He is a more capable operator. And CW on HF does
indeed work best for simple and cheap long haul commo.

Dan/W4NTI

It doesnt make you a more capable operator, it just make you capable
of doing another mode. Big Deal!