"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:

Dee, no doubt CW has its benefits. Contrary to a lot of the "pro-CW"
folks,
the "anti-CW" folks recognize its capabilities. (It's silly to even put
the
groups in such diverse categories.) However, that does not negate the
argument that, even though it may be quite beneficial, there are those
of us
who simply choose not to learn it well enough for practicability (eh?).


You don't have to use it, just learn it. I don't like the stupid
satellite questions on the test, but I had to learn them. (sorry
satellite folks)

Actually you didn't have to learn the satellite stuff to
get a passing grade on the test. I have no problem adding
a couple of questions to the question pool for any license that
asks about CW as a mode. That is, however, a distinctly
different situation than having an exclusive and separaelty
graded test element as Morse code does today.

If we threw out all the parts that some people did not
want to learn, there would soon be no test whatsoever.

Let's make the case:

None of the cases below now have a separate pass
fail test element so the "case" or analogy fails.

Satellite stations - this is a very mode-specific section

Strike

Band edges - most hams I know have a ARRL band page by their
rigs.

Strike

Theory - Many hams never plan to homebrew and some even have
other people wire their stations for them.

Strike

Packet questions? Mode specific and most hams aren't interested
in packet

Strike

Questions about SSTV Mode specific, and many hams never plan to
use SSTV

Strike

Baudot code questions? Give me a break!

Strike

Test equipment questions? In this day of appliance operations,
who needs those sort of questions?

Strike

I'll stop now, but for every type of question on the test, there is a
person who thinks it doesn't belong there.
- Mike KB3EIA -

I repeat:
None of the cases above now have a separate pass
fail test element so the "case" or analogy or argument fails.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK