In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

As you are well aware, part of the FCC's
Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service
is an expectation of technical learning. (snip)

Learning is part of the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service,
not the basis and purpose of the license exams. The basis and purpose of the
license exams is to make possible the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio
Service. In other words, to bring people into the Amateur Radio Service so
they can learn. The real learning comes after the exams in what we actually
do.

So, "real" radio operating experience can ONLY be done in
AMATEUR radio?

LHA

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

snippage

As anyone who understands formal logic knows, reductio ad absurdum is a
valid
way of evaluating the validity of an assertion.

It works like this: An assertion is analyzed by logical methods, and if the
result is an absurdity, the original statement must be false.

Or absurd! I like to apply this logic to as much as possible in life.
And many ideas do not fare well!

You WANT absurdity?


more snippage

so how hard a
stretch is it to see some element of society arguing to eliminate any
technical knowledge, too...?!?!

More important - how can those arguments be countered?

IMO, the only way to counter them is to attempt a consensus of just how

much "quality" and technical acumen is desired in a Ham. It's what you
and I are doing yapping about what Ham radio might become. It's what
Hans is doing. I don't like everything he proposes, but I could live
with it.

DOS tip: The FCC determines what it requires in licensing of radio
operators, NOT the "amateur community" or the "communities" of
any other radio service that require radio operators.

We have to bark about every attempt at reducing the knowledge or skills

needed to become a Ham. We need to also guard against trying to set the
bar too high - though I doubt that that will be much of a problem!

You can always petiiton the FCC for a complete change in scope and
description of U.S. amateur radio. I'd suggest you change the name to
"Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service" for below-30-MHz. Make morse the
prime definition of HF amateur radio.

When a VEC group publishes what they want the ARS to become, and what
they want is a drastic reduction in knowledge, at the same time granting
priveliges for that reduction, we have to yell loud and strong.

Has anyone seen YOUR opposition to a "VEC group publishing what
they want?"

We have to realize that when we are told to shut up, it means that our
arguments are good, and that "shut up" is the best argument the other
side has to give.

Don't try to rationalize a weak argument of yours as "more noble, logical,
in the best interests of the service," etc., etc. by feigning outrage at
"improper acts of others."

We have to realize that while we may lose this fight no matter how hard

we work at it, if we sit still and shut up, there is no doubt of the
outcome. Entropy will take over.

Don't worry, 981 commenters on RM-10811 (largest number of respondents
of the 14 petitions) have been busy stating things in public.

We have to get those that believe that Morse code testing should go
away to realize and admit that something must fill the vacuum created by
its elimination.

WHY?

You are just about to fall over the edge of the "I had to do it so everyone
else has to do it in the future" non-argument.

That something could be *nothing*, which results in a
dramatic reduction in skill level.

"Dramatic?!?!?" Only if you are a morseman is such a thing "dramatic."

:-)

They also need to realize that there
are people out there who want even less in the way of admission
requirements. "Nobody wants licenses just given away" or the like is a
naive statement.

Translation: You had to do something but if others in the future
don't do as you did, they are getting something "free?"

Why? Because I could hand my wife the checkbook, turn her loose in AES
or similar store, and after purchasing whatever the clerk reccomends,
within a week or two she could be on the air. There really is no
impediment too a person whose extent of rf knowledgfe is that you
recieve by twisting the knob, and to transmit, you push the push to talk
button. There is no technical requirement any more, at least to simply
"get on the air". We have to generate our own requirements.

Okay, begin with some fundamentals:

1. A radio boot camp where all "novices" have to learn to take
orders from their "superior" license class holders, march in
ranks to beep music determined by long-ago-dead-amateurs,
know vacuum tube lore by heart, learn how to memorize all
the radio ads in QST and desire each item.

2. Swear an oath of allegiance to amateur radio and the
constitution of the ARRL, salute each vertical diamond logo
as it passes in front of your eyes. Loyalty, fraternity, etc.

3. Wear cute little radio uniforms when operating, have shiny
radio shields in a special holder giving you "authority"
anyplace. Uniforms are a good place to show RANK and
TIME IN GRADE while "in the (radio) service."

4. Demand immediate obeyance by all "civilians" not in your
"service" as superior in the radio arts. Reject all those
who do not think as you do. Remember that the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution does NOT
apply to citizens on amateur radio matters...unless said
citizen is licensed in amateur radio.

5. Petition the FCC for an immediate change of the HF amateur
radio service to "Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service," or perhaps
"Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society." That way you can keep
the beloved code test and force all in the future to do exactly
as you had to do.

6. Always remember that YOUR efforts in getting that amateur
license were so awesome, overpowering, enobling that the
individual efforts of mere "civilians" not into amateur radio
are forever poor and puny by comparison.

7. Amateurs RULE. Professionals must obey the amateurs.

LHA

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

A. I was discussing the USE of code itself
not the testing. So the last two sentences in
the above paragraph are not relevant to this
discussion.

Isn't this overall discussion about the code test?

The code test is part of it, but overall it is about many of the
technical issues that will shape where the ARS goes in the future.

The CODE TEST is a MAJOR PART of every one of the 14
petitions before the Commission [RM-10781 thru RM-10787,
RM-10805 thru RM-10811].

Everyone's future happens right after now.

LHA






























"today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday..." :-)

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

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

Absolutely. Which is exactly why there is no test of the actual ability to
use those modes - only a written test covering the fundamentals of those
modes and the rules associated with them.

Why is such a written test necessary? The use of any of those modes is entirely
optional.

Morse code should join those modes in that regard.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

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?

What is there to prove?

Prove the necessity for a written test beyond the most basic rules and
regulations.

For example, Technicians are allowed to use all authorized modes on the six
meter band at up to 1500 W output. This includes all modes allowed on the HF/MF
bands. Therefore, the Technician test must, by definition, be adequate to
insure that those who pass it are qualified on all authorized HF/MF modes and
the use of transmitters up to 1500 W output on six meters MHz.

Since the hazards of RF exposure on HF/MF are less than those on 50 MHz, and
the modes authorized on HF/MF are a subset of those authorized on six, it
logically follows that those who pass the Tech test are *mostly* qualified to
operate HF/MF. The exceptions are those few things which are specific to HF/MF,
such as propagation.

But the General and Extra writtens go far beyond HF/MF propagation in their
technical material. Why is that stuff necessary?

Isn't that exactly the intent of the license
exams - the fundamentals of radio and electronics, safety, rules and
regulations, and so on.

Sure. The basics. So prove why the tests must go beyond those basics.

When it comes to Amateur Radio, the FCC is not a
school and nobody graduates with a degree in radio or electronics when
they're handed a ham license.

That's right.

And nobody with a degree is handed a ham license either.

That license exams (and licenses) are simply
entrances into the various levels of Amateur Radio - the real learning comes
with what is done afterwards (operating, building, experimenting, reading,
practice, and the resulting experence from any or all of that).

Sure. So what's the point of all that written testing? Why is a General
qualified to use 1500 W on 14,026 kHz but not on 14,024?

The FCC has
never has never purported, or even suggested, that the Amateur Radio exams,
and resulting licenses, are anything beyond that (only a few self-important
hams have done so).

Yet in the past there have been repeated instances where qualifed
radio-electronics people were needed on short notice and they were recruited
from the ranks of amateur radio.

If what matters is the learning that happens *after* the license is in hand,
why all the fuss about written tests?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

snippage

As anyone who understands formal logic knows, reductio ad absurdum is a
valid
way of evaluating the validity of an assertion.

It works like this: An assertion is analyzed by logical methods, and if the
result is an absurdity, the original statement must be false.

Or absurd! I like to apply this logic to as much as possible in life.
And many ideas do not fare well!

Exactly.

more snippage

Yup. And the way it's being done is a little step at a time - just like
other
requirements were eliminated. Like nonrenewable entry level licenses, tests
conducted by the FCC from a nonpublished test pool, experience
requirements, etc.

And of course there's debate as to whether the old way was better.

As you are well aware, part of the FCC's Basis and Purpose of the
Amateur Radio Service is an expectation of technical learning.

Of course. But does that mean *all* hams must be *forced* to do some, just
to
get the license? Can't technical learning stand on its own merits without a
Federally mandated welfare/support program?

Part of our B&P is public service comms, but there's no requirement that
hams
learn how to do them or participate in them to get or keep a license.

We are
effectively eliminating much of the "skill" reqirements,

I think you mean "all"...

so how hard a
stretch is it to see some element of society arguing to eliminate any
technical knowledge, too...?!?!

More important - how can those arguments be countered?

IMO, the only way to counter them is to attempt a consensus of just how

much "quality" and technical acumen is desired in a Ham.

But even that will not *prove* that the requirements for a license need to be
such-and-so. For example, we can get a consensus that it's desirable for all
hams to know Morse code, CPR, and the formula for inductance of a single-layer
solenoid coil. Does that mean Morse code, CPR, and the formula for inductance
of a single-layer solenoid coil *must* be test requirements? Of course not!

It's what you
and I are doing yapping about what Ham radio might become. It's what
Hans is doing. I don't like everything he proposes, but I could live
with it.

I like some of the things Hans proposes and dislike other things. The biggest
problem I see in his proposals are the

We have to bark about every attempt at reducing the knowledge or skills

needed to become a Ham. We need to also guard against trying to set the
bar too high - though I doubt that that will be much of a problem!

Some say that the bar is already too high. For example, Hans' proposal says
that it's necessary and reasonable for all hams to have to pass the Extra
written to stay on the air more than 10 years, but that it's *not* necessary or
reasonable to require any code test at all.

When a VEC group publishes what they want the ARS to become, and what
they want is a drastic reduction in knowledge, at the same time granting
priveliges for that reduction, we have to yell loud and strong.

I'd say we have to present strong, reasoned arguments.

We have to realize that when we are told to shut up, it means that our
arguments are good, and that "shut up" is the best argument the other
side has to give.

Exactly. Which is perhaps the most important point of this whole exercise. Note
how many times I've been told to shut up about this, called "poster boy for
NTI" and other names, etc. Says a lot, doesn't it?

We have to realize that while we may lose this fight no matter how hard

we work at it, if we sit still and shut up, there is no doubt of the
outcome. Entropy will take over.

Maybe it already has.

We have to get those that believe that Morse code testing should go
away to realize and admit that something must fill the vacuum created by
its elimination.

How?

Many will say that no such vacuum is created, and there's nothing to replace.
Others will say that the writtens are *harder* today than they were in the
past. Etc.

That something could be *nothing*, which results in a
dramatic reduction in skill level.

I've been repeatedly told here that there should not be *any* skills tests for
a ham license.

They also need to realize that there
are people out there who want even less in the way of admission
requirements. "Nobody wants licenses just given away" or the like is a
naive statement.

Sure. And there's also the concept of what constitutes a giveaway. Heck, the
old 20 wpm/5 written test Extra has been passed by several children in their
pre-teen years - how hard could it have been?

Why? Because I could hand my wife the checkbook, turn her loose in AES
or similar store, and after purchasing whatever the clerk reccomends,
within a week or two she could be on the air.

Some would say "That's a good thing!"

There really is no
impediment too a person whose extent of rf knowledgfe is that you
recieve by twisting the knob, and to transmit, you push the push to talk
button. There is no technical requirement any more, at least to simply
"get on the air". We have to generate our own requirements.

And how do you *prove* they are necessary, in a modern-day environment where
even the self-proclaimed "professionals in radio" are using or will use
manufactured rigs that are virtually foolproof?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote:

As you are well aware, part of the FCC's
Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service
is an expectation of technical learning. (snip)


Learning is part of the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service,
not the basis and purpose of the license exams. The basis and purpose of
the
license exams is to make possible the basis and purpose of the Amateur
Radio
Service. In other words, to bring people into the Amateur Radio Service so
they can learn. The real learning comes after the exams in what we
actually
do.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


Wow. Good point, Dwight. Maybe that idea of a term limitation license
makes more sense than ever. I haven't been in favor of it...but maybe
there's a part of it I haven't thought of, such as your comment above.

Kim W5TIT

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:

snippage

As anyone who understands formal logic knows, reductio ad absurdum is a

valid

way of evaluating the validity of an assertion.

It works like this: An assertion is analyzed by logical methods, and if the
result is an absurdity, the original statement must be false.

Or absurd! I like to apply this logic to as much as possible in life.
And many ideas do not fare well!


Exactly.

more snippage

Yup. And the way it's being done is a little step at a time - just like
other
requirements were eliminated. Like nonrenewable entry level licenses, tests
conducted by the FCC from a nonpublished test pool, experience
requirements, etc.


And of course there's debate as to whether the old way was better.


As you are well aware, part of the FCC's Basis and Purpose of the
Amateur Radio Service is an expectation of technical learning.



Of course. But does that mean *all* hams must be *forced* to do some, just
to
get the license? Can't technical learning stand on its own merits without a
Federally mandated welfare/support program?

Part of our B&P is public service comms, but there's no requirement that
hams
learn how to do them or participate in them to get or keep a license.

We are
effectively eliminating much of the "skill" reqirements,


I think you mean "all"...



so how hard a
stretch is it to see some element of society arguing to eliminate any
technical knowledge, too...?!?!



More important - how can those arguments be countered?

IMO, the only way to counter them is to attempt a consensus of just how


much "quality" and technical acumen is desired in a Ham.


But even that will not *prove* that the requirements for a license need to be
such-and-so. For example, we can get a consensus that it's desirable for all
hams to know Morse code, CPR, and the formula for inductance of a single-layer
solenoid coil. Does that mean Morse code, CPR, and the formula for inductance
of a single-layer solenoid coil *must* be test requirements? Of course not!

Glad you brought that up! Article 25, paragraph 6 refers to
administrators verifying operational and technical qualifications. It
refers to "guidance" that can be taken from Recommendation ITU-R-M.1544.
Ouch! "Guidance and "Reccomendations"? What have we here? That
administrations can bend the rules as they wish, with W1AW making
broadcasts, (which I support, BTW) third party operations between
schoolkids and the International space station, just to name a few. So
if they can bend rules, imagine their needed reaction to "guidelines".

I'm saying that the framework for NTI is in place, and no treaty changes
are needed. Maybe that deregulation argument I brough up the other day
isn't so far fetched after all.

It's what you
and I are doing yapping about what Ham radio might become. It's what
Hans is doing. I don't like everything he proposes, but I could live
with it.


I like some of the things Hans proposes and dislike other things. The biggest
problem I see in his proposals are the

Misssd something there Jim! 8^)


We have to bark about every attempt at reducing the knowledge or skills
needed to become a Ham. We need to also guard against trying to set the
bar too high - though I doubt that that will be much of a problem!


Some say that the bar is already too high. For example, Hans' proposal says
that it's necessary and reasonable for all hams to have to pass the Extra
written to stay on the air more than 10 years, but that it's *not* necessary or
reasonable to require any code test at all.



When a VEC group publishes what they want the ARS to become, and what
they want is a drastic reduction in knowledge, at the same time granting
priveliges for that reduction, we have to yell loud and strong.


I'd say we have to present strong, reasoned arguments.

Sure, strong, well reasoned, loud and strong. 8^)

We have to realize that when we are told to shut up, it means that our
arguments are good, and that "shut up" is the best argument the other
side has to give.


Exactly. Which is perhaps the most important point of this whole exercise. Note
how many times I've been told to shut up about this, called "poster boy for
NTI" and other names, etc. Says a lot, doesn't it?

Classic blame the messenger.


We have to realize that while we may lose this fight no matter how hard
we work at it, if we sit still and shut up, there is no doubt of the
outcome. Entropy will take over.


Maybe it already has.

We have to get those that believe that Morse code testing should go
away to realize and admit that something must fill the vacuum created by
its elimination.


How?

Many will say that no such vacuum is created, and there's nothing to replace.
Others will say that the writtens are *harder* today than they were in the
past. Etc.


That something could be *nothing*, which results in a
dramatic reduction in skill level.


I've been repeatedly told here that there should not be *any* skills tests for
a ham license.


They also need to realize that there
are people out there who want even less in the way of admission
requirements. "Nobody wants licenses just given away" or the like is a
naive statement.


Sure. And there's also the concept of what constitutes a giveaway. Heck, the
old 20 wpm/5 written test Extra has been passed by several children in their
pre-teen years - how hard could it have been?

All I can say is that I studied over 6 months to get to 5 wpm. I have
been working now for the past 4 months to get my speed up. I've tried
several different methods, and am just now getting to the point where I
can pick out some of the words on the air. at least an hour a day, seven
days a week doing both computer and on the air, and I still suck. The
only thing that keeps me working at it is the personal challenge.

So while I am happy for those children that have learned 20 wpm Morse,
I have to say that it just ain't the same for everybody. If those rules
from long ago were still in effect, I'd probably have to have a
different hobby! My Novice ticket would run out, and that would be it.



Why? Because I could hand my wife the checkbook, turn her loose in AES
or similar store, and after purchasing whatever the clerk reccomends,
within a week or two she could be on the air.


Some would say "That's a good thing!"

HAH! Some hobby!

- Mike KB3EIA -

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Or absurd! I like to apply this logic to as much as possible in life.
And many ideas do not fare well!

You WANT absurdity?

We HAVE "absurdity", Lennie...

Just look up ANYTHING posted by "Lenover21", "Lenof21", "NoCWTest"
(the old one), "Avery Fineman", etc etc etc.

DOS tip: The FCC determines what it requires in licensing of radio
operators, NOT the "amateur community" or the "communities" of
any other radio service that require radio operators.

The FCC determines what is required for licensing AFTER it asks
the public what it thinks. The FCC is not allowed, by law, to
arbitrarily make those determinations.

You can always petiiton the FCC for a complete change in scope and
description of U.S. amateur radio. I'd suggest you change the name to
"Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service" for below-30-MHz. Make morse the
prime definition of HF amateur radio.

Why?

You continue to make this assinine assertion, Your Scumbagginess,
howevr posts from even the most staunch of CW supportes indicates that
none of them are SOLELY CW operators. Even Larry Roll, who probably
IS the most staunch supporter, has discussed other digital mods at
length.

Your suggestion is therefore an antagonistic swipe at Amateur
Radio and yet another attempt to villify something you cannot or will
not understand.

Considering your alleged and proclaimed "professional" history in
"radio", this is illogical.

Don't try to rationalize a weak argument of yours as "more noble, logical,
in the best interests of the service," etc., etc. by feigning outrage at
"improper acts of others."

Lennie, you should be the LAST person in this forum to insist
someone else "stop rationalizing" ANYthing...you ahve yet to make one
valid argument as to why Morse Code testing should be deleted other
than "no one else does it"...

Don't worry, 981 commenters on RM-10811 (largest number of respondents
of the 14 petitions) have been busy stating things in public.

And those 981 commenters have probably had more of an impact on
Amateur Radio than ALL of your ranting in here, Lennie.

We have to get those that believe that Morse code testing should go
away to realize and admit that something must fill the vacuum created by
its elimination.

WHY?

You are just about to fall over the edge of the "I had to do it so everyone
else has to do it in the future" non-argument.

Again, YOU keep insisting on this "argument", Lennie, yet I've
not seen a single person utter that sentiment.

Why do YOU keep insisting on it when it's a non-argument?

That something could be *nothing*, which results in a
dramatic reduction in skill level.

"Dramatic?!?!?" Only if you are a morseman is such a thing "dramatic."

The second-most used method of international communications IS
dramatic, Lennie. It is the only other real-time mode Amateurs can
use that allow persons of disimilar (sp?) languages to communicate,
even on a very basic level.

:-)

Laugh at yourself, Lennie...We're certainly laughing at you.

They also need to realize that there
are people out there who want even less in the way of admission
requirements. "Nobody wants licenses just given away" or the like is a
naive statement.

Translation: You had to do something but if others in the future
don't do as you did, they are getting something "free?"

Yet another statement against adequate testing requirements,
technical, operational, or otherwise.

Why? Because I could hand my wife the checkbook, turn her loose in AES
or similar store, and after purchasing whatever the clerk reccomends,
within a week or two she could be on the air. There really is no
impediment too a person whose extent of rf knowledgfe is that you
recieve by twisting the knob, and to transmit, you push the push to talk
button. There is no technical requirement any more, at least to simply
"get on the air". We have to generate our own requirements.

Okay, begin with some fundamentals:

1. A radio boot camp where all "novices" have to learn to take
orders from their "superior" license class holders, march in
ranks to beep music determined by long-ago-dead-amateurs,
know vacuum tube lore by heart, learn how to memorize all
the radio ads in QST and desire each item.

Sheesh...here we are with the "march in ranks" crap again.

I bet Mrs. Lennie has one of those Nazi sex-slave outfits like
Madelin Kahn wore in "High Anxiety", huh Lennie...???

2. Swear an oath of allegiance to amateur radio and the
constitution of the ARRL, salute each vertical diamond logo
as it passes in front of your eyes. Loyalty, fraternity, etc.

You do have a thing for "swearing" about or over things, don't
you.

3. Wear cute little radio uniforms when operating, have shiny
radio shields in a special holder giving you "authority"
anyplace. Uniforms are a good place to show RANK and
TIME IN GRADE while "in the (radio) service."

Digging yourself into the "scumbag" hole, Lennie.

4. Demand immediate obeyance by all "civilians" not in your
"service" as superior in the radio arts. Reject all those
who do not think as you do. Remember that the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution does NOT
apply to citizens on amateur radio matters...unless said
citizen is licensed in amateur radio.

The First Amendment applies to the Government enacting laws
against free speech in the press...NOT citizens.

So much for all that night school you are alleged to have taken.

5. Petition the FCC for an immediate change of the HF amateur
radio service to "Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service," or perhaps
"Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society." That way you can keep
the beloved code test and force all in the future to do exactly
as you had to do.

Discussed above, and still as irrelevent as then too...

6. Always remember that YOUR efforts in getting that amateur
license were so awesome, overpowering, enobling that the
individual efforts of mere "civilians" not into amateur radio
are forever poor and puny by comparison.

As compared to what tests YOU have taken in the Amateur Radio
Service, Lennie...?!?!

7. Amateurs RULE. Professionals must obey the amateurs.

Nope...as you pointed out, the FCC RULES...And EVERYONE must
obey. Too bad you haven't gotten this figured out yet Lennie.

LHA

(L)ying (H)am-baiting (A)ntagonist

I like "PUTZ" better...it's so "you"...

Steve, K4YZ

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

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

Absolutely. Which is exactly why there is no test of the actual ability to
use those modes - only a written test covering the fundamentals of those
modes and the rules associated with them.

Why is such a written test necessary? The use of any of those modes is
entirely optional.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Circularity. USE of morse code is ALSO optional
yet the manual, "receive-by-ear" code test remains.

You are trying to have it both ways and knot yourself up...


Morse code should join those modes in that regard.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Amazing for you to admit that. :-)

The FCC has
never has never purported, or even suggested, that the Amateur Radio exams,
and resulting licenses, are anything beyond that (only a few self-important
hams have done so).

Yet in the past there have been repeated instances where qualifed
radio-electronics people were needed on short notice and they were recruited
from the ranks of amateur radio.

Time today is NOT the "past" and the rest of the radio world has
advanced beyond hanging a carbon microphone in an antenna
lead and saying it is a "voice transmitter." :-)


If what matters is the learning that happens *after* the license is in hand,
why all the fuss about written tests?

Tsk, tsk, tsk...back to the circularity again (you are going around in
circles vainly trying to "prove you are right" and you aren't...).

The FCC determines what THEY need in ANY radio operator license
or station license. The "amateur community" doesn't license anyone.
U.S. radio amateurs are still free to make their desires known to the
Commission...as are any U.S. citizens, licensed or not, in any civil
radio service.

Amateur radio licensing is just a regulatory tool of the FCC. It isn't
some kind of certificate of achievement like a degree, diploma, etc.
Neither is it some "pass" into a New Lifestyle. It is nothing more than
a permission to legally operate by certain allocated modes in certain
allocated frequency bands. Your "lifestyle" commentary is just your
own, not some divine dictate of morals or ethics in an avocation. If
you want to live, breathe, give over your life to amateurism, that is
your personal choice and yours alone. You have NO "right" to
determine what others "should" enjoy or disagree...despite an
insistence that you wish to dictate.

The FCC makes on-off keying CW mode OPTIONAL to U.S. radio
amateurs. Yet the morse code test remains a NON-option for any
amateur license class having below-30-MHz transmitting privileges.
That is logically incompatible.

If the morse code test "must" stay, then the optionality of on-off
keying morse code mode should be removed. If the option of using
on-off keying remains, the morse code test should be removed.

To paraphrase Apollo 13 Flight Director Gene Kranz, "Option is not
a failure."

LHA

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

So, "real" radio operating experience can ONLY be done in
AMATEUR radio?

No...But AMATEUR RADIO OPERATING can only be learned by practical
experience in the AMATEUR RADIO service. I can TELL you what othes
"say" about being a maritime operator, etc, but without that bit of
on-hands experience, it's just a story being re-told...

Kinda like YOUR posts on just about everything from Amateur
Radio, to aerial navigation, to child rearing, Lennie.

Ya PUTZ.

Steve, K4YZ