Hi Shawn,
Agreed! The challenge is always a matter of retaining our values while
accepting change and retaining a balance between "progress" and "old school
values". Some changes are good and others are not; we all need to
understand the difference. :-)
I love CW, but I firmly believe that the code is just a mode. If the
consensus is to get rid of the code as a requirement, well, it's fine with
me at this point.
----- Original Message -----
From: "shawn klein" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: Morse code
> I did the same in 94, only I copied in my head, and
> got all the questions right. Imho however, if the FCC
> does do away with the code requirements, that doesn't
> mean we as hams have to do away with it. Awards and
> certificates could still be given out by organizations
> like Fists for speed and accuracy. The times they are
> a'chaingen. There was a time in Englend when an
> automobile was restricted to 2 miles an hour in towns,
> and 4 mph in the country, and had to be preceeded by a
> man on foot, holding up a flag I believe. They don't
> do that anymore, lol.
> --- Tom Behler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Well said, Daryl.
> >
> > I did the Extra (the old way--i.e. 20 WPM), and
> > wrote the code out on a
> > Perkins Brailler as it was sent from the exam tape,
> > and did fine!
> >
> > Let's not ask for exceptions and special
> > considerations that don't have to
> > be granted.
> >
> > It does us all a disservice.
> >
> > I suspect that the original question here was asked
> > out of good intentions,
> > but we always have to be careful of the message we
> > inadvertently may send
> > when we ask for such special consideration.
> >
> > Best 73 from Tom Behler: KB8TYJ
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Darrell Shandrow" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 10:04 PM
> > Subject: Re: Morse code
> >
> >
> > > Hi Howard,
> > >
> > > Here's my conditional test for morse code...
> > Morse code is not, in any
> > way,
> > > inaccessible to a person who is blind since it is
> > purely auditory. There
> > > is, therefore, no excuse for a blind person even
> > as much as thinking about
> > > asking for a Morse code exemption due to
> > blindness, and I sure hope I
> > > *never* hear of a blind person asking for or
> > receiving such unneeded and
> > > unwanted special treatment. There are
> > inaccessible situations where we
> > > *must* receive special treatment in order to have
> > equal participation;
> > this
> > > is absolutely never one of those!
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Howard Kaufman" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 6:30 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Morse code
> > >
> > >
> > > > You have to bend over, screech like a monkey and
> > hold your ankles.
> > > > The test is receive only, you have to answer
> > some questions, and it is
> > at
> > > > five wpm.
> > > > You shame your community of blind hams who have
> > excelled at code for
> > > eighty
> > > > years.
> > > > If you can understand the theory, you can
> > understand the code.
> > > > Code is not required for a tech lite ticket,
> > which allows you VHF and
> > UHF
> > > > privileges.
> > > > It may soon not be required for limited HF
> > access.
> > > >
> > > > Equality is taken, it can not be given. When we
> > ask for unneeded
> > special
> > > > treatment we perpetuate a second class status
> > for the rest of us.
> > > > I know deaf hams who feel cw with their fingers
> > or on their ears.
> > > >
> > > > Do you think if a person is learning disabled
> > they aught to get an
> > > > exemption for the theory?
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
|