well said lou
take care
Hank
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Louis Kim Kline" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [WestMichiganHams] FCC Eliminates Morse Code Requirement 
(Finally!!)


> Hi Christy.
>
> I for one do not hate no-code techs, but rather feel that by deleting CW
> completely from the Amateur Radio Service, the FCC has done us a
> disservice.  I do feel that it is a skill that still has merit and should
> be recognized as an achievement at some level.  What I will go along with
> is that not possessing CW proficiency should not bar operators from HF
> altogether.  I am okay with that, but I am concerned that the 
> International
> Amateur Radio community has thrown the baby out with the bathwater, and I
> think there is a middle position that is the correct one and far more
> reasonable than either extreme.
>
> I do feel that the U.S. is guilty of dumbing down Amateur Radio as they
> have much of our public education system.  I would feel much more
> comfortable with the change if they had left the requirements in for one
> class of license.
>
> For those who feel that there should be no requirement for CW proficiency
> on any frequency, I will openly disagree, not because I think pandamonium
> will result as some allude to, for I have never subscribed to that line of
> thinking, but merely because it is a worthwhile skill, just as there is a
> requirement for someone taking an Extra class license to know a little
> something about satellite communications.  I've never used a satellite in
> my life, but I am not advocating removing those questions from the 
> question
> pool.  It is a fact that in any learning endeavor, there will be material
> that you will learn, but choose not to actively use.  Because we each
> choose to zero in on different things, that is what brings diversity to
> life.  But if we choose minimalist thinking in deciding what should  be
> required to represent excellence in amateur radio, or education in 
> general,
> then we diminish the richness of what is reflected in our population
> through diminished opportunity.
>
> That is not a value judgement on you or anyone else who is a participant 
> in
> amateur radio, for I truly do not have an issue with those who choose not
> to go on.
>
> I am 46 years old--quite a way from retiring.  I expect to work until age
> 70, so I still have quite a bit of productive time left.  There are things
> that I will not tackle either, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't know
> at least a little something about them.  What I see as a real problem in
> ham radio is that some people have gotten a little mean-spirited towards
> newcomers that have come in under different requirements, and I personally
> think that is the wrong approach.  I am much more a believer in positive
> motivation than negative motivation, and there is a motto that I adopted a
> number of years ago that I try to live by.  I am not always successful at
> it, but I try.  That motto is "Rudeness is never excusable."  Telling
> somebody that they are not a real ham is rude and disrespectful.  The FCC
> decides who is and who isn't qualified to hold a ham radio ticket, and
> while I don't always agree with their criteria, I nonetheless would never
> bring that into the way that I interact with fellow hams of any class of
> license with or without CW proficiency.
>
> I think my concern with the  direction of Amateur Radio is that I worry
> that the pendulum has swung too far, and that CW will be devalued to the
> point where there is no spectrum for it and most people won't see it as
> anything worth striving for, and that would just be a darned shame.
>
> So Christy, I hope that you won't take my disagreement with the present 
> FCC
> action as any indication of what I think of you as a fellow ham.
>
> 73, de Lou K2LKK
>