karn (03/25/83)
Agreed. CW is indeed extremely useful for small signal work on VHF and UHF: moonbounce and satellite users use it heavily. Dave's comparison to addition and calculus isn't really appropriate, as the point is that the code is not really necessary for MOST (not all) of the work currently conducted on VHF and above, and certainly not necessary for most of the experimental work. I would think twice about calling the case for the code-free license "juvenile". Even disregarding my position in favor of it, I have noticed that most of the OPPONENTS of the code free license are far more emotional and "juvenile" in their arguments than are the proponents, although of course this doesn't constitute an argument in favor of it. It seems we have an interesting situation here: many amateurs fervently support the code requirement as a "test of dedication", while at the same time saying that the code is "so simple that even a Boy Scout can learn it". So its both hard and easy at the same time; which is it? I stand by an earlier remark I made: a lot of the opposition to the code free license is based on a fear of others who might prove to be more technically competent than themselves. These amateurs cling to the code test as a way to "prove" to themselves that they're still somehow superior. Recent comments calling the proponents "juvenile" and "lazy", or mocking them as "experts" or "Einsteins" simply confirm my suspicions. Its sad that people feel this way. Phil, KA9Q/2