It was written:
>>I hardly think that cw is an archaic mode of communication
And another wrote, in part:
>What do you base that on? I've been licensed for 25 years and have met
>quite a few hams that have remained Techs despite having worked for years
>to get there code speed up to 13 WPM. Most have demonstrated technical
>abilities far beyond many Extras I know.
So then, it is the ARRL's CW mode position, as put forth in their
restructuring
proposal, and the earlier incentive licensing advocacy, that has
caused the decline of amateur equipment vendor's numbers and their
ads to support the editorial content within QST? Interesting
supposed connection, hmmmmm. How many good technical
articles have been submitted to QST for publication by Tech
license holders vs. those of Extra Class license holders --
seeds for another survey of past issues I suppose.
Surely you have noticed that most of the technical material
in QST comes from we amateur contributors, and not the
ARRL staff, save for the equipment technical review
materials. Guess my stuff on advanced techniques
to QRQ CW skills in the ARRL's educational manual
is to be considered also to be archaic, oh well, it
is still a fun mode, and has hundreds, yes
thousands using it about the globe daily. How many
CW operators contacted ZL9CI I wonder? They
logged 90+ thousand QSO's!
73, Jim, KH7M
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|