Mike Coslo wrote:

Don't know if you read the other post I wrote on the subject in a
different thread, but I'll repeat it here.

In trying to figure out just where this canard came from, sfter my
investigation into why the "old tests were so much harder", I came to
the conclusion that they weren't more difficult.

So where the discrepancy?

Mike, there is none.

My theory is that when these old timers took the test, they weren't
all that knowlegable. So those tests were harder for them. During their
post-test lifetime, they learned more, and became more experienced.

I've said as much before, but perhaps not as clearly.

But they forgot that they learned all that stuff, and in the
crankiness that middle aged men can fall prey to, suddnely expect that
all the new hams should know aht they do now.

Some of these guys wished they were middle aged...

Regardless, either they've spent a lifetime in the industry, or a
lifetime as an amateur, and would like to think that everything they
know now was on the tests they took 30 years ago. It was not. And
they didn't know it back then.

I also suspect it doesn't matter. They don't dislike the new hams
because they are dumb or less qualified, they dislike new things.

IS THIS THE SAME MIKE COSLO THAT USED TO POST HERE???

Is someone forging your name and email address???

They do like new things when they emulate old things, such as the $350
jewelled Morse Code Keys, and No-Code Technicians like Val Germann who
bash no-coders who have no intention of learning the code.

snip

I don't really have any problems with levels of "ability" and goals
such as DX awards or contesting. I do have problems with superior hams.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

I don't have a problem with people who achieve a lot.

Forget license class... what did you actually do with your license?