"Kim W5TIT" writes:
wrote:

...If we beefed up the written tests, and eliminated CW, then the
arrogance would remain. It's the nature of the beast.

True, there are always those that are arrogant. However, is it
possible that the CW testing requirement enhances one's tendency to
do that?

I doubt it--people are arrogant that they can drive a stick-shift. I
think anything that takes effort to attain, becomes a point of
pride--even if it's only the ability to spit into a cup without missing.

Barriers to entry have their uses. All the best organizations have
them. Compare CB radio, which has none.

I'd have to see some examples. I was not aware that "filtering" was
that widely in use.

They're in very wide use. The Army has physical exams and boot
camp. These reflect operational needs, but any DI will tell you that
there's more to it than that, and that a primary aspect of boot camp
is the hazing.

Many organizations use rank in this way; the various scouting
organizations, the elks, masons, the Grange, etc.

Many organizations, if not most, have an induction process followed by
a loyalty oath; the masons again, most religions, fraternities, the
Mafia. In the case of fraternities and the like, the induction process
involves hazing and tests of loyalty. In the case of religions, the
masons, the grange, etc., the induction process involves revealing
secrets, along with tests of loyalty. In the case of Mensa, it
involves taking an IQ test. (It should be noted that this tiny
requirement doesn't do much: most Mensa members never attend a single
meeting.)

Those organizations that demand various sorts of effort from their
members tend to receive the most loyalty. (I remember when CB was
pretty clean--even though the required license was a formality. My
parents let us use it freely, and the only problem we really saw was
congestion.)

That's just a piece of rhetoric, used to help justify allocation of
spectrum by a post-world-war congress. Hams represent only
themselves.

Well, I don't take it as a piece of rhetoric. I take it seriously.

I'm glad; it can only have a positive impact on one's conduct. Though
I wonder what your callsign tells our muslim neighbors about America,
ambassador W5TIT? ;-/

Basically agree, depending what "not-so-great" means exactly. :-)

There are those who get all upset over things such as someone saying
"10-4"...

Anyone who says "10-4", and isn't a cop, is a poser[*]. The only
correct response is "Roger Dodger, copy that."

Regards,
Len.

[*] Anyone who spells it "poseur", is also a poser.