**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On 22 Sep 2003 03:03:59 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:


Unfortunately, there is more evidence to support my "feeling" than there
is to support yours. With the exception of hams who were trained in
Morse code by the military or maritime/commercial radio services, I have
yet to meet an avid and active CW user who got that way except through
the code testing requirement. And, for what should have been 14 of the
best years of my ham radio career, I was one of the "objectors."

In my opinion, Larry, you aren't accounting for the fact that the
personality traits of various people differ widely. You yourself chose
to dump your objections. I chose to find another hobby instead, and so
for almost 30 years remained a radio hobbyist active in other
interests but was not part of amateur radio - I thoroughly enjoyed
SWL'ing, scanning, AM broadcast DX'ing, and didn't feel as if I was
missing out on anything by not having a ham ticket.

I also immersed myself in computers as a hobby. That led me eventually
to the Internet which, strangely enough, is what led me back to ham
radio. Vicious circle, that...but fodder for a discussion on an
entirely different topic.

What I'm trying to say here is, for every person who, like you,
decided to compromise your objections, there are who knows how many
others who felt that as a matter of principle they were not about to
waste their precious time learning what they felt was an anachronism,
and moved on to something else instead...a process which continues
today. Each such person represents a potential ham chased away from
the hobby by a wholly unnecessary licensing requirement. This is why
many view it as a hazing ritual. How many licensed drivers would be on
the road today if you had to buy a horse, learn to ride it, and be
tested on your equestrian skills in order to get behind the wheel of
the family bus? Probably very few, and in many cases the reasoning is
probably the same in both cases - i.e., they don't want to deal with a
lot of horse****.

So, as
you say, we can't prove anything now, but I'm not willing to bet that there
will be some sort of "epiphany" among former no-coders to go ahead
and learn the code and become CW operators when the testing
requirement is gone. It just ain't gonna happen!

Probably not, because they already have had the experience of having
been forced to learn the code in order to pass the test, and having
done so, are glad it's over with and don't care if they ever use it
again. They've passed the only code test they'll ever have to take as
long as they keep their licenses current, and are glad to have the
whole ordeal over with, permanently.

Again, no way to prove anything now one way or the other...but we'll
find out if and when the code test vanishes, and we see how many
people licensed without a code test learn the code voluntarily on
account of its merits as an operating mode, absent any lingering
resentment over the licensing requirement or the prospect of prolonged
beatings with the Wouff Hong hanging over their heads like the Sword
Of Damocles when they begin their participation in the hobby.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=