In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

I eventually passed code in 1993, but if it weren't for the *@#%^&! code
test I could have had an HF licence in 1971.

Alun:

The problem wasn't the "*@#%^&! code test" at all. It was you and your
negative attitude toward it. The fact that you eventually passed it means
that you had that ability all along, and just couldn't actualize it due to
your negative feelings toward taking the test. I know; I've been there
myself. The difference between you and me is that once I learned the
code and began using it, I found it's value. This has served as the
most convincing proof possible that code testing is a valid licensing
requirement in the Amateur Radio Service.

73 de Larry, K3LT

ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote in
:

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

I eventually passed code in 1993, but if it weren't for the *@#%^&!
code test I could have had an HF licence in 1971.

Alun:

The problem wasn't the "*@#%^&! code test" at all. It was you and your
negative attitude toward it.

Only partly true. My negative attitude I freely admit. However, I had no
aptitude for the subject, and still don't. Who knows why I should be good
at science and languages, and yet lousy at woodwork and CW, and yet it's
so. Each of us has innate abilities in some things, balanced by innate
incompetence in others, i.e everyone is unique. I feel that this has been
ignored by the pro-code side of the debate, or rather that it is known
damn well, but none of you will admit it!

It is possible to learn something that one is no good at in order to pass
a test, although unlikely that practical fluency in the skill would ever
be acheived. It is even possible to learn something that one is both no
good at and has no interest in, although much harder, and then the level
of difficulty becomes crushingly hard. This is true of any skill, and
interest is, if anything, maybe more important than ability, but any
schoolteacher will tell you that when neither are present in even the
snallest degree the chance of success is slim to none. So it was with me
and Morse code. I did it eventually, with a huge amount of outside help,
without which I would never have succeeded on my own. The reason I didn't
succeed earlier is straightforward - I didn't get help before.

So there it is. I have a negative attitude, coupled with zero aptitude,
and have never heard any convincing argument in these last 32 years as to
why I should have had to have done it in the first place. Sure, I've heard
lots of lame excuses as to why there should be a CW test, but nothing even
approaching anything beleivable. No doubt CW is very useful, but I am no
bloody good at it, and I prefer to actually _talk_ on the radio in the
first place. That's all. No PSK31, no SSTV, no RTTY, etc. Boring and
limited to some, but if you prefer CW or PSK, or WHY, then you're welcome
to use them.

The fact that you eventually passed it
means that you had that ability all along, and just couldn't actualize
it due to your negative feelings toward taking the test. I know; I've
been there myself. The difference between you and me is that once I
learned the code and began using it, I found it's value. This has
served as the most convincing proof possible that code testing is a
valid licensing requirement in the Amateur Radio Service.

73 de Larry, K3LT



73 de Alun, N3KIP

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

I eventually passed code in 1993, but if it weren't for the *@#%^&!
code test I could have had an HF licence in 1971.

Alun:

The problem wasn't the "*@#%^&! code test" at all. It was you and your
negative attitude toward it.

Only partly true. My negative attitude I freely admit.

Alun:

Stop right there. Your negative attitude was the whole problem.

However, I had no
aptitude for the subject, and still don't.

Incorrect. By your own admission, you eventually did pass the code
test, which shows that you could, indeed, demonstrate some aptitude.
However, it was your negative attitude toward it which truly got in
your way.

Who knows why I should be good
at science and languages, and yet lousy at woodwork and CW, and yet it's
so.

It's still all about attitude. I'll bet that if, given the time and proximity
which
would allow some personal mentoring, I could totally change your attitude,
and therefore your aptitude, toward both CW and woodworking. Whether
you realize it or not, you have that potential within you. You just don't want
to tap into it -- and that's attitude.

Each of us has innate abilities in some things, balanced by innate
incompetence in others, i.e everyone is unique. I feel that this has been
ignored by the pro-code side of the debate, or rather that it is known
damn well, but none of you will admit it!

I, for one, must disagree because I have lived on both sides of this
particular fence. From the time I originally became aware of Amateur
Radio, at age 14, until I finally became licensed at age 28, I had a very
negative attitude toward learning the Morse code, and therefore, I failed
at every attempt to do so. It wasn't until I, through more mature
judgment and some soul-searching, became aware of my negative
attitude toward the code and it's effect on my so-called "aptitude" for
it, that I was able to make the change. I believe this was the value of
the code testing requirement for me, since my desire to be a licensed
radio amateur was stronger than my objection to learning the code.
At the end of the day, I made a turnabout in my attitude toward the
code, and from then on, it came quite easily for me. My experience
led me to become convinced that the code testing requirement is of
great value in getting prospective radio amateurs involved in this mode.

It is possible to learn something that one is no good at in order to pass
a test, although unlikely that practical fluency in the skill would ever
be acheived.

Yet another example of a negative attitude. I overcame this by making
a personal shift in my attitude, and deciding that I would, indeed, become
a proficient CW operator. Once that change was made, CW came
quite easily for me, and even became fun -- to the point where it is now
one of my preferred modes to use OTA.

It is even possible to learn something that one is both no
good at and has no interest in, although much harder, and then the level
of difficulty becomes crushingly hard. This is true of any skill, and
interest is, if anything, maybe more important than ability, but any
schoolteacher will tell you that when neither are present in even the
snallest degree the chance of success is slim to none. So it was with me
and Morse code. I did it eventually, with a huge amount of outside help,
without which I would never have succeeded on my own. The reason I didn't
succeed earlier is straightforward - I didn't get help before.

All of the above makes my point about attutude.

So there it is. I have a negative attitude, coupled with zero aptitude,
and have never heard any convincing argument in these last 32 years as to
why I should have had to have done it in the first place. Sure, I've heard
lots of lame excuses as to why there should be a CW test, but nothing even
approaching anything beleivable.

Obviously, your negative attitude toward the code is deeply ingrained,
but it can still be overcome. However, in the absence of any requirement
for you to overcome it, you will not likely change.

No doubt CW is very useful, but I am no
bloody good at it, and I prefer to actually _talk_ on the radio in the
first place. That's all. No PSK31, no SSTV, no RTTY, etc. Boring and
limited to some, but if you prefer CW or PSK, or WHY, then you're welcome
to use them.

I, for one, found just "talking" on the radio to be quite unfulfilling. Each
QSO became just more of the same old tedious re-hashing of the same
old boring topics -- mainly the weather, the relative health of the operator
on the other end, station equipment, etc. I always tried to make it more
interesting by raising questions about unrealted topics, but it always went
the same way. This, followed by the tendency of phone operators to
make lengthy monologues which made it almost impossible to even
remember what they were talking about, came to convince me that phone
is generally a waste of time. I now use it only in contests and local
VHF/FM contacts, mainly from my car.

I'd say that your experience is pretty typical of most NCTA's. Your
main problem is that nothing happened to change your attitude. Now,
in the future, with the lack of a code testing requirement, there will
no longer be anything there to create the kind of epiphany which
I experienced in learning the code. This will truly be a great loss to
the amateur radio community.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

All of the above makes my point about attutude.


Attitude is the key in almost every endeavor. I've succeeded in a number of
things for which I had no talent but had sufficient reason to pursue. These
include Morse code, music, and karate. I had no talent for any of them but
did quite well simply because I wanted to.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
. com...

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

All of the above makes my point about attutude.


Attitude is the key in almost every endeavor. I've succeeded in a number
of
things for which I had no talent but had sufficient reason to pursue.
These
include Morse code, music, and karate. I had no talent for any of them
but
did quite well simply because I wanted to.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


But, Dee, does that mean that everyone must? I'm not saying you've ever
said that, because I don't know. I just wonder what posture you're taking,
above.

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
. com...

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

All of the above makes my point about attutude.


Attitude is the key in almost every endeavor. I've succeeded in a
number
of
things for which I had no talent but had sufficient reason to pursue.
These
include Morse code, music, and karate. I had no talent for any of them
but
did quite well simply because I wanted to.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


But, Dee, does that mean that everyone must? I'm not saying you've ever
said that, because I don't know. I just wonder what posture you're
taking,
above.

Kim W5TIT

I'm simply saying that lack of talent is not a sufficient justification for
refusing to learn something. I'm saying that motivation is many times more
important than talent. If a person doesn't want to learn something, say so.
Don't try to justify it with the lack of talent argument. I've seen enough
untalented people achieve their goals to have little patience with such
rationalizations.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Very well said, Dee - anything is possible if you want to do it badly
enough.. I am certainly no prodigy at morse, electronics, martial
arts, cooking, business management or anything else - but I have
always been able to accomplish the things that I was motivated to do.
Mind you, it took me until I was 45 to become motivated enough to
learn morse code - but I wanted to get on HF, focused on the goal,
bought some training software online and passed the 5 wpm test four
weeks later. Conversely, I have wanted to learn to play the guitar
since I was a teenager - not sufficiently enough, though, as I never
did do it. Which, in retrospect, is probably a good thing....

Talent has very little to do with accomplishment (it does relate to
the level of excellence that one can attain, but to become reasonably
proficient in anything talent is not a factor), especially in ventures
based primarily on rote repetition like morse, Karate, or learning a
language. Aptitude and motivation, yes, but not talent. Otherwise,
I'd have accomplished nothing so far

Blaming a lack of talent for failure to accomplish something reflects
on a persons' own inability to accept responsibility for their own
actions - successful people, quite simply, go out and get what they
want. Or, in the words of Albert Gray:

"Successful people are successful because they form the habits of
doing those things that failures don't like to do"

73, Leo


On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 15:53:12 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
. com...

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

All of the above makes my point about attutude.


Attitude is the key in almost every endeavor. I've succeeded in a
number
of
things for which I had no talent but had sufficient reason to pursue.
These
include Morse code, music, and karate. I had no talent for any of them
but
did quite well simply because I wanted to.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


But, Dee, does that mean that everyone must? I'm not saying you've ever
said that, because I don't know. I just wonder what posture you're
taking,
above.

Kim W5TIT

I'm simply saying that lack of talent is not a sufficient justification for
refusing to learn something. I'm saying that motivation is many times more
important than talent. If a person doesn't want to learn something, say so.
Don't try to justify it with the lack of talent argument. I've seen enough
untalented people achieve their goals to have little patience with such
rationalizations.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
. com:


"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
. com...

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

All of the above makes my point about attutude.


Attitude is the key in almost every endeavor. I've succeeded in a
number of things for which I had no talent but had sufficient reason
to pursue. These include Morse code, music, and karate. I had no
talent for any of them but did quite well simply because I wanted
to.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


But, Dee, does that mean that everyone must? I'm not saying you've
ever said that, because I don't know. I just wonder what posture
you're taking, above.

Kim W5TIT

I'm simply saying that lack of talent is not a sufficient justification
for refusing to learn something. I'm saying that motivation is many
times more important than talent. If a person doesn't want to learn
something, say so. Don't try to justify it with the lack of talent
argument. I've seen enough untalented people achieve their goals to
have little patience with such rationalizations.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



You mean like becoming president despite a lack of talent, for example?

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

All of the above makes my point about attutude.


Attitude is the key in almost every endeavor. I've succeeded in a number of
things for which I had no talent but had sufficient reason to pursue. These
include Morse code, music, and karate. I had no talent for any of them but
did quite well simply because I wanted to.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee:

Well said. I can say the same with regard to Morse code, music,
cooking, photography, shooting, and any of my other interests. My
"talent" seemed to increase in direct proportion to the amount of
effort I was willing to apply to learning and mastering techniques used
by these activities. A lot of people think that "talent" makes it easy
for people to make certain achievements in their life, whereas, what
they are really seeing is the simple result of strong desire to achieve.
In fact, a lot of people with true, pure "talent" tend to become bored,
jaded, and detached from whatever it is for which they have this talent.
It was that way for me with music. I started on the clarinet, but
quickly learned how to play over 20 different instruments. Therefore,
I must have had some kind of "talent," but the fact that it was easy
for me didn't mean I had any particularly overwhelming desire to become
a performance-grade artist in any of the instruments I could play.
Therefore, I didn't. Had I picked one, stuck with it, and became it's
true master, perhaps I'd be sitting in a symphony orchestra instead
of driving a bus. But sitting in my high school and college bands and
orchestras didn't inspire me to do that for a living. Go figure.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dee D.
Flint"
writes:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

All of the above makes my point about attutude.


Attitude is the key in almost every endeavor. I've succeeded in a number
of
things for which I had no talent but had sufficient reason to pursue.
These
include Morse code, music, and karate. I had no talent for any of them
but
did quite well simply because I wanted to.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee:

Well said. I can say the same with regard to Morse code, music,
cooking, photography, shooting, and any of my other interests. My
"talent" seemed to increase in direct proportion to the amount of
effort I was willing to apply to learning and mastering techniques used
by these activities. A lot of people think that "talent" makes it easy
for people to make certain achievements in their life, whereas, what
they are really seeing is the simple result of strong desire to achieve.
In fact, a lot of people with true, pure "talent" tend to become bored,
jaded, and detached from whatever it is for which they have this talent.
It was that way for me with music. I started on the clarinet, but
quickly learned how to play over 20 different instruments. Therefore,
I must have had some kind of "talent," but the fact that it was easy
for me didn't mean I had any particularly overwhelming desire to become
a performance-grade artist in any of the instruments I could play.
Therefore, I didn't. Had I picked one, stuck with it, and became it's
true master, perhaps I'd be sitting in a symphony orchestra instead
of driving a bus. But sitting in my high school and college bands and
orchestras didn't inspire me to do that for a living. Go figure.

73 de Larry, K3LT


I have seen much the same thing. The talented find it too easy and drop by
the wayside. I particularly saw this in the martial arts. I saw several
students, including some of my own, who could have, if they continue,
dramatically overshadowed me and the other instructors. Yet after a few
months, they dropped out. It was us untalented but hardworking people who
went on to the national tournaments and brought home the medals.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE