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