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.

Alun:

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

If there had been no code test, then there would have been no problem,
period. Ergo, you are incorrect.


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.

I'm sure I have some small residual glimmer of aptitude for all manner of
things that I am no bloody good at. For example, I can swim, albeit just
barely, but I am obviously a poor candidate for an olympic swimming team
position! In the same way, having been able to tell the difference between
'name is Frank' and 'name is Hank' at 13 and 20 wpm, after 23 years (up to
that point) of attempting to learn the Morse code, doesn't mean that I
would be a good choice to man a CW station in a contest.

However, it was your negative attitude toward it which truly got in
your way.


Where there is no interest, progress is usually poor. Ask any teacher.

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.

And no doubt macrame and ornithology as well, but what would be the point?

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.


No, and yes, respectively.

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.

No, the point is that I was so bad that I needed help. You insist on
missing that point as it doesn't agree with your views.

This comes down to a much more fundamental debate that takes the
discussion away from Morse Code. Namely, the old one about 'nature v.
nurture'. I lean heavily towards the nature end of the scale. That is I
beleive that 9/10ths of our abilities are innate. It is posssible for
innate talents to fail to be developed. It is also possible for people to
overcome their lack of talent in many areas, often only with a great deal
of effort.


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.


Luckily, there is no requirement for pro-code brainwashing to hold an
amateur radio licence! (although some expend all possible efforts to do
so).

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.

Whereas I have never found that to be a problem.

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.

Amateur radio is not a productive use of my time. That is one of it's best
qualities.

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.

The only problem from my point of view was passing code, and that I have
overcome. I no longer have a problem, except from your point of view.

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




St Paul experienced an epiphany on the road to Damascus, so we are told.
However, although we are both in the Amateur Radio Service, of the two of
us only you are in the Morse Code Religion. My 'problem', which is no
problem for me, is only that I have not seen the light.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

St Paul experienced an epiphany on the road to Damascus, so we are told.
However, although we are both in the Amateur Radio Service, of the two of
us only you are in the Morse Code Religion. My 'problem', which is no
problem for me, is only that I have not seen the light.

Alun, I saw the light.

Many years ago.

A small light, flickering in the growing wind of many other faster, better,
easier-to-use modes.

It went out.

LHA