Ireland
 

good riddance.

Clint
KB5ZHT

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:


EI is the 7th country to abolish code testing by my reckoning

Ireland: Beautiful country, lovely people, but the same dumbed-down
hams! Not to worry, I'm sure us Yanks won't be far behind!

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

EI is the 7th country to abolish code testing by my reckoning

Ireland: Beautiful country, lovely people, but the same dumbed-down
hams! Not to worry, I'm sure us Yanks won't be far behind!
73 de Larry, K3LT

Classic Larry comment :-) :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Newsflash! - Singapore has abolished the code test. Now there are eight.

73 de Alun, N3KI

Great, not much longer and Ham Radio will be CBHAM RADIO world wide

"WA8ULX" wrote in message
...
Newsflash! - Singapore has abolished the code test. Now there are eight.

73 de Alun, N3KI

Great, not much longer and Ham Radio will be CBHAM RADIO world wide

Look at it this way Bruce. It will rid the CW segements of useless trash.
They will all be on SSB. Digital will also be safe because that requires
some intelligence to set up and operate a program. Thus elliminating most
to all of the dumbed down hamsters.

Of course it will be a proccess of attrition in the CW field. Eventually
there will be no one left.

I worry about that as much as I care about 'global warming'. I won't be
here that long.

Oh BTW with the bands so sorry (SFI 97) I notice there is basically NILL
action on SSB. But I hear lots of CW stuff....wonder why that is?

Dan/W4NTI

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in
hlink.net:


"WA8ULX" wrote in message
...
Newsflash! - Singapore has abolished the code test. Now there are
eight.

73 de Alun, N3KI

Great, not much longer and Ham Radio will be CBHAM RADIO world wide

Look at it this way Bruce. It will rid the CW segements of useless
trash. They will all be on SSB. Digital will also be safe because that
requires some intelligence to set up and operate a program. Thus
elliminating most to all of the dumbed down hamsters.

Of course it will be a proccess of attrition in the CW field.
Eventually there will be no one left.

I worry about that as much as I care about 'global warming'. I won't
be here that long.

Oh BTW with the bands so sorry (SFI 97) I notice there is basically
NILL action on SSB. But I hear lots of CW stuff....wonder why that is?

Dan/W4NTI




It's because people convince themselves the bands are dead and don't
transmit. If nobody transmits, then there's no-one to work. Granted the
bands are poor, but the WAE contest, for example, showed it up as a self-
fulfilling prophecy.

Dave Heil wrote:
Alun Palmer wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote in
rthlink.net:


"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:


EI is the 7th country to abolish code testing by my reckoning

Ireland: Beautiful country, lovely people, but the same dumbed-down
hams! Not to worry, I'm sure us Yanks won't be far behind!
73 de Larry, K3LT



Newsflash! - Singapore has abolished the code test. Now there are eight.


Wow! That's quite a policy statement from a country with a little more
than 120 radio amateurs and it comes hot on the heels of the big move by
Ireland with its slightly more than 1,500 hams.

Singapore probably canes you for rules infracttion. Or using bad grammer
oon the air.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Alun Palmer wrote:
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in

Oh BTW with the bands so sorry (SFI 97) I notice there is basically
NILL action on SSB. But I hear lots of CW stuff....wonder why that is?

Dan/W4NTI





It's because people convince themselves the bands are dead and don't
transmit. If nobody transmits, then there's no-one to work.

So only the CW people know this Alun?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dave Heil wrote in
:

Alun Palmer wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote in
hlink.net:


"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

EI is the 7th country to abolish code testing by my reckoning

Ireland: Beautiful country, lovely people, but the same dumbed-down
hams! Not to worry, I'm sure us Yanks won't be far behind!
73 de Larry, K3LT

Newsflash! - Singapore has abolished the code test. Now there are
eight.

Wow! That's quite a policy statement from a country with a little more
than 120 radio amateurs and it comes hot on the heels of the big move by
Ireland with its slightly more than 1,500 hams.

Dave K8MN


I just did a quick recount, and 9V is the 9th country, not the 8th. They
are Switzerland, the UK, Belgium, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands,
Norway, Ireland and Singapore.

The funny thing is the only no-coder I have yet heard on HF was PE1RMZ. I
know that this is a Dutch no-code call from the time I worked PE1DUP
through a UK repeater. It takes time to get on HF I suppose. I was
surprised that no-one appeared to have been ready in advance.

You can try to pretend that 9V and EI don't matter, but look at the bigger
picture. You know where this will all end, and a d*mn good thing it is
too. If it wasn't for the bl**dy code test I would have been licenced and
on HF at 14.

Mike Coslo wrote in
:

Alun Palmer wrote:
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in

Oh BTW with the bands so sorry (SFI 97) I notice there is basically
NILL action on SSB. But I hear lots of CW stuff....wonder why that is?

Dan/W4NTI





It's because people convince themselves the bands are dead and don't
transmit. If nobody transmits, then there's no-one to work.

So only the CW people know this Alun?

- Mike KB3EIA -



If enough people say that conditions are too poor for SSB some people will
be daft enough to beleive it.

If enough people say that conditions are too poor for SSB some people will
be daft enough to beleive it.

Whats the difference most of these New people actually believe they are Real
hams anyway

"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
Dave Heil wrote in
:

Alun Palmer wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote in
hlink.net:


"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

EI is the 7th country to abolish code testing by my reckoning

Ireland: Beautiful country, lovely people, but the same dumbed-down
hams! Not to worry, I'm sure us Yanks won't be far behind!
73 de Larry, K3LT

Newsflash! - Singapore has abolished the code test. Now there are
eight.

Wow! That's quite a policy statement from a country with a little more
than 120 radio amateurs and it comes hot on the heels of the big move by
Ireland with its slightly more than 1,500 hams.

Dave K8MN


I just did a quick recount, and 9V is the 9th country, not the 8th. They
are Switzerland, the UK, Belgium, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands,
Norway, Ireland and Singapore.

The funny thing is the only no-coder I have yet heard on HF was PE1RMZ. I
know that this is a Dutch no-code call from the time I worked PE1DUP
through a UK repeater. It takes time to get on HF I suppose. I was
surprised that no-one appeared to have been ready in advance.

You can try to pretend that 9V and EI don't matter, but look at the bigger
picture. You know where this will all end, and a d*mn good thing it is
too. If it wasn't for the bl**dy code test I would have been licenced and
on HF at 14.

I was licensed at 14 for HF. Why couldn't you do it? You handicaped? Or
just lazy?

Yeah buddy I sure would wait around for decades, feeling sorry for myself,
and joining NCI......sheesh.

Alun Palmer wrote in message . ..
Dave Heil wrote in
:

Alun Palmer wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote in
hlink.net:


"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

EI is the 7th country to abolish code testing by my reckoning

Ireland: Beautiful country, lovely people, but the same dumbed-down
hams! Not to worry, I'm sure us Yanks won't be far behind!
73 de Larry, K3LT

Newsflash! - Singapore has abolished the code test. Now there are
eight.

Wow! That's quite a policy statement from a country with a little more
than 120 radio amateurs and it comes hot on the heels of the big move by
Ireland with its slightly more than 1,500 hams.

Dave K8MN


I just did a quick recount, and 9V is the 9th country, not the 8th. They
are Switzerland, the UK, Belgium, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands,
Norway, Ireland and Singapore.

The funny thing is the only no-coder I have yet heard on HF was PE1RMZ. I
know that this is a Dutch no-code call from the time I worked PE1DUP
through a UK repeater. It takes time to get on HF I suppose. I was
surprised that no-one appeared to have been ready in advance.

You can try to pretend that 9V and EI don't matter, but look at the bigger
picture. You know where this will all end, and a d*mn good thing it is
too. If it wasn't for the bl**dy code test I would have been licenced and
on HF at 14.

How do you reconcile your "plight" with the fact that many youngters
under 14 have passed 20 wpm code tests?

w3rv

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

You can try to pretend that 9V and EI don't matter, but look at the bigger
picture. You know where this will all end, and a d*mn good thing it is
too. If it wasn't for the bl**dy code test I would have been licenced and
on HF at 14.

Alun:

Me too. However, by the time I was 28, I realized I was just being too
damn lazy, got off my duff, and learned the code! That was 22 years
ago. What's your excuse?

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

How do you reconcile your "plight" with the fact that many youngters
under 14 have passed 20 wpm code tests?

AND all the *written* tests.

The youngest extra I know got that license at the age of 8. That was before
restructuring, when there were 5 *written* tests.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

We're talking about two countries
with a little over 1,600 radio amateurs between them.

Maybe you know the answer to this one, Dave:

How many amateurs are there in the 9 countries that have dropped code testing?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Alun Palmer wrote:
I just did a quick recount, and 9V is the 9th country, not the 8th. They
are Switzerland, the UK, Belgium, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands,

Austria not yet.

Unfortunately there are more important issues at the moment,
see: http://tinyurl.com/lmm3 and http://tinyurl.com/nkt0
HF would be worth nothing if this is passed as an EU
directive.

/ralph

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in
hlink.net:


"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
Dave Heil wrote in
:

Alun Palmer wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote in
hlink.net:


"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , Alun
Palmer writes:

EI is the 7th country to abolish code testing by my reckoning

Ireland: Beautiful country, lovely people, but the same
dumbed-down hams! Not to worry, I'm sure us Yanks won't be far
behind! 73 de Larry, K3LT

Newsflash! - Singapore has abolished the code test. Now there are
eight.

Wow! That's quite a policy statement from a country with a little
more than 120 radio amateurs and it comes hot on the heels of the
big move by Ireland with its slightly more than 1,500 hams.

Dave K8MN


I just did a quick recount, and 9V is the 9th country, not the 8th.
They are Switzerland, the UK, Belgium, Germany, Austria, the
Netherlands, Norway, Ireland and Singapore.

The funny thing is the only no-coder I have yet heard on HF was
PE1RMZ. I know that this is a Dutch no-code call from the time I
worked PE1DUP through a UK repeater. It takes time to get on HF I
suppose. I was surprised that no-one appeared to have been ready in
advance.

You can try to pretend that 9V and EI don't matter, but look at the
bigger picture. You know where this will all end, and a d*mn good
thing it is too. If it wasn't for the bl**dy code test I would have
been licenced and on HF at 14.

I was licensed at 14 for HF. Why couldn't you do it?

Because I had trouble learning the bl**dy code

You handicaped?

Only if you include difficulty learning CW

Or just lazy?

Yeah buddy I sure would wait around for decades, feeling sorry for
myself, and joining NCI......sheesh.


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

N2EY wrote:
In article , Dave Heil
writes:

We're talking about two countries
with a little over 1,600 radio amateurs between them.

Maybe you know the answer to this one, Dave:

How many amateurs are there in the 9 countries that have dropped code testing?

176,685 in the year 2000 according to

http://www.iaru.org/statsum00.html

The UK and Germany are the bulk of that number.

Dennis Ferguson

Alun Palmer wrote in message . ..
(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

How do you reconcile your "plight" with the fact that many youngters
under 14 have passed 20 wpm code tests?

AND all the *written* tests.

The youngest extra I know got that license at the age of 8. That was
before restructuring, when there were 5 *written* tests.

73 de Jim, N2EY


They were better at code than I am.

Heck, they were better at code than *I* was at their age!

It doesn't correlate with age, or
intelligence.

There are many different kinds of intelligence.

I could have passed all the theory at 14.

But could you have passed all the theory at 8? I don't think I could have.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Ralph Aichinger wrote in message ...
Alun Palmer wrote:
I just did a quick recount, and 9V is the 9th country, not the 8th. They
are Switzerland, the UK, Belgium, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands,

Austria not yet.

Unfortunately there are more important issues at the moment,
see: http://tinyurl.com/lmm3 and http://tinyurl.com/nkt0
HF would be worth nothing if this is passed as an EU
directive.

Absolutely! We're fighting it to the death on our side of the pond. Go
for it and good luck.

/ralph

w3rv

In article , (Dennis
Ferguson) writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , Dave Heil
writes:

We're talking about two countries
with a little over 1,600 radio amateurs between them.

Maybe you know the answer to this one, Dave:

How many amateurs are there in the 9 countries that have dropped code
testing?

176,685 in the year 2000 according to

http://www.iaru.org/statsum00.html

The UK and Germany are the bulk of that number.

Thanks, Dennis!

Currently there are about 685,000 US hams.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

Wow! That's quite a policy statement from a country with a little more
than 120 radio amateurs and it comes hot on the heels of the big move by
Ireland with its slightly more than 1,500 hams.

Dave K8MN

Wow! You've stated that you've operated from countries where you were
the only active amateur.

Somehow that was significant then, but 120 or 1,500 native amateurs
aren't?

There's that famous Heil smugness again.

Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

Wow! That's quite a policy statement from a country with a little more
than 120 radio amateurs and it comes hot on the heels of the big move by
Ireland with its slightly more than 1,500 hams.

Dave K8MN

Wow! You've stated that you've operated from countries where you were
the only active amateur.

I don't recall making a statement about attempting to influence a
foreign country's policy on amateur radio.

Somehow that was significant then, but 120 or 1,500 native amateurs
aren't?

Yes, it is significant that a country has only one radio amateur.
No, I made no comparison to my being in a unique situation and a country
having a small population of radio amateurs deciding to abolish morse
testing.

There's that famous Heil smugness again.

Not really, my little electrolyte. It is simply you attempting once
again to tie two unrelated events together.

Dave K8MN

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

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

Wow! That's quite a policy statement from a country with a little more
than 120 radio amateurs and it comes hot on the heels of the big move by
Ireland with its slightly more than 1,500 hams.

Dave K8MN

Wow! You've stated that you've operated from countries where you were
the only active amateur.

I don't recall making a statement about attempting to influence a
foreign country's policy on amateur radio.

I don't recall saying that.

Somehow that was significant then, but 120 or 1,500 native amateurs
aren't?

Yes, it is significant that a country has only one radio amateur.

In what way?

No, I made no comparison to my being in a unique situation and a country
having a small population of radio amateurs deciding to abolish morse
testing.

But these countries which have a native population of amateurs should
be allowed self-rule? Why are 120 or 1,500 native amateurs not
significant?

There's that famous Heil smugness again.

Not really, my little electrolyte. It is simply you attempting once
again to tie two unrelated events together.

And you attempting to discount countries with low native amateur
populations.

"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

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

(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.

OK, fine.

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

That cannot be true, or you would never have been able to pass the test at all.


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

Could part of the answer be...attitude?

Each of us has innate abilities in some things, balanced by innate
incompetence in others, i.e everyone is unique.

Where I work, we have the saying:

"Everyone is good at something"

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!

Not at all! People have varying levels of innate ability.

Passing the tests, however, do not require anything like an expert level of
skill, nor much innate ability.

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.

Maybe not. But practical fluency is not required.

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.

There ya go - addy-tood.

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.

If you believe you cannot - you cannot.

Had someone told me when I was growing up that someday I'd complete marathons,
I'd have said they were nuts. Never saw myself as "athletic". Never involved in
sports at school in any way. Did not start road running until 1981. Yet by age
30 I was a marathoner.

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.

OK, fine.

Now take that attitude and argument and apply it to the theory part of the
written test. Keep in mind how many hams today use manufactured equipment, and
how few would actually attempt to repair their gear.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Leo
writes:

Very well said, Dee - anything is possible if you want to do it badly
enough..

Yeah, riiiiiight, "Leo." :-)

Want to be a world-reknowned theoretical astrophysicist? No problem,
just contract some bad neural disease, go to an ivy-covered UK college
and write a few books. All you have to do is WILL yourself...for about
3 millenia. By that time, astrophysics will have become "easy" for you.

Want to be a famous artist and be featured in national magazines even
though you don't have have any art talent at all? No problem. WILL
yourself to draw/paint, spend hours at it...but hire a very good publicist
so you can become a "Grandpa Moses." [we've already had a Grandma]

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.

...or conveniently FORGET those things you were not able 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.

Oh, my. At age 20 I was ALREADY ON HF...and on VHF, on UHF,
on microwaves in Big Time communications before reaching 24...all
without any sort of morsemanship.

At age 26 I thought it might be a fun thing to learn morse code and
get a ham license to augment my First Phone license passed in '56.
Wasn't WORTH it to listen to all that beeping. I'd already done three
years of communications in the US Army, all of it trans-Pacific, all
without using or having to know morse code.

Doesn't make sense to me that, in this new millennium, AMATEURS
still DEMAND that everyone know morse in order to get a HAM license.

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....

What?!? NO MOTIVATION!?! Terrible!

Can't you even do simple chords on a git-box?

I never had that problem. Next door neighbor was a part-time guitarist.
Designed and built a portable amplifier to fit inside his guitar. Not a big
boom-box with 5 KW of acoustic power...was way back in '63 when
guitars were first getting popular. Design from scratch was no problem
for me, nor the hardware. I liked drums better.

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.

HAH!!!!

I happen to have a talent for languages and have the physical equipment
to speak with very little "English" dialect. I know others MORE literate
(through formal schooling) in the same language as I know but have
atrocious accents and can't always form written sentences in that
language. They can spend decades of such study and will never get it
down properly. Not a problem for me.

I just don't see any sense in maintaining a federal morse code test in
this day and age for a HOBBY activity. I've been doing REAL HF
comm long before nearly all of these old-timer morsemen without
needing any HOBBY code test.


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:

Yes, WANT violin playing ability on par with Itzak Perlman badly
enough and it can be done?

WANT to be a baseball great like the Mariner's John Olerud and it
can be done just by determination and practice?

"Will and idea" (and determination) is all that is necessary?

I don't think so.

The existance of the morse code test for an AMATEUR radio license
is NOT some moral bull**** thing of "will and determination." There's
NO divine idea that the morse code test must always be. AMATEUR
radio is a hobby, not a Premium Life Accomplishment.

I think some of you have wigged-out too far and need investigation for
Illegal substance abuse...

LHA

Friendly fellow - the technical abilities of Farnsworth, and the
gentle persuasive manner of Mike Tyson.

But, as Nick Pope once said:

"Minds are like parachutes; they work best when they are open".

Be well,

73, Leo

On 21 Sep 2003 00:33:02 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

Very well said, Dee - anything is possible if you want to do it badly
enough..

Yeah, riiiiiight, "Leo." :-)

snip

"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?

Leo wrote in
:

Very well said, Dee - anything is possible if you want to do it badly
enough..

And if you want to do it badly enough you may end up doing it so badly
that it would have been better if you had not tried!

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

Indeed it does. There are some things that I will never be excellent at,
and Morse code is one of them.

, 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

So you can do anything can you? Do you beat up on yourself whenever you
fail at something? That doesn't sound very healthy to me.

- 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


Fine qualities for a chairman of a Fortune 500 company maybe, but as a
condition for admission into a hobby???


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