On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:39:24 GMT, Opus- spake thusly:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 10:54:45 -0400, "Dee Flint"
spake thusly:


"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. net...
Dee Flint wrote:
The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders appear to
want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or
understanding of the requirements.

Speaking as a ham licensed for 50+ years, I would say a
lot of the divisiveness stems from coded hams trying to
substitute Morse code skill for technical knowledge and
intelligence.

Ham#1: "I've got a PhD in RF Engineering."

Ham#2: "Who cares, I flunked out of high school but
I can do 40 wpm at Morse code. So there!"

Eliminate the code requirement and triple the difficulty
of the technical exams. Problem solved.

Nope, won't solve the problem.

The solution is to accept people as true hams that passed the exams existing
at the time they were licensed. PERIOD!!

The solution is to accept the people who are licensed, regardless of
weather or not you agree with the test method.

My dad got his drivers license back in 1943 with NO test at all! They
just asked him "Are you blind?" He said "No" and the response was
"That will be $1 please".

I got my license in 1978 and I had to take driver training and pass 2
tests. According to some of the pro-code logic here, I should walk up
to him and tell him that he is not a real driver and that I am better
at driving than him. That would go over like a lead balloon.

I forgot to mention that my dad has had a perfect driving record, not
one ticket in 63 years. [yes, I did ask him] As for me, I have been
known to fracture a traffic law or two. I ended up paying a hefty
price for that but my record is clean now.

So, you see, lack of testing did not make my dad a bad driver while
training and testing did not make me a good driver [at least not back
in my teen years]. But then, I am a mechanic and I can rebuild a
transmission in my back yard and you're not a real driver if you
can't.