"Opus-" wrote in message
...
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.


Which is exactly what I said.

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.

Not according to my logic. He met the requirements of the time and you have
met the requirements of yours.

Dee