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