"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

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

"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