Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
funkbastler wrote:

... I gotta think that if I managed to learn Morse code, then so
can "they".

I'm sure that drivers licenses applicants can
learn to use buggy whips on their horseless
carriages, but should they be required to?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Try as I might, my V6 won't respond to the buggy whip. Kind of like my
Novice experience on 40M CW.

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Slow Code wrote:
I could support that.

SC

I support licensing for life.

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:06:00 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:

Riding a bicycle has even more benefits so force everyone
to pass a bicycle riding exam.

Only if they want to ride a bicycle.

--
-fb-

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

wrote:
I support licensing for life.

Do you have something against dead people?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

funkbastler wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:06:00 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:
Riding a bicycle has even more benefits so force everyone
to pass a bicycle riding exam.

Only if they want to ride a bicycle.

Absolutely not. It doesn't matter if they want to ride
a bicycle or not. Simply knowing how to ride a bicycle
would be good for them. And if they discovered they
liked it enough to actually ride a bicycle, it would
not only benefit them but also benefit the environment.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

From: Cecil Moore on Sun, Sep 10 2006 7:06 am

Dee Flint wrote:
Someone skilled in driving a vehicle with a manual transmission and actually
using it can reap a number of performance benefits. These include improved
gas mileage, better passing performance, better performance in hilly
terrain, etc. If people were required to learn how to drive vehicles with
manual transmissions, more of them might actually choose to drive such
vehicles.

Riding a bicycle has even more benefits so force everyone
to pass a bicycle riding exam.

Cecil, bicycles (and most motorcycles) need smooth
roadways; it is hard to operate "CW" while mobile and
off-road on a bike.

Now HORSEBACK mobile is the same on-road or off-road. No
gasoline or oil needed nor "gear shifting." Horses can
make "new models" all by themselves, keep themselves
"powered up" without the aid of stations like Exxon, 76,
Shell, or Sinclair. The US Army even had a 'horse
mobile' radio set (1943) to talk while the troop was on the
move. :-)

Everybody ought to learn to "sit" a horse and guide it. :-)

---

Dee seems to have little experience in long-haul driving,
or even short-haul automotive transport. I learned to
drive in a '39 Ford sedan. The first three autos I owned
were manual trans, a Plymouth two-door (came out west in
it), a '53 Austin-Healey roadster (manual trans went
kaput while downshifting on a freeway off-ramp back in
'60), and a Brit very compact station wagon. A whole
lotta NONSENSE to do the clutch-gearshift thing on all
those manual transmission vehicles even if it was easy
for me. NO "performance increase" whatsoever of manual
versus automatic.

Buying a new 2005 Chevy Malibu MAXX with its better
engine system computer allowed us to get 32.7 MPG
(based on both fuel tank filling receipts AND the
Driver Information Center display of MPG) for a 1,900
mile round trip up to Washington state and back in
July this year. That's without using the Cruise
Control (which my wife likes but I don't, driving
over 90% of the time). About 2 1/2 MPG better than
the Chevy Cavalier wagon for the same distance the
year before. MAXX had done almost as good MPG in
September last year on a much longer distance to
Wisconsin, again doing about 2 1/2 MPG better than
the Cavalier over the same route the year before that.

The engine computers keep getting better and better,
some even compensating for the bad habits of some
drivers using the almost-universal automatic. Why
anyone would prefer using a manual or automatic in
stop-and-go city traffic can be summed up as
RATIONALIZATION or braggadoccio by manual trans
owners. Besides, operating "CW" in stop-and-go city
traffic will seriously cut down one's morsemanship
speed with a manual trans. Unless one has a third
hand... :-)

Cell phone coverage is growing, growing, growing.
My wife used the cell for all kinds of calls while
we were moving in MAXX through several states, even
checking her e-mail on AOL! Without any skill at
morsemanship whatsoever, she "worked" her sister
in WA state from the parking lot of a restaurant in
Amana, IA, using the cell phone. :-)

Hmmmm. One out of three Americans has a cell phone
now. Yet, Blowcode contends "everyone has to learn"
morsemanship to have a backup skill in comms? :-)

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
I support licensing for life.

Do you have something against dead people?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

I am against the dead horses these morseman beat over and over.

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:22:12 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:

funkbastler wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:06:00 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:
Riding a bicycle has even more benefits so force everyone
to pass a bicycle riding exam.

Only if they want to ride a bicycle.

Absolutely not. It doesn't matter if they want to ride
a bicycle or not. Simply knowing how to ride a bicycle
would be good for them. And if they discovered they
liked it enough to actually ride a bicycle, it would
not only benefit them but also benefit the environment.

You are absolutely right! Why didn't I think of that? One caveat,
however - they'll also have to pass a Morse code test with their
bicycle horn. (I forget now - is this so they can drive a car or
use the microwave oven?) This is too silly.

--
-fb-

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

So are you saying that CW no longer works? Not to be judgmental, but your an
idiot.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 18:35:14 -0400, "Fred Hambrecht"
wrote:
in the begining it conveyed data other radio radio services as well as
the ars today it does not
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Fred Hambrecht wrote:
So are you saying that CW no longer works? Not to be judgmental, but your an
idiot.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 18:35:14 -0400, "Fred Hambrecht"
wrote:
in the begining it conveyed data other radio radio services as well as
the ars today it does not
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

Even if spelled correctly [you're, not your] Fred is definitely NOT
saying his thing with civility. :-)

Freddie, Mark was saying that - IN THE BEGINNING - ALL radio
services used morse code...and the first US radio regulating
agency wanted all to show competency in this common mode
so that the agency to communicate with all users. That era has
long since passed into oblivion. Just ain't no other radio services
using manual morse code for communications now.