If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:32:21 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:16:21 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:39:45 -0400, wrote:

your effort to smeear anybody that disagrees with you not withstanding
or indeed if you succeeded in producing a test I could not pass you
would exclude a lot of people besides me and kill the ARS

you reply which had zero relavance to my statement clipped

I hope you enjoyed arguing with yourself.

My statement if you enacted a standard that would in fact keep me from
passing, that would kill the ARS.

You're not that important, Markie. Or that well educated that if you
couldn't pass a test, very few others could.

That sort would require far more
than merely adding schamtics or going to short answer questions. it
would involved a test that would serious chalange Cecil and Len
Anderson both RF engineers, doing that would kill the ars as would the
asiine proposals of Mr Slow Code and many others

your notions are simplely not exexutable in anything like the current
sytem

Since you couldn't pass a final in a high school physics class, you
aren't qualified to determine what someone with an earned EE could or
couldn't do. As one who earned mine, I am.

the notion that multible guess is acceptable for pilots and drivers
(amoug others) but ham radio ops is silly

So you don't understand the difference between "choice" and "guess".
We'll just add that to the *L*O*N*G* list of things you don't
understand.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 20:54:01 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Like it was "killed" all through the 30s, 40s, 50, 60s, etc.? Code
was required, as was drawing schematics. Yet there were more hams
every year than there were the year before. You have a strange
concept of "kill".

Following your line of reasoning, skill with buggy whips
should be part of the requirements for a driver's license.

For driving a four-in-hand, it should be. There's a keyer in my
fairly new rig.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On 14 Aug 2006 13:58:41 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

and sewing skill for a pilots license after all canvas was once prime
plane covering

Let's add "doesn't understand the difference between 'constructing'
and 'piloting'".

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:33:15 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:17:07 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

You don't even know what an incompetent response is, so how can you
comment on it?\

it is like pron I can't define it but I know it when I see it

it works for the law on Pornographic materail

No, actually the SCOTUS said that it DOESN'T work, which is why they
came up with a definition.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:41:18 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:22:13 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:47:21 -0400, wrote:

"When I robbed a man at the age of 15, I wasn't arrested." Does that
make robbery legal? Your experience is only that - your experience,
it's not definitive.

impling that Cecil stole his license by passing the tests of the day

Not even close, but your accusation is close to being libelous.

the accusation is your not mine

Your accusation that I implied that Cecil stole his license is mine?
Not in this universe.

YOU want the license as some sort of badge of honnor

No, I want it to mean what it meant for decades - that the holder had
demonstrated a certain level of knowledge.

it has never meant that, not as a matt r of law

Just as a matter of fact (before you were aware of ham radio), not in
law. Now it doesn't mean anything in fact, just in law.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:41:50 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:30:02 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:54:10 -0400, wrote:

not in my opinion which for the pruposes of posting is all that counts

No, actually, "for the purposes of posting", your opinion doesn't
count at all to most people.
you knwo you efforts are getting boring

Then ... what's your famous line? Oh, yes, bail, Markie.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:43:20 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:31:29 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:55:07 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:12:21 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

Sorry, I don't share your religious incredulity. I don't recognize
"sin" as anything but a nonsense word.

you certainly a polite ham ....NOT

Is that religious bigotry I'm hearing, Mark? "Accept my beliefs as
fact or be labeled impolite"?
if you are hearing anything seek medical help most like
but you are misreading the stament

You called me impolite because of my religious view.

you can politely disagree with re;ligoous beliefes without labeling
them as nonsense

I didn't label any religious belief as nonsense - that's in your head,
because you don't understand English.

it is not polite to label such thigs as nonsense

It's not impolite to label nonsensical things as nonsense.

if you were polite youd know that

If you were at least a tad intelligent, you'd know a lot that you
don't know now.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:33:50 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:02:16 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:55:58 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

No, I'm wishing that every amateur radio operator had
an above average IQ.

Easy solution - only award licenses to those with above average IQs.

only if you throw away a little document like the constitution

So we have to give everyone a driver's license, even those who can't
drive? And let everyone vote, even those who are mentally
incompetent? No discrimination based on anything?

The Constitution doesn't prevent us from imposing standards, Markie.
And the law certainly doesn't guarantee that we're all equal, only
that we all be given equal opportunity to EARN what we want. There's
no Constitutional guarantee that the government will give us
everything we want, or that it can't treat different people in
accordance with those differences.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:16:54 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:


I'm not sure where you're coming from with "these" statements.............

today theere is NO requirement for CW testing. It is not needed that I
know CW in order to operate at all. Indeed even if we don't stick to
band plans I don't need to be able read a CW signal to know it is
there, and reconize the frequency is in use

UNTIL the Code requirement is abolished for good - which to my
recollection - it has not for U.S. hams (yet), then to get on H.F. you most
certainly are required to pass the 5 WPM code exam.

no harm will result if I don't know Morse code many hams ven now on HF
don't know it well enough to use indeed there was never a test to
determine if we could use it on the air at all


Also, I think if you read Part 97 - you may be surprised. VEs can give
either a receiving test OR "sending" test. USUALLY (most of the time) - it
is a "receiving" test. Whatever it takes for them to have "the examinee"
prove his/her knowledge of the code at 5 WPM. For example, you could claim
tone deafness to me - ok - so instead of "receiving" the code, I could have
you "send" the code. Before the code dropped to 5 WPM - you could get a
doctor to sign a waiver and you got code credit. BUT once the code was
dropped, so too were the waivers. I know it may sound hokey to have you
"send" code if you claim tone deafness, but the other options are a buzzer
sending YOU the code - you decipher - or a flashing light or whatever. AND
the FCC stated to the VEs that THOSE claiming handicaps are the ones
responsible for supplying the equipment to enable them to have every
reasonable chance of passing. Also, that code test "could" be broken down
into segments. Instead of playing a tape with a full message as you would to
most applicants, the VEs could break it down in segments of letters, words,
sentences at a time for someone with severe handicaps. WHATEVER was able to
give that applicant every reasonable chance of passing without much stress.
Argue that with THEM - "I" didn't make the rules.

So, just when was it that CODE was "abolished" as an "Exam" requirement?
Maybe I missed some mail from the VECs and FCC to tell me to quit testing
for 5 WPM code to get on H.F. ........... You give me a date that it went
into effect, and I'll retract my post.............

L.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:08:35 -0400, "L." wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:16:54 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:


I'm not sure where you're coming from with "these" statements.............

today theere is NO requirement for CW testing. It is not needed that I
know CW in order to operate at all. Indeed even if we don't stick to
band plans I don't need to be able read a CW signal to know it is
there, and reconize the frequency is in use

UNTIL the Code requirement is abolished for good -
the is no need or proper reason if you prefer that wording
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

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


OK, I'll buy that - but again, until the code {exam} is "ABOLISHED" - we are
"required" to have it for H.F. I WILL agree, once many pass their code
exams, they never see a key or listen to a code tape - again...........

For what it is worth and THIS I've not kept up with - I have heard that
there is a move afoot - by the FCC themselves - to abolish the code
requirement. For some strange reason, September or October of this year
comes to mind. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

L.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
 

Al Klein wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Those trying to eliminate the code requirement are the ones trying to
alter history.

The past cannot be altered. Only the present, which is not
history, can be altered.

WOW! Did you come up with that with no outside help? (I'm not
overwhelmed - I'm not even whelmed.)

You are the one who suggested above that it is possible
to alter the past, i.e. "alter history".
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
 

Al Klein wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Following your line of reasoning, skill with buggy whips
should be part of the requirements for a driver's license.

For driving a four-in-hand, it should be. There's a keyer in my
fairly new rig.

Get you a four-on-the-floor Mustang and beat it with a
buggy whip to make it go faster?

And Real Hams use straight keys to key cathodes, not some
computer assisted solid-state modern electronic crap.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
 

Al Klein wrote:
Your accusation that I implied that Cecil stole his license is mine?
Not in this universe.

Who was it who said a Conditional exam taken away
from an FCC office probably involved cheating?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:44:51 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:41:34 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

Or typed something that was beyond your comprehension - a double
negative.

which is gramticaly incorect so you would NNOT do that

Says who?

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On 14 Aug 2006 18:42:55 -0700, "
wrote:

From: Al Klein on Sun, Aug 13 2006 9:15 pm
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner, rec.radio.swap


On 12 Aug 2006 18:58:18 -0700, "an old friend" wrote:
wrote:
How did capacitors escape getting color coded?
ssshhhhh bb don't ask such questions please

Since a) you don't know the answer and b) they didn't.

Klein, you said you were an OF. Any olde-fahrt ought to KNOW that
silver-mica capacitors were color-dot-coded for about a quarter
century. [look in the 1976 ARRL Handbook] Those flat cases
were eventually displaced by dipped silver-mica.

Paper tubular capacitors in molded plastic tubular casings were
marked with color bands and were on the market for at least
15 years, maybe 20...until aced out by ceramic disc capacitors
for general bypassing and coupling applications (by both tube
and transistor architecture electronics).

ANYONE with hands-on experience in electronics between 1950
and about 1970 would KNOW that. [okay, folks, looks like
there's another imposter here...at least this one isn't
trying to pass hisself off as some marine NCO...:-)

Try reading what I wrote. "They didn't" ... "escape". Looks like the
impostor (as far as understanding simple English) isn't me.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:49:43 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:43:48 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

Are you telepathic? No? Then you can't know what I think.

where is your proof

That you're not telepathic? I don't need any - either you aren't
telepathic or you aren't on the planet legally.

without proving that I am not a telpath or simply smarter than you you
can't proove that assertion

No matter how smart you are, I still know what I think better than you
do You'd realize that if you were as smart as the average human
adult.

Indeed I asert the claim you can't know what you think, anymore than I
can. based on science the human often decieves itself therfore you
don't know in many cases what you truly think, anymore than I know
what I truely think

Solipsism is its own defeat, and that comes awfully close.

That I don't understand isn't.

prove that assertion

I made the assertion. (Figure that one out.)

you can't
So what you think is incorrect and that's another fact.
maybe it is incorrect maybe it isn't that is the fact
you can not prove otherwise

By any standard definition, the proof is by definition.

you are worng it becoming hazing when the subject of the test is
unrelated to the prevlegdes it grannts

Nope - it's just a poor test. Hazing is something entirely different.

hazing is in the ye of the beholder

No, words have actual meanings sometimes.
yes they do

your point?

You mean the one you missed? Again?

do you have anything cogent to say?

Cogent in your eyes, no, since you and cogency have never met.

always the personal attack such a weak case you must have

In response to a personal attack there's nothing wrong with a personal
rejoinder.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 03:48:18 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Those trying to eliminate the code requirement are the ones trying to
alter history.

The past cannot be altered. Only the present, which is not
history, can be altered.

WOW! Did you come up with that with no outside help? (I'm not
overwhelmed - I'm not even whelmed.)

You are the one who suggested above that it is possible
to alter the past, i.e. "alter history".

Keep going, Cecil, they'll name a book of aphorisms after you
eventually.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 03:57:07 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Following your line of reasoning, skill with buggy whips
should be part of the requirements for a driver's license.

For driving a four-in-hand, it should be. There's a keyer in my
fairly new rig.

Get you a four-on-the-floor Mustang and beat it with a
buggy whip to make it go faster?

Markie? Get out of Cecil's head.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 03:59:46 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Your accusation that I implied that Cecil stole his license is mine?
Not in this universe.

Who was it who said a Conditional exam taken away
from an FCC office probably involved cheating?

I don't know. You?

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

L. wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:08:35 -0400, "L." wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:16:54 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:


I'm not sure where you're coming from with "these" statements.............

today theere is NO requirement for CW testing. It is not needed that I
know CW in order to operate at all. Indeed even if we don't stick to
band plans I don't need to be able read a CW signal to know it is
there, and reconize the frequency is in use

UNTIL the Code requirement is abolished for good -
the is no need or proper reason if you prefer that wording
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

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


OK, I'll buy that - but again, until the code {exam} is "ABOLISHED" - we are
"required" to have it for H.F. I WILL agree, once many pass their code
exams, they never see a key or listen to a code tape - again...........

For what it is worth and THIS I've not kept up with - I have heard that
there is a move afoot - by the FCC themselves - to abolish the code
requirement. For some strange reason, September or October of this year
comes to mind. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
indeed that is why many of are here trashing it out one last time

NoCode got real montenum and organzation here t grow in to movement in
part in this very forum

there newpaper articles mention the same timefram and the noocders are
swatting the whinners that would like to try and derail that

L.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
 

Al Klein wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Who was it who said a Conditional exam taken away
from an FCC office probably involved cheating?

I don't know. You?

It was someone who replied to my posting about receiving
a Conditional class license in the '50's. I thought it
was you. If it wasn't, my apologies.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:26:50 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Who was it who said a Conditional exam taken away
from an FCC office probably involved cheating?

I don't know. You?

It was someone who replied to my posting about receiving
a Conditional class license in the '50's.

I wouldn't even think along those lines.

I thought it was you. If it wasn't, my apologies.

Accepted.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On 15 Aug 2006 07:23:50 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

there newpaper articles mention the same timefram and the noocders are
swatting the whinners that would like to try and derail that

Derail what, Markie? Oh, right, the change in the rules. And you
accuse us of being the ones who want to change things.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

Al Klein wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 07:23:50 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

there newpaper articles mention the same timefram and the noocders are
swatting the whinners that would like to try and derail that

Derail what, Markie? Oh, right, the change in the rules. And you
accuse us of being the ones who want to change things.
never said anything was wrong with change per se changing histrical
facts to suit your case is wrong Al but is it what you want to change
that is the problem

BTW why are you such an ill manner lout that you can't address me by
name

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

Al Klein wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 07:23:50 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

there newpaper articles mention the same timefram and the noocders are
swatting the whinners that would like to try and derail that

Derail what, Markie? Oh, right, the change in the rules. And you
accuse us of being the ones who want to change things.
never said anything was wrong with change per se changing histrical
facts to suit your case is wrong Al but is it what you want to change
that is the problem

BTW why are you such an ill mannered lout that you can't address me by
name

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 18:58:18 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

wrote:

How did capacitors escape getting color coded?

ssshhhhh bb don't ask such questions please

Since a) you don't know the answer and b) they didn't.

Develop "b)" a little more.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 18:58:18 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

wrote:

How did capacitors escape getting color coded?

ssshhhhh bb don't ask such questions please

Since a) you don't know the answer and b) they didn't.

Develop "b)" a little more.
he sure turning out like steve

even started following to most of the ngs I like to post in nice guy

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

"an old friend" wrote in
ups.com:


BTW why are you such an ill mannered lout that you can't address me by
name




Maybe Al doesn't like to type dirty words.


Sc

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

slow code wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in
ups.com:


BTW why are you such an ill mannered lout that you can't address me by
name




Maybe Al doesn't like to type dirty words.
well mark certainly isn't one


Sc

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 03:48:18 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Those trying to eliminate the code requirement are the ones trying to
alter history.

The past cannot be altered. Only the present, which is not
history, can be altered.

WOW! Did you come up with that with no outside help? (I'm not
overwhelmed - I'm not even whelmed.)

You are the one who suggested above that it is possible
to alter the past, i.e. "alter history".

Keep going, Cecil, they'll name a book of aphorisms after you
eventually.

Aphorisms are statements of truth, however brief or terse. Do you consider
truth a negative attribute?

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

Rusty Shackleford wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 03:48:18 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Those trying to eliminate the code requirement are the ones trying to
alter history.

The past cannot be altered. Only the present, which is not
history, can be altered.

WOW! Did you come up with that with no outside help? (I'm not
overwhelmed - I'm not even whelmed.)

You are the one who suggested above that it is possible
to alter the past, i.e. "alter history".

Keep going, Cecil, they'll name a book of aphorisms after you
eventually.

Aphorisms are statements of truth, however brief or terse. Do you consider
truth a negative attribute?
he certainly finds it inconveinent at times

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 23:22:50 GMT, "Rusty Shackleford"
wrote:

"Al Klein" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 03:48:18 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Those trying to eliminate the code requirement are the ones trying to
alter history.

The past cannot be altered. Only the present, which is not
history, can be altered.

WOW! Did you come up with that with no outside help? (I'm not
overwhelmed - I'm not even whelmed.)

You are the one who suggested above that it is possible
to alter the past, i.e. "alter history".

Keep going, Cecil, they'll name a book of aphorisms after you
eventually.

Aphorisms are statements of truth, however brief or terse. Do you consider
truth a negative attribute?

If you're into definitions, look up "sarcasm" (which an aphorism
frequently is). But an aphorism can also be an opinion, whether true
or not.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 23:22:50 GMT, "Rusty Shackleford"
wrote:


Aphorisms are statements of truth, however brief or terse. Do you consider
truth a negative attribute?

If you're into definitions, look up "sarcasm" (which an aphorism
frequently is). But an aphorism can also be an opinion, whether true
or not.

do you accualy have anything to say on the topic or just more of your BS

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

an old friend wrote:
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 18:58:18 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

wrote:

How did capacitors escape getting color coded?

ssshhhhh bb don't ask such questions please

Since a) you don't know the answer and b) they didn't.

Develop "b)" a little more.
he sure turning out like steve

even started following to most of the ngs I like to post in nice guy

Signal tracing will show it's the same transmitter.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

From: Al Klein on Tues, Aug 15 2006 5:35 am
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner,
rec.radio.swap

wrote:
From: Al Klein on Sun, Aug 13 2006 9:15 pm
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner, rec.radio.swap

On 12 Aug 2006 18:58:18 -0700, "an old friend" wrote:
wrote:
How did capacitors escape getting color coded?
ssshhhhh bb don't ask such questions please

Since a) you don't know the answer and b) they didn't.

Klein, you said you were an OF. Any olde-fahrt ought to KNOW that
silver-mica capacitors were color-dot-coded for about a quarter
century. [look in the 1976 ARRL Handbook] Those flat cases
were eventually displaced by dipped silver-mica.

Paper tubular capacitors in molded plastic tubular casings were
marked with color bands and were on the market for at least
15 years, maybe 20...until aced out by ceramic disc capacitors
for general bypassing and coupling applications (by both tube
and transistor architecture electronics).

ANYONE with hands-on experience in electronics between 1950
and about 1970 would KNOW that. [okay, folks, looks like
there's another imposter here...at least this one isn't
trying to pass hisself off as some marine NCO...:-)

Try reading what I wrote.

Tsk, Klein, you don't write enough to read. It's all about
implications, inferences, and vague "truths" which don't
establish anything. Then you get ****ed off when others
don't accept your "word" on things.

I will ask directly: ARE you an olde-fahrt? Or long-timer?
If so, HOW LONG?

Try not to be too vague on this. Real truth will establish
your "rep" in here. So far you don't have much of a "rep"
except we all know you are a PRO-CODER.

"They didn't" ... "escape". Looks like the
impostor (as far as understanding simple English) isn't me.

I can't see anyone named "They didn't" in the Google message
list, nor that of "escape."

Simply put, if you can't establish any bona fides for your
alleged long-timerness, I'll just put you in the "imposter"
list. [lots of folks from here in there...]

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 03:57:07 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Following your line of reasoning, skill with buggy whips
should be part of the requirements for a driver's license.

For driving a four-in-hand, it should be. There's a keyer in my
fairly new rig.

Get you a four-on-the-floor Mustang and beat it with a
buggy whip to make it go faster?

Markie? Get out of Cecil's head.
the other standard tactic is to avoid the point

and again why are you such an ill mannered lout that you can't call me
Mark

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
 

..

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On 15 Aug 2006 23:21:32 -0700, "
wrote:

From: Al Klein on Tues, Aug 15 2006 5:35 am
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner,
rec.radio.swap

wrote:
From: Al Klein on Sun, Aug 13 2006 9:15 pm
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner, rec.radio.swap

On 12 Aug 2006 18:58:18 -0700, "an old friend" wrote:
wrote:
How did capacitors escape getting color coded?
ssshhhhh bb don't ask such questions please

Since a) you don't know the answer and b) they didn't.

Klein, you said you were an OF. Any olde-fahrt ought to KNOW that
silver-mica capacitors were color-dot-coded for about a quarter
century. [look in the 1976 ARRL Handbook] Those flat cases
were eventually displaced by dipped silver-mica.

Paper tubular capacitors in molded plastic tubular casings were
marked with color bands and were on the market for at least
15 years, maybe 20...until aced out by ceramic disc capacitors
for general bypassing and coupling applications (by both tube
and transistor architecture electronics).

ANYONE with hands-on experience in electronics between 1950
and about 1970 would KNOW that. [okay, folks, looks like
there's another imposter here...at least this one isn't
trying to pass hisself off as some marine NCO...:-)

Try reading what I wrote.

Tsk, Klein, you don't write enough to read.

I'm not the one who misread "capacitors didn't *ESCAPE* getting color
coded" for "capacitors didn't *GET* color coded" - YOU DID!

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

From: Al Klein on Wed, Aug 16 2006 6:15 pm

On 15 Aug 2006 23:21:32 -0700, "
wrote:
From: Al Klein on Tues, Aug 15 2006 5:35 am
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner, rec.radio.swap
wrote:
From: Al Klein on Sun, Aug 13 2006 9:15 pm
On 12 Aug 2006 18:58:18 -0700, "an old friend" wrote:
wrote:
How did capacitors escape getting color coded?
ssshhhhh bb don't ask such questions please

Since a) you don't know the answer and b) they didn't.

Klein, you said you were an OF. Any olde-fahrt ought to KNOW that
silver-mica capacitors were color-dot-coded for about a quarter
century. [look in the 1976 ARRL Handbook] Those flat cases
were eventually displaced by dipped silver-mica.

Paper tubular capacitors in molded plastic tubular casings were
marked with color bands and were on the market for at least
15 years, maybe 20...until aced out by ceramic disc capacitors
for general bypassing and coupling applications (by both tube
and transistor architecture electronics).

ANYONE with hands-on experience in electronics between 1950
and about 1970 would KNOW that. [okay, folks, looks like
there's another imposter here...at least this one isn't
trying to pass hisself off as some marine NCO...:-)

Try reading what I wrote.

Tsk, Klein, you don't write enough to read.

I'm not the one who misread "capacitors didn't *ESCAPE* getting color
coded" for "capacitors didn't *GET* color coded" - YOU DID!

Nice attempt at misdirection, but a very old technique. :-)

That sort of misdirection is puerile (meaning childish).
If you have some bona fides on English grammar and some
false idea that ALL must be literal with NO departure from
such literalness, please state them. Otherwise go into
auto-fornication mode since we ain't buyin that, homie. :-)

Let's reprise. First you state that capacitors were never
color coded. You got called on that and corrected by more
than myself. Secondly, you've never admitted being wrong or
corrected. Third, you try to (badly) convince others that
those who corrected your statement are "wrong" or "at fault."

Amazing. You make mistakes and then try to convince all that
those mistakes never happened or that it is "wrong" to try to
correct your mistakes! :-)

Here's some more to chew on:

RFCs (Radio Frequency Chokes, inductors) in axial-lead plastic
tubular packages are STILL marked with color-code bands. There's
a MIL SPEC on that as all "long-time design engineers" should
know; such parts are even used in commercial market electronics.
It's really irrelevant HOW capacitors are marked as long anyone
using them can know their value and working voltage and
tolerance and apply them properly.

There are 7 (seven) amateur radio licensees in the USA that could
answer to "Al Klein." Are you one of those?

I can say without hesitation that I am NOT a licensed amateur.
I am a licensed commercial-professional in radio and have been
so for 50 years, beginning in military 24/7 big-time HF
communications 53 1/2 years ago. I have all sorts of valid
documentation on that and some in here have seen some of that.
Do you have ANYTHING in the way of ID? On the Internet?

Or, are you going to scribble meaningless misdirections in here,
attempting to portray some personal "outrage" for being
corrected? Especially about a well-known electronic component
identification method which you don't seem to know yet others
can verify?

I'll just put you down as an IMPOSTER poster, one of those
wanna-bees who might never have been anything but really,
really wants to be someone. That's up to you. I don't care.
I've seen your kind on the Internet, on the Bulletin Board
Systems since 1984. None have anything worthwhile to
contribute but all wanting to be a SOMEBODY on screens.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On 17 Aug 2006 15:26:18 -0700, "
wrote:

Let's reprise. First you state that capacitors were never
color coded.

No, first YOU misunderstood "didn't escape being color coded" as
meaning "didn't get color coded". Then you tried to weasel out of
looking like the ass you are by looking even more stupid. You're not
worth my time.

plonk