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

Al Klein wrote:
wrote:
There's a difference between memorizing a formula or method and memorizing
specific answers to specific questions. The former is called learning, and
can be applied to many situations. The latter is called laziness, and
teaches nothing that can be used for any other purpose.

You must be at least 6 years old, Brenda Ann - Cecil can't seem to
make that distinction. :)

So exactly what is the "formula or method" for determining Extra
frequency privileges outside of memorizing them? I was too lazy
to use a formula so I just memorized only what I needed to know
for my Extra exam. I still don't know all the Extra frequencies
for all the bands. Since Extras have all frequency privileges,
I don't really need to know where those frequencies are.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
m...
Brenda Ann wrote:
There's a difference between memorizing a formula or method and
memorizing specific answers to specific questions. The former is called
learning, and can be applied to many situations. The latter is called
laziness, and teaches nothing that can be used for any other purpose.

That is just hair-splitting. For instance, the first question
in my 2000 Extra Class License Manual is: What exclusive
frequency privileges in the 80-meter band are authorized to
Extra class control operators?

Of the four choices, the correct answer is 3500-3525 kHz.

Now what formula or method will yield the correct answer?
I simply memorized that specific answer to that specific
question. The moral is: "Work smarter, not harder!"
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

In the example YOU give - Cecil - it could be taken either way. In the case
of the "frequencies" you're to operate on for a given license and band -
YES - you could simply "memorize" (not really commit to memory) those
frequencies - for the exam purposes and just refer to a chart from there in.
OR you COULD "memorize" them (actually committing to memory) for the purpose
of NOT having to use a chart! However, once you use those frequencies after
a while - especially if active - then you "would" tend to "memorize" (for
life) those frequencies. Yes, it is definately splitting hairs!

L.

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

L. wrote:
Laziness gets you no where - fast.

Laziness allows one to achieve a goal by the most efficient
route. Some famous German military leader said he would
lots rather have brilliant and lazy officers than ambitious
and stupid ones. I personally would rather see brilliant
and lazy amateur radio operators than ambitious and stupid
ones hanging on for dear life to an obsolete testing
requirement.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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

L. wrote:
YES - you could simply "memorize" (not really commit to memory)

Here's the crux of your communications problem. From Webster's:
"memorize - to commit to memory". *Everything* that one
memorizes is the act of committing something to memory. You
definitely need to pick a different word than "memorize"
to describe the concept you are trying to present. Memorizing
is how human beings remember things and it is a good thing.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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

Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 18:51:28 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

I think I know what I'm claiming a little better than you do.

not likely

Very juvenile of you.
exactly on point

you can't even semem to make up your mind what you are claiming

your beef has nothing to do with the tests it is to do with end of the
Hazing ritual that is a bout to occour

There's a hazing rule in ham radio? Since when?
sure there is it is called Morse Code testing

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

Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 02:16:22 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Showing that you DON'T know the difference.

I personally don't care why the unit of resistance
is named the ohm.

Which has nothing to do with the discussion.
no it is part of the very core

at some level all you can do a merorize

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

Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 02:18:17 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
One doesn't, but "first principles" has nothing to do with this
discussion - a fact you still don't understand.

There's two ways to learn: 1. Memorize knowledge, 2. develop
knowledge from first principles.

Which has nothing to do with the difference between memorizing answers
and learning theory.
sure it does
it is the very core of it

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

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
m...
L. wrote:
YES - you could simply "memorize" (not really commit to memory)

Here's the crux of your communications problem. From Webster's:
"memorize - to commit to memory". *Everything* that one
memorizes is the act of committing something to memory. You
definitely need to pick a different word than "memorize"
to describe the concept you are trying to present. Memorizing
is how human beings remember things and it is a good thing.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Eh, excuse me, it was not "I" who started splitting hairs here with regard
to MEMORY AND MEMORIZATION.
"I" KNOW what "memorization" means - I was using it in the "SLANG" sense
that YOU all are arguing about - memorizing something for just a few moments
of need as opposed to a "lifetime". There ARE "SLANG" uses for popular words
which do NOT coincide necessarily with Webster. Again, it was not "I" who
started this ridiculous argument.

AND for what it is worth - if you're (whoever this applies to) that freaking
lazy to not want to have to "learn" something - then it is no damned wonder
this country is going to hell. The downfall of our Education system begins
with that very principle (refusal to learn). I don't give a crap WHAT Hitler
or some other idiot said about being lazy and smart - if you're lazy - you
are no damned good to society or yourself for that matter. The REST of us
who have to pick up the pace to deal with the slackers. I'll be damned if I
ever hire a "LAZY" smart person. I want a person who is going to EARN their
keep. Sitting there telling me how things should be isn't what I would hire
them for - the purpose is to DO the things as they're supposed to be done.

Working smarter - not harder - is a good concept - but I DO NOT THINK - the
originator of it meant for LAZY asses to be using it as an EXCUSE to not
have to learn. I live by that concept (work smarter - not harder) often but
it sure in hell hasn't stopped me from having to - OR DESIRING to LEARN.

Lou

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

L. wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
m...
L. wrote:
YES - you could simply "memorize" (not really commit to memory)

Here's the crux of your communications problem. From Webster's:
"memorize - to commit to memory". *Everything* that one
memorizes is the act of committing something to memory. You
definitely need to pick a different word than "memorize"
to describe the concept you are trying to present. Memorizing
is how human beings remember things and it is a good thing.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Eh, excuse me, it was not "I" who started splitting hairs here with regard
to MEMORY AND MEMORIZATION.
"I" KNOW what "memorization" means - I was using it in the "SLANG" sense
that YOU all are arguing about - memorizing something for just a few moments
of need as opposed to a "lifetime". There ARE "SLANG" uses for popular words
which do NOT coincide necessarily with Webster. Again, it was not "I" who
started this ridiculous argument.
but you choose to step into themiddle of of your own free will

AND for what it is worth - if you're (whoever this applies to) that freaking
lazy to not want to have to "learn" something - then it is no damned wonder
this country is going to hell. The downfall of our Education system begins
with that very principle (refusal to learn). I don't give a crap WHAT Hitler
or some other idiot said about being lazy and smart - if you're lazy - you
are no damned good to society or yourself for that matter. The REST of us
who have to pick up the pace to deal with the slackers. I'll be damned if I
ever hire a "LAZY" smart person. I want a person who is going to EARN their
keep. Sitting there telling me how things should be isn't what I would hire
them for - the purpose is to DO the things as they're supposed to be done.

Working smarter - not harder - is a good concept - but I DO NOT THINK - the
originator of it meant for LAZY asses to be using it as an EXCUSE to not
have to learn. I live by that concept (work smarter - not harder) often but
it sure in hell hasn't stopped me from having to - OR DESIRING to LEARN.
and nobody but your side has suggested it does

but there still ramins no need for me to ever know the differentce
between a collpitts and hartely occilator. If I should need that
knowledge It sits in the trdh shelf down bout the middle in nice bright
red book I used in college where it describes the difference in detail
"so that the reader my find older reference book usefull" or words to
that effect as I recell

and occionaly I do take it off the shelf and refer to it to exactly
that materail

Lou

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

L. wrote:
"I" KNOW what "memorization" means - I was using it in the "SLANG" sense
that YOU all are arguing about - memorizing something for just a few moments
of need as opposed to a "lifetime". There ARE "SLANG" uses for popular words
which do NOT coincide necessarily with Webster.

Sorry, my unabridged dictionary doesn't acknowledge a slang
definition for "memorize" as it certainly does for other
words used as slang. You really need to find another word
to use to define your concept. You seem to be talking about
temporary storage, the exact opposite of memorizing.

Working smarter - not harder - is a good concept - but I DO NOT THINK ...

:-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp