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

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:21:24 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Here's the crux of your communications problem. From Webster's:

"The absolutely worst source of the definition of a technical term is
a non-technical dictionary. If it doesn't get it completely wrong,
the definition doesn't apply to the technical usage, so it's useless,
except for the incompetent to think they've proved a point."

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

On 12 Aug 2006 10:58:17 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

but there still ramins no need for me to ever know the differentce
between a collpitts and hartely occilator.

There's no *need* for you to even know that you can use a radio to
talk to people.

There's a need, if we want a ham license to say that the holder of
said license has achieved a certain level of technical competence, to
test for that competence. Otherwise all the license says is "I have
this piece of paper with ink on it".

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

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:37:57 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

an old friend wrote:

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

A brilliant lazy person knows that having the answer
within arm's reach is just as effective as knowing the
answer and probably much more efficient.

You conflated "stupid" with "brilliant".

Any knowledgeable person knows that knowledge is valuable for its own
sake.

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

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:33:16 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Sorry, my unabridged dictionary

"Webster's Unabridged" is a trademark, not a claim. It's certainly
abridged.

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

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:12:59 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

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.

As I recall, he was also known as one of the most idiotic strategists
the species has ever produced. His "fame" didn't stop him from being
the almost single-handed reason his country lost its big war, did it?

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.

Being both intelligent and ambitious doesn't appear on your radar?

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

On 12 Aug 2006 10:10:08 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

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

Your claim to know what I'm thinking better than I do? Only if your
age is a single digit.

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

You don't win points by redefining words, you just make yourself look
desperate.

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

Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 14:45:35 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
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.

I do know the difference but the point is that I do not
*need* to know the history behind that particular choice.

Nor does knowing the history or whether you know the history have
anything to do with it.
it simply shows some things are best memorized is all

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

Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 10:10:55 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

at some level all you can do a merorize

The discussion isn't about WHETHER you memorize, it's about WHAT you
memorize.
that is a chnge in tune

oncce you accpet that much of the testing involves memizztion the
question then comes down to where is your beef?
if it is that today we then to use multiguess questions pools verus
short answer of bygone day you likely out of luck the extra cost is not
going to be supported within the present system

I agree short answer would be an improvement over multible guess but
teks you issue up with other don't imply that the ams that have taken
and passed the required tetst have not done what is required

you tread awfully close to libel there AL ask an lawyer if you don't
believe me

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

Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 14:41:33 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

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.

The same hair splitting as the difference between stealing money and
earning it - they're both methods of obtaining it.
again you tread close to libel and flatout insaity

But, since you don't know the difference between "learning" and
"memorizing", nor which subjects fall into which category, you
probably can't see the parallel.
and again

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

L. wrote:
I don't care what "YOUR"
dictionary shows. There are some out there for example which show the word
COCK for example - as a type of Bird OR the preparing of a rifle or gun for
firing and leave it at that - while a "few" others will show the "Slang"
term used - as many do - meaning sexual organ. SO - ALL DICTIONARYS ARE NOT
CREATED EQUAL.

From my dictionary: "cock - 5. Slang (vulgar) a. penis. b. sexual
relations with a man."

Seems my 2230 page unabridged dictionary covers slang very well but
does not have a slang definition for "memorize". Please try again.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp