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

a MENSA
level IQ is worth magnitudes more to its possessor than is Morse
code skill even within the Amateur Radio Service. If all the coded
hams with IQ's less than 100 were transformed into nocode techs
with MENSA level IQ's, the ARS would be much better off and a lot
less prone to silliness. The ARRL might even stop publishing those
gross technical errors, e.g. reflections don't exist.
Cecil

you're trolling, aren't you?

If you truly believe this stuff, you're in sadder shape than I thought.

Your MENSA membership is dreck, dribble, dross. With code, there is, at
least, some grounding in practicality: a real world function.

"Whew! I knew I was a genius but now I have PROOF!" How completely sad.

MENSA has perverted the very nature of IQ in a manner not dissimilar to
the way Home Owner Associations have perverted the notion of individual
freedoms (guaranteed by our Constitution).

Enjoy your little trophy but I'm sure you'll keep yourself insulated
from the derision you richly deserve when you bring it up in this newsgroup.

I can tell that you're not a bad guy...but, the mensa thing makes you
seem, I don't know, ...(fill in the blank)

Be Good.
Hell, be more egalitarian for once in your life!
We all share a HOBBY!!!!

John
AB8O

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

On 12 Aug 2006 15:42:50 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

oncce you accpet that much of the testing involves memizztion the
question then comes down to where is your beef?

Those who memorize answers instead of learning concepts - what you
would have seen at the beginning of the thread had you paid attention.

you tread awfully close to libel there AL

Look up the definition of "libel". Part of it is "malicious
defamation". Calling a penny a cent isn't malicious, nor is it
defamatory.

ask an lawyer if you don't believe me

You need to take your own advice. Also you need to ask an English
teacher - you don't seem to know the definitions of a lot of very
common words.

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

On 12 Aug 2006 15:43:51 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

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

There's nothing either malicious not defamatory in that. ("Who" am I
defaming? "Hair"?)

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

Telling you something true about yourself isn't actionable, unless
done with certain intent, which you'd be hard-pressed to prove.

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

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:13:23 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:24:46 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

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

sure I know better

Then you're claiming to be a child.

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.

no refining word HERE at any rate

If you don't even know the difference between refining and redefining
(they're not even close in meaning), there's no way you can discuss
it. But testing for a license isn't hazing by any accepted definition
regardless of what's being tested for.

you are dancing around sutblies in the menaing of emorizing like mad

In your mind, because you can't understand the simple distinctions.

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

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:10:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:09:02 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

Why don't you stay out of discussions you don't understand? We know
you're a fool, why keep proving it? Read Samuel Clemens, at least.

why don't you stay out of discussions that show so as aold fool not
honest enough he blowing smoke

Parroting what I say doesn't make you look educated.

you are arguing over a difference that does not exist certain not as a
some sharp line

In your mind.

http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

The fact that you posted something on your blog doesn't make it
definitive, or even correct.

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

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:14:08 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:09:47 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:01:51 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

So exactly what is the "formula or method" for determining Extra
frequency privileges outside of memorizing them?

Since frequency assignments aren't theory, your question is both
irrelevant and incompetent.

since feq assignment are large part of the test they go to the core of
the matter

Another case of your commenting on something you don't understand.
"The core of the matter" is the difference between rote memorization
and understanding - which you don't understand.

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

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:14:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:18:11 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

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

and also knows that not all knowledge is equaly valuable

There's a difference between "knowledge" as a class and specific
knowledge - something evidently outside the scope of your knowledge.

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

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:16:28 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:16:39 -0400, Al Klein
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 is if I want a license for it

Learn (now there's a new concept for you) the difference between
"specific" and "general".

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".

no it say I have legal license to do xyz with it that is all it has
ever said

In your limited experience - which is about 0% relevant to anyone
else.

experhaps in the epriod where the general advanced and
Extra class all had the same preveldges

Which was ... oh ... only a few decades. But you weren't licensed
then, so they don't matter, right?

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

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:17:33 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:23:13 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:12:59 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

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?

but it is not a requirement of licensing after you have one

Your comment was totally irrelevant to THIS conversation, Mark. Ham
radio has nothing to do, in this context, with Hitler.

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

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:51:28 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

I am too lazy

I think that says it all.