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

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.

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

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:05:37 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
An amateur radio license is an entry level license.

There are a few classes - ONE class is entry level.

They are all entry level. The Extra class license allows
entry into the Extra class frequency segments.

Using that logic, a PhD oral is an entry level exam - it allows entry
into the ranks of those with PhDs.

An amateur
license is not a status symbol. Its only worth is the
privileges granted. In the 1950's, generals, conditionals,
advanced, and extras all had the same frequency privileges.

Except that there were no advanced class licenses, and the extra was a
prestige license.

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

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:32:06 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:55:15 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

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

indeed it would not

but your point?

That if you bought 5 clues you'd still be less than clueless.

The fact that you posted something on your blog doesn't make it
definitive, or even correct.
never claimed otherwise now you are attacking for a having a sig line?

http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

That's not a sig line, it's part of your post. Sigs appear UNDER the
tear (and you don't even have a tear). Put your sig in the signature
area, not as part of your post. (If you can figure out how to use
Agent.)

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

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:32:41 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:15:18 -0400, 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.

no I did ot know that answer and you lied they did

I *HAVE* capacitors that are color coded, so you lied about my lying.

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

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:34:58 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:54:12 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

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.

nope you are claiming to something contary to fact

I'm claiming that I know what I think and you don't - which is a fact.

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.

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

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

and in the mind of engineer at least 2 of em and countless others as
well

Degrees don't guarantee competence - 50% of all engineers graduated in
the bottom half of the class.

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

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:36:29 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:49:32 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:
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.

I did

your point are a defference that makes no deffenerce that you can
explain

In a way that you can understand. Since you demonstrate so little
understanding of anything, that's no surprise.

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.

but calling someone a cheat on federal requirement is

Post a link to my post calling you "a cheat on federal requirement" -
or even just calling you a cheat.

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.

that is your peoblem dancing over minutia you don't seem to understand

Pot - kettle - ebon.

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

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:37:12 -0400, wrote:

no the core of the matter is that there is no matter just you and

other trying toalter hisoory

History is amateurs having to demonstrate proficiency in Morse code.
those trying to eliminate the code requirement are the ones trying to
alter history. Do you work for the government? It sure sounds like
it. "When we change history it's progress, when you try to change
things back to the way they were, it's 'changing history'."

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

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

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".

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

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:40:11 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:04:55 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

No, but at least you're consistent - your response is non-responsive
and incompetent.

no they are on point

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

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

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:42:01 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:02:09 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

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

I am too lazy

I think that says it all.
indeed but no t wat you think it say

Mark, if missing the point were worth money you'd be richer than
Gates.