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

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Antenna (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/)

- - If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/98626-if-you-had-use-cw-save-someones-life-would-person-die.html)

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

On 10 Aug 2006 18:53:36 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 15:47:00 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

earth is the only earthlike planet with a heavyside layer effect

Is that a statement or a question?

yes it is a stament and yes it is a question

And on what do you base your statement? Your extensive familiarity
with dozens of Earth-like planets?

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

Cecil Moore wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
The Conditional was whatever class was being tested for, but not at an
FCC office. It had nothing to do with the class, only with the
location.

On the contrary, the Conditional was the General Class
license given away from an FCC office.

To clarify, the test was given at a distance from an FCC office.

The license was not "given away."

At the time I got
mine, the distance from an FCC office was set at 75 miles.
Quoting the 1957 ARRL License Manual: "The Conditional
Class license conveys privileges identical to those of
the General Class ..." which incidentally at the time,
was all amateur frequency operating privileges.

General/Conditional Class = "All amateur priveleges," as in AMATEUR
EXTRA priveleges.

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

Hey Cecil, how've you been?

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?

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

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?

From: on Thurs, Aug 10 2006 8:48 pm
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner, rec.radio.swap

Al Klein wrote:
On 9 Aug 2006 19:14:54 -0700, wrote:

You couldn't be more wrong. If there were practical exams for SSB, FM,
AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc,
then it would be CRYSTAL clear that a Morse Code exam is valid.

However, there are no such practical exams for the other modes. So
there need be no exam for Morse Code, either.

That's my point - there's no test any longer. For anything more than
the ability to memorize answers.

Lots of memorization was required in your day. It's only a bad thing
in 1992 to present. I think I get your drift...

Selective amnesia. "No one had to memorize anything" prior 1992.
Not in grade school, not in college, not in industry, not in
real life. Strange perception...

Ummm? There's no Morse Code test anymore?

The International Morse Code test for United States amateur
radio license classes General and Extra have NEVER GONE AWAY.

That is especially true in the perception of the ARRL which
still manages to insert the "necessities" for morsemanship
in nearly everything it publishes. It's been six decades
since Hiram Percy became ultimate DX but they still keep on
with their demand that all [US] amateurs be proficient in
that old mode.

The Conditional was whatever class was being tested for, but not at an
FCC office. It had nothing to do with the class, only with the
location.

What current exam? Memorizing answers and writing them down isn't a
test.

So what is it that you fear?

Klein fears CHANGE and, perhaps, feelings of obsolescence.

Someone who has been a regular worker in electronics (radio is a
subset of electronics) ought to damn well know and recognize
that the state of the art in electronics has been CONSTANTLY
changing. It's sometimes a chore to keep up, whether it be
1950 or 2000 or any time in-between.

You'd probably be weeded out pretty quickly.

I doubt it - if I couldn't pass an Extra theory exam - a real one, not
the nonsense that passes for one these days - I'd lose my job in a
second.

Mmmm. I see. You are a careerist in the electronics industry and it
****es you off that hobbyists have equal "status" as you in amatuer
radio. I've run across a lot of that in the past 20 years...

I've run across a lot of that my entire life. :-)

I think Klein wants recognition as a "professional amateur" or
"amateur professional." I'm not sure which...

What if you addressed what I said when you answer me? Your dishonest
tactics are transparent.

You're the one that forgot the circuit, not me. Get ****ed at your own
self.

When in doubt of an effective reply, these Fundamentalist
Morseodists
must resort to some form of denigration. Sigh, they never learn...

Quit putting words in my mouth. I wasn't complaining to anyone, and
we weren't discussing remembering 50 year old tests.

Correct. "WE" weren't discussing it. YOU were. YOU were discussing
how you can't draw what you can't remember.

This is an indicator that Klein isn't used to computer-modem
communications. He isn't looking beyond his own screen and
understanding that others are separated from it in time and space.
"He" was obviously talking about "old days" of "His." He is not
considering that others do not share his viewpoints.

Considering the Type of Oscillator and "names," he has put
Names as somehow "essential" to the circuit. NO SUCH THING.
An oscillator is simply an amplifier of just-barely-past-unity
gain with positive feedback. The Names were tacked on by
academics long, long ago as IDENTIFICATION of the general form
of amplification-with-positive-feedback.

One can build a Colpitts oscillator, make it work, and continue
calling it a Hartley. Won't make a bit of difference to the
circuit...electrons don't give a damn about human labels. They
work by THEIR laws, not humans' with their imperative labels.

By the way, on a quick bit of checking, I've got text references
to about 11 different oscillator forms, not just two (with his
unknown third type)...and I'm not counting free-running multi-
vibrators which are also very much an "oscillator."

Maybe we should have one - show the ability to put a clean PSK signal
on the air. Show the ability to interpret a waterfall display. Show
the ability to tell the difference between various digital modes. The
bands would be pretty QRM-free.

YES!!!

[ no... ]

If you are ever going to save your beloved Morse Code test, this is the
only way you're going to do it.

The only way to "save his beloved morse code test" is to have the
ARRL exercise some BETTER brainwashing than it has been doing for
decades. The League is still trying to use its old persuasion
and, so far, hasn't been able to get memberships from the 3/4 of
all licensed US radio amateurs who are NOT ARRL members...

I think it is you who don't know where you're going with this
discussion. It's gone beyond your having grief over your favorite mode
to actually having to think about the future of the service.
Conggrats. Another couple of years of RRAP tutoring and you just might
become a rational being.

I disagree, Brian. Klein is a MORSEMAN. They don't change.
They are rooted in old days long gone, brainwashed early into
thinking that morsemanship is "essential" to "best" radio
communication. It isn't...easily proved by ALL the OTHER
radio services giving up on morse code as a mode (if they
had it once) or never requiring it since a radio service began.

Who said that? We absolutely NEED relevant exams. That is my whole
argument!

So you're in favor of exams that test knowledge of theory? "Draw the
schematic of ..."? "Explain why long path 2400 bps is impossible on
14 MHz"? That kind of relevance?

Sure. But you have to ask yourself one question. Can the average VE
administer such an exam? If not, can your average GS-7 FCC employee
administer such an exam? If you set up an exam that only an engineer
can administer, then your government isn't going to accept it. So be
realistic in your zeal.

Klein hasn't considered the simple fact that, by law, the VEs
do NOT have to be trained test-adminsters. They are simply
VOLINTEERS who have the requisite license class and GIVE OF
THEIR OWN TIME to adminster tests. VEs are accountable only
to the FCC in that volunteer testing. VEs' only "penalty"
in mis-administering an amateur test is a reduction in license
class or forteiture of their amateur license.

Klein and his "tests aren't like they were in 'my' time"
bitchers and moaners HAD their chance to keep privatization
in testing from happening long ago. Legal means to stop it
by NPRM Commentary didn't make their case. Privatization
happened for BOTH amateur and commercial licenses. Now
their whine is long past its time and has turned to vinegar.

Or the "pick the answer with the resistor like we showed you in the
example" kind of relevance?

The exam can be anything your VEC wants it to be. We learned this when
the ARRL went from administering a Morse Code Exam at 5WPM to
administering a Farnsworth Exam at 13-15WPM.

True enough, Brian, but expect ten kinds of flak from the
other morsepersons in here on that... :-)

The VEC can LEGALLY generate a Question Pool with ONE HUNDRED
times the minimum required number of questions. With electronic
transmittal over the Internet the Question Pool can be updated
within 24 hours to ALL VE groups.

Say the FCC requires a minimum of 50 questions on a written
test element. If the VEC QPC generates the Question-Answer
pool with FIVE THOUSAND QUESTIONS (and answers), it should be
obvious that mere "memorization" sufficient to pass that
written test element is out of the question. Anyone who CAN
memorize that prodigious amount is already gifted as an eidetic
and those are extremely rare among humans.

What all that concentration on the "written tests" is about is
just a DIVERSION to keep from replying on the singular morse
code test continuation. The morsemen just haven't been able
to come up with sufficently-valid reasons to keep the morse
test (other than the emotional ones) so they smoke-screen by
bringing up the writtens. Old tactic of theirs.

How do you draw a schematic

Memorization.

Correct.

and explain the functions of parts by
memorizing answers?

Memorization.

Correct again.

You can't explain phase shift by memorizing "10k"
or "coil".

You can't memorize the def of phase shift?

C'mon, aren't you supposed to be in the industry?

We don't know WHERE, Brian, or for WHOM. :-)

I used radios in the military. I never used a CW key in the military.
I never jammed another operator, although Brandywine asked me to reduce
power once.

But you had to learn how to use the radios.

I did?

They just gave you a radio and said "use it"?

On/Off and PTT. What else is there???

[ ahem..."volume" and "squelch" to name two... :-) ]

Oh, yeh, a magnetic compass and a chart where the satellite is.

Darn you "kids!" Weren't any of those newfangled gizmos
like "satellites" when I was in the Army. :-)

The AN/PRC-8 backpack VHF transceivers (one of which I wore
in PIP Training) also had VFO frequency control along with a
built-in "crystal calibrator." Nothing like the "channel
selection" of a later synthesized AN/PRC-25 (also FM on VHF).

Interesting engineering feat with that VFO control over a
military temperature and vibration environment. Copied from
the old SCR-300 "walkie-talkie" of WW2, devised by Motorola
(also FM on VHF). But, I digress, that was Practical Theory
as applied by professional engineering, used by professional
military people...didn't have the majesty of AMATEURISM and
all its nobility (and class distinctions).

Hams today don't - they
memorize a few answers, buy equipment and get on the air - with no
understanding of what they're doing, and no desire to learn.

Then it hasn't changed much since you were first licensed.

When I was licensed you had to show an understanding of theory, by
answering questions that were more than just multiple choice from a
published answer pool.

Yes, you had to memorize paragraphs instead of multiple choices. Big
deal.

Good grief, all that crying and wailing over Test Privatization!
Maybe we should take up a collection to send him some Kleenex?

Seems to me that COLLEGE-level course tests that I took had a
LOT of memorization. Maybe we should all slam the academic
world for doing the same "memorization?" Hey, why not, all
those who failed college level courses can get a Wailing Wall!

My state drivers' license testing is done from multiple-choice
and that requires MUCH memorization of the applicable laws.
While the CA DMV does not publish the EXACT answers, the have
lots and lots of examples, not only well-publicized but available
free in little booklets at each DMV office. Maybe Klein wants
me to take an ME degree course in automotive engineering just
to drive our Malibu MAXX? :-)

You may, but I can see from many of the comments that have been posted
here that a lot of people don't. They don't want to learn, they want
to get on the air. Period.

W3RV didn't wait to get a ham license before operating! He just wanted
to get on the air. Period.

Point?

All you wonderful OF's taking trips down memory lane forget that some
of your brother hams were bootleggers.

It's only the unwashed No-code Techs that operate illegally. Hi!!!
What a stinking load.

Brian, if you check out the "official" history of the ARRL
you will find out that they BEGAN in trying to circumvent
the commercial telegram system with a relaying of messages
past the commercial boundaries and FEES. If that were
reported today, the journalists would call it "hacking."

If you must retain a Morse Code Exam, then you must
also administer practical exams for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY
(which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc.

I have no problem with that.

Then go for it.

It is the ONLY legitimate recourse you have for retaining the Morse
Code exam.

Best of luck.

I hope he tries it. I'm anxious to find out how much hostility
he will engender from his fellow amateurs who are VEs...how they
have to spend many more hours (of their own time) in testing
each license applicant (separately). Ought to go over like a
concrete balloon...

Trained as an EE. Spent years designing RF circuitry, then went into
digital design. "Is", not yet "was" - I'm still alive.

Are you drawing a pension from it? "Was."

Are you drawing a paycheck from it? "Is."

And it's so typical for Old Timers to forget that not everyone in the
ARS are CAREERIST PROFESSIONALS. Bitching and Moaning about how
everyone else doesn't know as much as them.

Klein has yet to define his own label, whether it is "professional
amateur" or "amateur professional." He seems undecided.

I'm one of the (chronological) Olde Fahrts in this group but I
pray to God that I won't ever get as bad as some of them with
their retro attitudes and fixations with modes of their long-
ago youth, the ultra importance of CLASS and RANK. Geez.

You'd think that some of them regard amateur radio like the
USMC! ["the few, the ultra proud (of morsemanship)"]

Let's have a test that
shows whether the testee knows anything.

Remember that you are handsomely compensated for your professional
knowledge. Amateur Radio is a non-compensated hobby.

Some of these Olde Fahrts seem to think their amateurism is on
some kind of "higher plane" than ordinary, plebian, work.
They be BETTER than the pros and keep reinforcing each other
with that pipe-dream. After all, the ARRL keeps reminding
them of their greatness, their "service to their country"
(by having their hobby). To hear them talk the nation would
immediately fall apart without these federally-licensed
hobbyists!

We'll have to get Mr. Webster to work coming up with a better
definition of the hobby. Is it "professional amateurism" or
"amateur professionalism?" I opt for the latter but others
may differ.

Beep, beep...

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

On 11 Aug 2006 07:57:47 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

the issue is simple some folks want to claim other folks that took and
passed the tests equire by by law are somehow "cheating"

If you can't even understand the issue, why do you keep opening your
mouth and proving it?

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

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 14:55:09 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

It is hard to understand how anyone could develop that correct
answer from first principles or formulas.

No one but you even mentioned "first principles" in this discussion.
It's certainly not part of the discussion.

I memorized the
correct answer and it still exists in my memory as something
I once memorized long before I ever knew there was a man named
Ohm after whom the unit of electrical resistance was named.

You still don't understand (or want to acknowledge) the difference
between learning that Ohm was a scientist after whom the unit of
resistance was named, and "the answer to the question with the 10k
resistor is 'greater'".

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

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

Al Klein wrote:
wrote:
the issue is simple some folks want to claim other folks that took and
passed the tests equire by by law are somehow "cheating"

If you can't even understand the issue, why do you keep opening your
mouth and proving it?

The issue is that if there's something wrong with the tests,
that is not the fault of the test takers. It is the fault
of the test designers. Given a person with a PhD in electronics,
50 years experience, and capable of doing 50 wpm in Morse code,
all he can do presently is pass the present day test requirements
and then be belittled by people like you who are inferior to him
in every way.
--
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 07:57:47 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

the issue is simple some folks want to claim other folks that took and
passed the tests equire by by law are somehow "cheating"

If you can't even understand the issue, why do you keep opening your
mouth and proving it?

"My test was better than your test and that makes me a better ham."

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

Al Klein wrote:
You still don't understand (or want to acknowledge) the difference
between learning that Ohm was a scientist after whom the unit of
resistance was named, and "the answer to the question with the 10k
resistor is 'greater'".

Of course I understand. When I took my Conditional exam,
I didn't know Mr. Ohm from a hole in the ground. I simply
*MEMORIZED* that the ohm was the unit of resistance. I
had no idea how to know that except by *MEMORIZATION*.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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?

Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 07:57:47 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

the issue is simple some folks want to claim other folks that took and
passed the tests equire by by law are somehow "cheating"

If you can't even understand the issue, why do you keep opening your
mouth and proving it?
but I do uderstand the issue the real issue not the smoke screen you
are trying to blow (wether your own one you have been brainwashed into
accepting

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

Cecil Moore wrote in
m:

Slow Code wrote:
It was still Hokey. The aliens could do everything but provide their
own communications globally.

They also couldn't provide a decent firewall for their computers.

Maybe their OS was a Microsoft product too. LOL

SC

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

"an old friend" wrote in
oups.com:

Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 07:57:47 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

the issue is simple some folks want to claim other folks that took and
passed the tests equire by by law are somehow "cheating"

If you can't even understand the issue, why do you keep opening your
mouth and proving it?
but I do uderstand the issue the real issue not the smoke screen you
are trying to blow (wether your own one you have been brainwashed into
accepting

Mark, would you put these five steps on your web blog for me? Thanks. I
also want to try to get the moon bouncers to help us out. I think by
puting the five steps on your website, a lot more hams will see and agree
the five steps are a good idea. TNX, 73

SC

Step 1: No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and
pass all elements required for their license class.

Step 2: The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.

Step 3: Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.

Step 4: Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.

Step 5: Cancel your league membership until they decide to work
to improve things.

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

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:32:51 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

all he can do presently is pass the present day test requirements
and then be belittled

For claiming that the tests prove that he knows as much as those who
passed much more difficult tests, not for not having to pass those
more difficult tests.

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

On 11 Aug 2006 15:54:33 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 07:57:47 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

the issue is simple some folks want to claim other folks that took and
passed the tests equire by by law are somehow "cheating"

If you can't even understand the issue, why do you keep opening your
mouth and proving it?

but I do uderstand the issue

Then why do you keep pretending that you don't?

the real issue not the smoke screen you
are trying to blow (wether your own one you have been brainwashed into
accepting

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

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

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:36:49 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

You still don't understand (or want to acknowledge) the difference
between learning that Ohm was a scientist after whom the unit of
resistance was named, and "the answer to the question with the 10k
resistor is 'greater'".

Of course I understand. When I took my Conditional exam,
I didn't know Mr. Ohm from a hole in the ground. I simply
*MEMORIZED* that the ohm was the unit of resistance. I
had no idea how to know that except by *MEMORIZATION*.

Showing that you DON'T know the difference. Don't you even understand
what you post?

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

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:39:11 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

wrote:

I learned the formulas ...

Did you *Heaven Forbid* memorize any formulas?

I'll bet he didn't derive the shapes of the written numbers from first
principles either.

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

Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 15:54:33 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 07:57:47 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

the issue is simple some folks want to claim other folks that took and
passed the tests equire by by law are somehow "cheating"

If you can't even understand the issue, why do you keep opening your
mouth and proving it?

but I do uderstand the issue

Then why do you keep pretending that you don't?
but I don't

I do understand your public snit

the real issue not the smoke screen you
are trying to blow (wether your own one you have been brainwashed into
accepting

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

not likely nor did I say you were climing something othe r than you are
claiming I am simply accusing not telling being honest about why you
are making the claim

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 you are just not honest to amdit
(perhaps not even to yourself) you your concern is for the service the
fact is that your problem is being hung up on the notion I did so you
must

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

Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:32:51 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

all he can do presently is pass the present day test requirements
and then be belittled

For claiming that the tests prove that he knows as much as those who
passed much more difficult tests, not for not having to pass those
more difficult tests.
who has made any such claim?

you like a lot of the procoders add a lot of things to what people are
realy saying

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

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

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

Al Klein wrote:
I'll bet he didn't derive the shapes of the written numbers from first
principles either.

That fact goes against your "memorizing is evil" argument.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 02:19:22 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
I'll bet he didn't derive the shapes of the written numbers from first
principles either.

That fact goes against your "memorizing is evil" argument.

And against your claim to understand the conversation.

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

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:05:40 +0900, "Brenda Ann"
wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
t...
Al Klein wrote:
I'll bet he didn't derive the shapes of the written numbers from first
principles either.

That fact goes against your "memorizing is evil" argument.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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. :)

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would Ham Radio die?

Ham radio is gonna be flushed big time if this is all you old farts are
worried about.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

If you are learning theory that someone has already developed,
you *are* memorizing answers. I *memorized* Ohm's law for my
Novice exam. I *memorized* the fact that 'I' is the letter
used for current.

If you are not memorizing answers provided by the people who
developed the theory, then you are necessarily developing the
theory from first principles.

Avoiding memorizing answers to questions is a good way to
keep making the same mistakes over and over. Do you avoid the
Q&A sections of all web pages for fear that you might accidentally
memorize an answer?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Al Klein wrote:
I'll bet he didn't derive the shapes of the written numbers from first
principles either.

That fact goes against your "memorizing is evil" argument.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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.

--
Say no to institutionalized interference.
Just say NO to HD/IBOC!

Which is exactly what "I" also have said. They're splitting hairs over the
definition. MANY words can be used in more than one way. Your example is
resembling mine. There are some things (many actually) you must "memorize"
(learn) for life - to function. To simply "memorize" answers for a test - as
you said, teaches NOTHING. It doens't even guarantee passing. I've seen a
few fail by that method. IT simply is NOT a good way to go about things in
life. Laziness gets you no where - fast.

L.