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

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

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. At this very
moment, I have about 60 reference books within arm's
reach.
--
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...
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

Now you're trying to be a smart "ass" (there's some slang for ya) :) .
Again, it was not "MY" argument here - splitting hairs. AND as for thinking,
I think you ought to go back a couple days or better and reread the threads.
Unlike some in this ridiculous argument, I DO think.. I THINK IT IS CRAZY.
Don't you all have something better to do? 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. What may not show up in YOUR dictionary as slang - may
certainly - in others. AND perhaps it was a "misuse" of the word
"Memorize" - I was merely trying to rationalize where you AND AL Klein both
were coming from. Now, neither one of you make any sense - he argues against
memory and you against having to do any work. MANY people "misuse" words -
very much and very badly. MY (mis)use was ONLY intended for the sake of this
STUPID argument.

Lou

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

From: Steve Stone on Sat, Aug 12 2006 6:31 am
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner,

rec.radio.swap


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

Steve, you may be quite right!

There is NO expression from these federally-authorized morsemen
of amateur radio being a HOBBY. [it is a "service" to the
country or something para-military...and "hobby" is not in the
Rules (except by definition)] Indeed, they bristle and come
unglued at the slightest negativism of their mighty endeavors of
"professional amateurism" with all its rank, status, and glory.
Ham radio can't be just "fun" for its own sake, an enjoyable
pastime, something done for personal pleasure. No, one has to
enjoy ONLY Their views, like what they like, or suffer the
consequences of being considered "lower caste" on par with
river-bottom slime.

These mighty macho morsemen demand OBEDIANCE to their views and
opinions, are quick to call disbelievers any name they choose,
always denigrative, condescending, with heavy overtones of
attempted humiliation. They are the unforgiving in regards to
anyone NOT worshiping their status, rank, titles in amateurism.
Unforgiving to the point of attacking ANYONE against them.
They RULE. [they think...but only in here...]

While these mighty macho morsemen take out their frustrations,
resentments, anger against all not idolizing their opinions,
there are some actual amateur radio issues which need addressing.
The removal or continuation of the morse code test for US amateur
radio license testing is still in limbo; official Comment period
on the NPRM was over late last year. Access BPL recently had a
rules revision/addendum added by the FCC with a Report and Order
released on 7 August 2006. No one in here apparently cares about
it since the "ARRL is on the job," "fighting" to keep HF "safe"
(for their membership?). [ho, ho, some "fight"...]

No one cares to discuss two BIG issues. Everyone is busy, busy,
trying to insult anyone who doesn't subscribe to Their views.
Ain't no "discussion" here, hasn't been for years. Internecine
personal warfare is the order of the day. Everyone in here
either obeys the rulings of Big Brother in Newington or
they are considered lower forms of (barely) life.

The number of US amateur radio licensees is slowly dropping
(expirations greater than new licensees to the tune of 10K
in three years). Membership in the ARRL (the "representative"
of all, according to them) has never been more than a quarter
of all US licensees. Technician class licensees are very
very close to being a full half of all classes (49.07% of all
individual licensees as of 12 Aug 06).

Lettuce all bow our heads and worship morsemanship...these
are the salad days of the brass-pounders. Morse is the answer
to everything I'm told. [over and over again] :-)

Beep, beep...

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

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
m...
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. At this very
moment, I have about 60 reference books within arm's
reach.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

For a short time, you had my attention as being correct at least part of the
time - in this ongoing dumb argument. But here's where we part ways - "along
with the "memory" deal - which "I" didn't start.

A "brilliant" "lazy" person - isn't worth a dime. Brilliant ? BY WHO's
DEFINITION? I have a ton of books in my reach too - so whats your point?
Yes, SOME are "reference" books - but many I spent hours in "STUDYING".
It is the "reference" books I use for things not used daily or even at times
month to month. Books on hobbies I have but not enough time to get into as
much - or repair manuals for my test equipment - should I need to do so.
Having a ton of books at arms length doesn't substitute for KNOWLEDGE OR
WORK. Those "books" sure in hell aren't going to "troubleshoot" equipment
for me to earn my pay. They're not going to diagnose my body to heal me.
They're not going to fix my vehicle "just" by having them at arms length.
They may make you LOOK smart! They won't "make" you a Ham operator, Nuclear
Physicist, Doctor, Lawyer, Mechanic, etc.
SO what - you can pull (legal/physics/etc) laws out or Meds and dosages,
spark plug clearances and so on - BIG DEAL. anyone with half a brain can do
that. Even those who busted their ass to get to the top have to keep
"working" at it to STAY at the top. Even today, Bill Gates - smart as he is,
I'm sure is still working on "something". I'm sure he doesn't sit there with
his ton of "reference" books at arms length - and do NOTHING. And I'm
DAMNED sure - he had to study long and hard to learn all he knows to get to
where he is today. I will bet my last dime he would tell you himself - it
wasn't easy. It took LOTS of hard work, dedication, studying, committment,
TRIAL AND ERROR - to make things work. TRIAL AND ERROR doesn't get done
sitting on your ass. NOTHING worth while - does. UNLESS of course that so
called "brilliant" "lazy" person is collecting a welfare check - smart yes -
but not enough to be gainfully employed. Ya know - I have knowledge of a man
who can recite transistor theory and much much more - formulas and all from
his head. BUT - the poor ******* can't even solder. He has NO clue on how to
troubleshoot or repair. So, tell me - what good is it to JUST be
"brilliant"? AND AGAIN - BY WHO'S STANDARDS? Hell, I've known supposedly
slow and/or "mentally retarded" people that put so called "knowledgeable"
people to shame. They talked with more sense, didn't assume they knew
everything and sure in hell weren't afraid to TRY to work. Those who "CLAIM"
to know everything - usually aren't worth a plugged nickle. We ALL have
something to "learn" each and every day of our lives. Anyone who thinks
otherwise or that they know it all - are DEAD already. They won't get
anywhere in life. "I" for one will NEVER EVER claim I know "everything". I
LOVE to learn new things and look forward to each new adventure - be it
repairing something - tackling a new problem never seen before to learning
things to do with my "other" activities that take up many hours of my life.
In THOSE fields - "knowing it all" can get you KILLED.

Sorry dude - I jumped track from agreeing with you............ Pick it apart
all you want. LAZY DOES NOT WORK - no matter which way you cut it. I'm
leaning in the direction that you've apparently bought one of those GET RICH
QUICK WITHOUT WORKING books............ SORRY DUDE - THEY DON"T WORK.

L.

And as for "Hitler" claiming that - as you said about his admiration for a
brilliant lazy man - eh......... last I heard - the man was a fruit cake,
lost the war, cost thousands of lives, innocent ones at that - and ended up
committing suicide - WHAT A LOSER. And I would want to follow his
examples/principles - why?

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

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.

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

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.

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

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 14:54:55 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

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.

Showing that you don't know the difference between the two.

I *memorized* Ohm's law for my
Novice exam. I *memorized* the fact that 'I' is the letter
used for current.

Those weren't the answers, they were the facts that allowed you to
figure out the answers.

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

The people who developed the theory in the 19th century didn't
"develop" the answers to tests created in the 20th century.

Avoiding memorizing answers to questions is a good way to
keep making the same mistakes over and over.

Then you must be an expert in avoidance, since you keep making the
same mistake post after post. Memorizing theory is NOT the same as
memorizing test answers. If information and test answers were the
same, owning a book with the information needed to answer the
questions on any test given in any public school would probably be
illegal in all 50 states.

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

On 12 Aug 2006 10:11:36 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

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

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

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.

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

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:01:51 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

L. wrote:
I have a ton of books in my reach too - so whats your point?

If you are ambitious enough to already possess the knowledge,
you don't need the books. I am too lazy to try to possess all
knowledge so I need the books. Not having to memorize all
knowledge frees up my mind for creative thought.

And as for "Hitler" claiming that - as you said about his admiration for a
brilliant lazy man - eh......... last I heard - the man was a fruit cake,
lost the war, cost thousands of lives, innocent ones at that - and ended up
committing suicide - WHAT A LOSER. And I would want to follow his
examples/principles - why?

The statements that I quoted were from a WWI German military
leader probably uttered while Hitler was still a private or
corporal. Why do you have to try to misrepresent what I said?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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

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

So the questions on my Extra exam were irrelevant?
In that, I tend to agree with you. I would like to
see one and only one entry level amateur radio exam
leading to one brotherhood of amateur radio operators
devoid of the jealousy, pecking order, and back-biting
apparent in your postings and others.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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

Al Klein wrote:
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.

Learning is impossible without memorizing. You are
simply ignorant of the definition of the words you
are using. Is English your second language? Again,
from Websters: "memorize - to commit to memory"
--
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
t...
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

I don't care what your dictionary says. PEOPLE MISUSE words ALL the time -
and definately in this case. "I" again STATE - "I" DID NOT START the "hair
splitting" argument. I was merely trying to rationalize where BOTH of you
were coming from and sadly neither of you know yourselves. AGAIN I SAY -
THIS WHOLE FREAKING ARGUMENT IS - STUPID.

L.

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

Al Klein wrote:
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.

"Memorize" is NOT a technical word. Please get
back to us when you have talked the IEEE into
putting your special definition of "memorize"
into their technical dictionary.
--
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
t...
L. wrote:
I have a ton of books in my reach too - so whats your point?

If you are ambitious enough to already possess the knowledge,
you don't need the books. I am too lazy to try to possess all
knowledge so I need the books. Not having to memorize all
knowledge frees up my mind for creative thought.

And as for "Hitler" claiming that - as you said about his admiration for
a brilliant lazy man - eh......... last I heard - the man was a fruit
cake, lost the war, cost thousands of lives, innocent ones at that - and
ended up committing suicide - WHAT A LOSER. And I would want to follow
his examples/principles - why?

The statements that I quoted were from a WWI German military
leader probably uttered while Hitler was still a private or
corporal. Why do you have to try to misrepresent what I said?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

OK, so maybe I misrepresented your quote "by accident" - big deal. HITLER
was still a loser as was/is ANY ONE who bought/buys into that STUPID
philosophy you spoke of. Pretty damned sad when you - speaking of ANYONE it
applies to - are too "lazy" to "learn". That is almost laughable. Creative
thinking - without knowledge? Surely you jest!

I'm done arguing with someone who is "too" lazy to "learn". I'd prefer to
talk to those who have "intelligence" to refer to - to stimulate the
conversation. Good luck in your monologue.

L.

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

Al Klein wrote:
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?

This was a WWI German officer and I don't recall his name.
Why do you think he was an idiotic strategist? Why do you
think he single-handedly lost WWI? If you know so much about
him, what was his name?

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

The pride, lust, and greed usually accompanying ambition are
a good percentage of the seven deadly sins.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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

L. wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
t...
L. wrote:
I have a ton of books in my reach too - so whats your point?

If you are ambitious enough to already possess the knowledge,
you don't need the books. I am too lazy to try to possess all
knowledge so I need the books. Not having to memorize all
knowledge frees up my mind for creative thought.

And as for "Hitler" claiming that - as you said about his admiration for
a brilliant lazy man - eh......... last I heard - the man was a fruit
cake, lost the war, cost thousands of lives, innocent ones at that - and
ended up committing suicide - WHAT A LOSER. And I would want to follow
his examples/principles - why?

The statements that I quoted were from a WWI German military
leader probably uttered while Hitler was still a private or
corporal. Why do you have to try to misrepresent what I said?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

OK, so maybe I misrepresented your quote "by accident" - big deal.
it shows that you are ignorant of what you are tlaking about
HITLER
was still a loser as was/is ANY ONE who bought/buys into that STUPID
philosophy you spoke of.
base effort t atr anyone that believes something you don't as a Nazi
Pretty damned sad when you - speaking of ANYONE it
applies to - are too "lazy" to "learn". That is almost laughable. Creative
thinking - without knowledge? Surely you jest!
without occopiing ones mind by consdiering triva

I'm done arguing with someone who is "too" lazy to "learn". I'd prefer to
talk to those who have "intelligence" to refer to - to stimulate the
conversation. Good luck in your monologue.

hardly a monlogou why do you misrepresent the state of reality

L.

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

L. wrote:
THIS WHOLE FREAKING ARGUMENT IS - STUPID.

Yes, now you are getting it. I remember when hams like you
were trying to keep the single-sidewinders off the air in
the 1950's.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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

L. wrote:
I'm done arguing with someone who is "too" lazy to "learn". I'd prefer to
talk to those who have "intelligence" to refer to - to stimulate the
conversation.

My MENSA membership number is 1006281.
What's your MENSA membership number?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp