|
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:37:41 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: My MENSA membership number is 1006281. There ought to be a Godwin's Rule type of rule for using the MENSA crutch. Maybe I should declare one. Klein's rule - so you lose. (The claim "I'm so intelligent that ..." proves lack of intelligence.) |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:57:13 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: 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? No, but at least you're consistent - your response is non-responsive and incompetent. |
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?
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:04:45 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: 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. Memorizing is possible without learning. You are simply ignorant I'm not the one who doesn't understand the discussion, inverting "memorizing" and "learning". Maybe you need to stop being so lazy and actually learn something. Is English your second language? Third. My internal language is (was) my first. Brooklynese was my second. English is my third. Again, from Websters Again, Webster's is a compendium of common usage, not an unabridged (regardless of the trademark) authoritative source. those who cling to dictionary definitions as authoritative announce their lack of actual knowledge. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:08:14 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: 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. As a technical term (the usage here) it is, by definition. Please get back to us when you have talked the IEEE into putting your special definition of "memorize" into their technical dictionary. As soon as the IEEE becomes a body of experts in the usage of the English language. In the meantime, why don't you go and learn something? Anything. New experiences can be quite enjoyable. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:22:31 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: 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. Then it's just an assertion of yours, isn't it? 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. Sorry, I don't share your religious incredulity. I don't recognize "sin" as anything but a nonsense word. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:48:36 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: Brenda Ann wrote: Some advanced appliance operators know enough to connect other peripheral devices such as digital mode devices or power amplifiers, but do not know how these devices work, nor how to construct such devices. An amateur radio license is an entry level license. There are a few classes - ONE class is entry level. It is not a university degree. When I obtained all amateur privileges at the age of 15, I didn't know squat. "When I robbed a man at the age of 15, I wasn't arrested." Does that make robbery legal? Your experience is only that - your experience, it's not definitive. All I had done is memorize the ARRL License Manual. Six years later I had a EE degree. What is wrong with learning the technical stuff after one obtains his entry level license? Nothing, if you don't care that the license means nothing more than that you have it. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
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. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
jawod wrote:
you're trolling, aren't you? No, I'm wishing that every amateur radio operator had an above average IQ. Don't you agree that would be a good thing for them and the ARS? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
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. 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. I would like to see one amateur license granting all amateur privileges so this crazy irrational pecking order nonsense would cease. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
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?
|
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?
|
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?
|
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?
|
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?
|
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:54:10 -0400, wrote:
not in my opinion which for the pruposes of posting is all that counts No, actually, "for the purposes of posting", your opinion doesn't count at all to most people. But, since you have such a limited view of the world, you won't understand what that means. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
"Al Klein" wrote in message ... 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. with the punce gotcha he wonders why I simple don't bother to ty impoving my spelling -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:55:07 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:12:21 -0400, Al Klein wrote: Sorry, I don't share your religious incredulity. I don't recognize "sin" as anything but a nonsense word. you certainly a polite ham ....NOT Is that religious bigotry I'm hearing, Mark? "Accept my beliefs as fact or be labeled impolite"? |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
Al Klein wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: 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. As far as I know, there is no governmental PhD class license and therefore no governmental 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. You don't seem to know much about 1950's ham licenses. You didn't know that Conditional was a General exam taken by mail. You don't know there were many Advanced class hams in the 1950's faithfully renewing their licenses. My Elmer was an Advanced licensee. Here's a quote from a 1957 ARRL License Manual: "Holders of Advanced Class licenses may renew them so long as they can comply with renewal requirements." -- 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 Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:36:29 -0400, wrote: 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. I seem to recall you saying that anyone who didn't take his test at an FCC office probably cheated. -- 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: Al Klein wrote: On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:36:29 -0400, wrote: 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. I seem to recall you saying that anyone who didn't take his test at an FCC office probably cheated. oh that doesn't count for who took the test having crawled though broken glas in blizzard up hill both ways -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
Al Klein wrote:
Those trying to eliminate the code requirement are the ones trying to alter history. The past cannot be altered. Only the present, which is not history, can be altered. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
Al Klein wrote:
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". Following your line of reasoning, skill with buggy whips should be part of the requirements for a driver's license. -- 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: Al Klein wrote: 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". Following your line of reasoning, skill with buggy whips should be part of the requirements for a driver's license. and sewing skill for a pilots license after all canvas was once prime plane covering -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
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?
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:20:50 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:07:30 -0400, Al Klein wrote: 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. then you lied when you typed " they didn't." or used english incoreectly or Or typed something that was beyond your comprehension - a double negative. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
From: Al Klein on Sun, Aug 13 2006 9:15 pm
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy, rec.radio.scanner, rec.radio.swap 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. Klein, you said you were an OF. Any olde-fahrt ought to KNOW that silver-mica capacitors were color-dot-coded for about a quarter century. [look in the 1976 ARRL Handbook] Those flat cases were eventually displaced by dipped silver-mica. Paper tubular capacitors in molded plastic tubular casings were marked with color bands and were on the market for at least 15 years, maybe 20...until aced out by ceramic disc capacitors for general bypassing and coupling applications (by both tube and transistor architecture electronics). ANYONE with hands-on experience in electronics between 1950 and about 1970 would KNOW that. [okay, folks, looks like there's another imposter here...at least this one isn't trying to pass hisself off as some marine NCO...:-) |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:22:26 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:09:43 -0400, Al Klein wrote: 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. prove it Are you telepathic? No? Then you can't know what I think. I don't think you truely understand what you think, that is another fact That you don't think I do is a fact. That I don't understand isn't. So what you think is incorrect and that's another 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. hazing is in the ye of the beholder No, words have actual meanings sometimes. do you have anything cogent to say? Cogent in your eyes, no, since you and cogency have never met. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 20:45:32 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: Al Klein wrote: On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:36:29 -0400, wrote: 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. I seem to recall you saying that anyone who didn't take his test at an FCC office probably cheated. Your memory is THAT faulty? Maybe it's just part of being lazy. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
From: jawod on Sun, Aug 13 2006 8:16 am
an old friend wrote: Al Klein wrote: On 12 Aug 2006 10:10:55 -0700, "an old friend" wrote: Anyway,, Back in the old days, we used to walk 5 miles in the snow to the FCC field office to take our exams. You forgot: "uphill both ways, barefoot..." We had to kneel on radiators while we took the test. We used slide rules and crayons AND WE LIKED IT!!! You are still using crayons but I doubt you know how to use a 1950 slide-rule...too complex for brass-pounders. Oh, and FCC Field Offices were NOT 10 miles apart in the USA now, in 1956 (when I took a train 80 miles into Chicago), nor before then. Then we'd wait 3 years to receive our license which gave us time to teach electrons to enter and exit all the tubes...stupid little buggers, those. Wrongo, olde-fahrt. Electrons, fields, and waves will ONLY obey THEIR rules. You can't "teach" them anything. All you can do is provide paths for them...on THEIR terms. Boy, those were the days. When a ham was a ham, brass was for pounding and AM signals were as wide as the day is long. That was well before 1960...like before WW2. These "young" whippersnappers get off too easy. Pizza off, olde-fahrt. 51 years ago I would be walking a mile from a corner of an airfield NE of Tokyo to the transmitter house in the center which housed 41 HF transmitters ranging in power output from 1 KW to 40 KW. Not a single one of them used manual (morse code) radiotelegraphy modes. About two square miles of wire antennas doing 24/7 radio circuit transmission to CONUS, Hawaii, Phillippines, Okinawa, Korea, and a MAG in Vietnam. Six of those circuits used multichannel SSB (the commercial variety, like in-use prior to WW2). I STARTED that HF transmitter site work in '53, NO military schooling on kilowatt transmitters, RTTY, or SSB and NO "CW" skill necessary. I say, rank priveleges on the basis of how big an RF burn you can take, or on the basis of personal weight. Sounds like you had TOO MANY of those "RF burns." See Dr. Robeson in here...he will bandage your "burns" with one of his medical-practice certificates...those are sterile. I may have said it befo take the FCC out of it completely and go with the FDA. Those boys know how to grade. "Ham is the butchered meat of swine?" Last guy I heard utter that phrase is SK...used to work with him (he was a code-tested Extra)...he came out with that every once in a while when some amateur morseman got too full of himself. (Too much tea this morning!) Try a detox program, okay? QRT. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:24:36 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:12:03 -0400, Al Klein wrote: On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:36:29 -0400, wrote: you can't explain it to me or to a frormer (or current memeber of Mensa Being a member of MENSA doesn't mean anything more than potential. It certainly doesn't mean realized potential. nor it seems can you explain where it counts...The FCC I have to explain something to the FCC? 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. why? you would simply dey it I'd deny a link? Would you deny a sunrise? Are you *really* as daft as you sound here? but you compare those that took and passed the test required at the time to theifs that sure soound calling em cheats to me But since I never compared anyone to anything, it's all in your mind. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
From: jawod on Sun, Aug 13 2006 3:24 pm
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy, rec.radio.scanner, rec.radio.swap If MENSA membership is important to you, fine. Most of us find it a bit pretentious and downright silly. If someone wants to use MENSA to elevate themselves above the rest, they are perched on very rickety stilts. If MORSEMANSHIP is important to you, fine. Most of US find it a bit pretentious and downright silly. If someone wants to use MORSEMANSHIP to elevate themselves above the rest, they are perched on very rickety stilts. [I'll just add something like...]: Stilts are needed by morsemen because their appearance, relative to REAL radio people, are very short. They try to gain "height" of their reputation by using 1930s standards in the year 2006. Tsk, they don't realize that their new "height" still falls short of everyone else... |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 20:50:25 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: Al Klein wrote: Those trying to eliminate the code requirement are the ones trying to alter history. The past cannot be altered. Only the present, which is not history, can be altered. WOW! Did you come up with that with no outside help? (I'm not overwhelmed - I'm not even whelmed.) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:14 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com