On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:47:21 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:14:47 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:48:36 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

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.

impling that Cecil stole his license by passing the tests of the day

Not even close, but your accusation is close to being libelous.

YOU want the license as some sort of badge of honnor

No, I want it to mean what it meant for decades - that the holder had
demonstrated a certain level of knowledge.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:51:06 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:51:10 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

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

myself for example by comparing me to a theft

1) A theft is an act - I wasn't comparing anyone to an act.

2) Quote where I'm comparing you to anything.

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

never said it was actiionable

You keep using the word "libel" - that means actionable, since libel
is a civil tort.

do you understand english it seem not

Oh, I understand it. It's difficult to get published if you don't
understand the language in which you're writing. Your posts, however,
demonstrate a clear lack of ability to use the language to communicate
clearly.

however when you keep compating someone to theifs in time I suspect it
would rise to being actionale

If I ever did, which I never have.

what protects you is that judgement is not particularly collectable
and therefore not worth an atorneys time

How would you know whether a judgment against me is collectable?

Or is this another case of what you say having nothing to do with what
you mean?

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.

"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

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"?

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

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

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

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

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