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?
 

From: Dave Heil on Fri, Aug 11 2006 1:09 pm
Email: Dave Heil
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.policy


Klein fears CHANGE and, perhaps, feelings of obsolescence.

I fear that Leonard H. Anderson will go to his reward without ever
having obtained an amateur radio license.

Oh, no, Kernal Klink is trying to manufacture a "motive" of
his own imagining. Tsk, tsk. He gets it WRONG.

Klink, can't you get ANYTHING right?

My purpose in here is trying to get the morse code test(s)
reduced to zero. It is down to just 1 now.

Tell us all (from your imagination) why one "should" get
an amateur radio license. I am a professional in
electronics, have had my Commercial license since 1956,
am retired from a career in aerospace electronics with
a nice income.

I don't NEED a ham license nor am I trying to get one.
I'm trying to change the federal law concerning all
ham-hobbyists being required to test for morse in this
advanced time of the new millennium.

Not to worry, Klink, I'll be watching the US Post Office
walls for YOUR "reward." :-)


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.

Don't let us stop you from tending to your chores, Len.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

You couldn't possible do that. :-)


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

That's all you've done since your recent reappearance here, Major Hoople.

Oh, poor baby! Colonel Klink is bent out of shape because
no one loves and adores him and his morsemanship? Tsk, tsk.


Some of these Olde Fahrts seem to think their amateurism is on
some kind of "higher plane" than ordinary, plebian, work.

Obtaining an amateur radio license *is* work, Len.

How much DOES it pay?

Some of the amateur radio activities we partcipate in are *are* work.

Minimum wage?

The work isn't compensated.

Awwwwwww! Imagine that, a NON-professional amateur! :-)

You keep right on looking down your Imperial nose at all us
who aren't federally licensed as super-dooper morsemen. It
makes you feel all warm and toasty, does it? I'll bet you
run around and make like a Prussian feldoffizier to all
other hams not wanting morse. "For the "love of it?" :-)


It is performed for the love of it. If you ever hope to
obtain an amateur radio license, you'll have to indulge in some
ordinary, plebian work.

No, I won't, Kernal Klunk.

I didn't parlay a disk jockey job into fleecing the State
Department in being resident ham DX. Cushy. Now you are
getting a pension for all that "hard work." Taxpayers are
paying you. Hardly "plebian" of YOU, is it?

But, having NO answers to my remarks, you made up a lot of
scurrilous snit on your own. "For the love of it?"

Must have been...it sure as hell had NO ring of "diplomacy" to
it. Didn't learn much about diplomacy at State, Klank?

Next time, Coolonell, try TRY to answer some of the topics
that were addressed...even if NOT to you. Do it "for the
love of it."

Fork you, you're done...

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

wrote in message
ps.com...

From: Dave Heil on Fri, Aug 11 2006 1:09 pm
Email: Dave Heil
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.policy


Klein fears CHANGE and, perhaps, feelings of obsolescence.

I fear that Leonard H. Anderson will go to his reward without ever
having obtained an amateur radio license.

Oh, no, Kernal Klink is trying to manufacture a "motive" of
his own imagining. Tsk, tsk. He gets it WRONG.

Klink, can't you get ANYTHING right?

My purpose in here is trying to get the morse code test(s)
reduced to zero. It is down to just 1 now.

Tell us all (from your imagination) why one "should" get
an amateur radio license. I am a professional in
electronics, have had my Commercial license since 1956,
am retired from a career in aerospace electronics with
a nice income.

I don't NEED a ham license nor am I trying to get one.
I'm trying to change the federal law concerning all
ham-hobbyists being required to test for morse in this
advanced time of the new millennium.

Not to worry, Klink, I'll be watching the US Post Office
walls for YOUR "reward." :-)


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.

Don't let us stop you from tending to your chores, Len.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

You couldn't possible do that. :-)


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

That's all you've done since your recent reappearance here, Major Hoople.

Oh, poor baby! Colonel Klink is bent out of shape because
no one loves and adores him and his morsemanship? Tsk, tsk.


Some of these Olde Fahrts seem to think their amateurism is on
some kind of "higher plane" than ordinary, plebian, work.

Obtaining an amateur radio license *is* work, Len.

How much DOES it pay?

My, oh my. How Lennie doth whine. Or his sockpuppet....
Makes no difference.

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. :)