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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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".

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.

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.