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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:32:06 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:55:15 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

Parroting what I say doesn't make you look educated.

indeed it would not

but your point?

That if you bought 5 clues you'd still be less than clueless.

The fact that you posted something on your blog doesn't make it
definitive, or even correct.
never claimed otherwise now you are attacking for a having a sig line?

http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

That's not a sig line, it's part of your post. Sigs appear UNDER the
tear (and you don't even have a tear). Put your sig in the signature
area, not as part of your post. (If you can figure out how to use
Agent.)