"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

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

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:20:01 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:06:32 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:32:06 -0400, wrote:

but your point?

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

but still your point is what?

Want to go for another ride on the merry-go-round?

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.