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

From: Al Klein on Sun, Aug 13 2006 9:15 pm
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner, rec.radio.swap


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.

Klein, you said you were an OF. Any olde-fahrt ought to KNOW that
silver-mica capacitors were color-dot-coded for about a quarter
century. [look in the 1976 ARRL Handbook] Those flat cases
were eventually displaced by dipped silver-mica.

Paper tubular capacitors in molded plastic tubular casings were
marked with color bands and were on the market for at least
15 years, maybe 20...until aced out by ceramic disc capacitors
for general bypassing and coupling applications (by both tube
and transistor architecture electronics).

ANYONE with hands-on experience in electronics between 1950
and about 1970 would KNOW that. [okay, folks, looks like
there's another imposter here...at least this one isn't
trying to pass hisself off as some marine NCO...:-)

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

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:22:26 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:09:43 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:34:58 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:54:12 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:13:23 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:24:46 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

Your claim to know what I'm thinking better than I do? Only if your
age is a single digit.

sure I know better

Then you're claiming to be a child.

nope you are claiming to something contary to fact

I'm claiming that I know what I think and you don't - which is a fact.

prove it

Are you telepathic? No? Then you can't know what I think.

I don't think you truely understand what you think, that is another
fact

That you don't think I do is a fact. That I don't understand isn't.
So what you think is incorrect and that's another fact.

you are worng it becoming hazing when the subject of the test is
unrelated to the prevlegdes it grannts

Nope - it's just a poor test. Hazing is something entirely different.

hazing is in the ye of the beholder

No, words have actual meanings sometimes.

do you have anything cogent to say?

Cogent in your eyes, no, since you and cogency have never met.

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

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 20:45:32 GMT, 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.

Your memory is THAT faulty? Maybe it's just part of being lazy.

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

From: jawod on Sun, Aug 13 2006 8:16 am


an old friend wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 10:10:55 -0700, "an old friend" wrote:


Anyway,,
Back in the old days, we used to walk 5 miles in the snow to the FCC
field office to take our exams.

You forgot: "uphill both ways, barefoot..."

We had to kneel on radiators while we
took the test. We used slide rules and crayons AND WE LIKED IT!!!

You are still using crayons but I doubt you know how to
use a 1950 slide-rule...too complex for brass-pounders.

Oh, and FCC Field Offices were NOT 10 miles apart in the USA
now, in 1956 (when I took a train 80 miles into Chicago), nor
before then.

Then we'd wait 3 years to receive our license which gave us time to
teach electrons to enter and exit all the tubes...stupid little buggers,
those.

Wrongo, olde-fahrt. Electrons, fields, and waves will ONLY
obey THEIR rules. You can't "teach" them anything. All you
can do is provide paths for them...on THEIR terms.

Boy, those were the days. When a ham was a ham, brass was for pounding
and AM signals were as wide as the day is long.

That was well before 1960...like before WW2.

These "young" whippersnappers get off too easy.

Pizza off, olde-fahrt. 51 years ago I would be walking a mile
from a corner of an airfield NE of Tokyo to the transmitter
house in the center which housed 41 HF transmitters ranging
in power output from 1 KW to 40 KW. Not a single one of
them used manual (morse code) radiotelegraphy modes. About
two square miles of wire antennas doing 24/7 radio circuit
transmission to CONUS, Hawaii, Phillippines, Okinawa, Korea,
and a MAG in Vietnam. Six of those circuits used multichannel
SSB (the commercial variety, like in-use prior to WW2).

I STARTED that HF transmitter site work in '53, NO military
schooling on kilowatt transmitters, RTTY, or SSB and NO
"CW" skill necessary.

I say, rank priveleges on the basis of how big an RF burn you can take,
or on the basis of personal weight.

Sounds like you had TOO MANY of those "RF burns."

See Dr. Robeson in here...he will bandage your "burns" with
one of his medical-practice certificates...those are sterile.


I may have said it befo take the FCC out of it completely and go with
the FDA. Those boys know how to grade.

"Ham is the butchered meat of swine?"

Last guy I heard utter that phrase is SK...used to work with him
(he was a code-tested Extra)...he came out with that every once
in a while when some amateur morseman got too full of himself.

(Too much tea this morning!)

Try a detox program, okay? QRT.

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

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:24:36 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:12:03 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:36:29 -0400, wrote:

you can't explain it to me or to a frormer (or current memeber of
Mensa

Being a member of MENSA doesn't mean anything more than potential. It
certainly doesn't mean realized potential.

nor it seems can you explain where it counts...The FCC

I have to explain something to the FCC?

Look up the definition of "libel". Part of it is "malicious
defamation". Calling a penny a cent isn't malicious, nor is it
defamatory.

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.

why? you would simply dey it

I'd deny a link? Would you deny a sunrise? Are you *really* as daft
as you sound here?

but you compare those that took and passed the test required at the
time to theifs that sure soound calling em cheats to me

But since I never compared anyone to anything, it's all in your mind.

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

From: jawod on Sun, Aug 13 2006 3:24 pm
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner, rec.radio.swap


If MENSA membership is important to you, fine. Most of us find it a bit
pretentious and downright silly.

If someone wants to use MENSA to elevate themselves above the rest, they
are perched on very rickety stilts.

If MORSEMANSHIP is important to you, fine. Most of US find it a bit
pretentious and downright silly.

If someone wants to use MORSEMANSHIP to elevate themselves above
the rest, they are perched on very rickety stilts.

[I'll just add something like...]:

Stilts are needed by morsemen because their appearance, relative
to REAL radio people, are very short. They try to gain "height"
of their reputation by using 1930s standards in the year 2006.
Tsk, they don't realize that their new "height" still falls
short of everyone else...

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

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 20:50:25 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

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.

WOW! Did you come up with that with no outside help? (I'm not
overwhelmed - I'm not even whelmed.)

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

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:32:21 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:16:21 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:39:45 -0400, wrote:

your effort to smeear anybody that disagrees with you not withstanding
or indeed if you succeeded in producing a test I could not pass you
would exclude a lot of people besides me and kill the ARS

you reply which had zero relavance to my statement clipped

I hope you enjoyed arguing with yourself.

My statement if you enacted a standard that would in fact keep me from
passing, that would kill the ARS.

You're not that important, Markie. Or that well educated that if you
couldn't pass a test, very few others could.

That sort would require far more
than merely adding schamtics or going to short answer questions. it
would involved a test that would serious chalange Cecil and Len
Anderson both RF engineers, doing that would kill the ars as would the
asiine proposals of Mr Slow Code and many others

your notions are simplely not exexutable in anything like the current
sytem

Since you couldn't pass a final in a high school physics class, you
aren't qualified to determine what someone with an earned EE could or
couldn't do. As one who earned mine, I am.

the notion that multible guess is acceptable for pilots and drivers
(amoug others) but ham radio ops is silly

So you don't understand the difference between "choice" and "guess".
We'll just add that to the *L*O*N*G* list of things you don't
understand.

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

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 20:54:01 GMT, 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.

For driving a four-in-hand, it should be. There's a keyer in my
fairly new rig.

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

On 14 Aug 2006 13:58:41 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

and sewing skill for a pilots license after all canvas was once prime
plane covering

Let's add "doesn't understand the difference between 'constructing'
and 'piloting'".