On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:33:15 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:17:07 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

You don't even know what an incompetent response is, so how can you
comment on it?\

it is like pron I can't define it but I know it when I see it

it works for the law on Pornographic materail

No, actually the SCOTUS said that it DOESN'T work, which is why they
came up with a definition.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:41:18 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:22:13 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:47:21 -0400, wrote:

"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.

impling that Cecil stole his license by passing the tests of the day

Not even close, but your accusation is close to being libelous.

the accusation is your not mine

Your accusation that I implied that Cecil stole his license is mine?
Not in this universe.

YOU want the license as some sort of badge of honnor

No, I want it to mean what it meant for decades - that the holder had
demonstrated a certain level of knowledge.

it has never meant that, not as a matt r of law

Just as a matter of fact (before you were aware of ham radio), not in
law. Now it doesn't mean anything in fact, just in law.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:41:50 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:30:02 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:54:10 -0400, wrote:

not in my opinion which for the pruposes of posting is all that counts

No, actually, "for the purposes of posting", your opinion doesn't
count at all to most people.
you knwo you efforts are getting boring

Then ... what's your famous line? Oh, yes, bail, Markie.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:43:20 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:31:29 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

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"?
if you are hearing anything seek medical help most like
but you are misreading the stament

You called me impolite because of my religious view.

you can politely disagree with re;ligoous beliefes without labeling
them as nonsense

I didn't label any religious belief as nonsense - that's in your head,
because you don't understand English.

it is not polite to label such thigs as nonsense

It's not impolite to label nonsensical things as nonsense.

if you were polite youd know that

If you were at least a tad intelligent, you'd know a lot that you
don't know now.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:33:50 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:02:16 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

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.

only if you throw away a little document like the constitution

So we have to give everyone a driver's license, even those who can't
drive? And let everyone vote, even those who are mentally
incompetent? No discrimination based on anything?

The Constitution doesn't prevent us from imposing standards, Markie.
And the law certainly doesn't guarantee that we're all equal, only
that we all be given equal opportunity to EARN what we want. There's
no Constitutional guarantee that the government will give us
everything we want, or that it can't treat different people in
accordance with those differences.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:16:54 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:


I'm not sure where you're coming from with "these" statements.............

today theere is NO requirement for CW testing. It is not needed that I
know CW in order to operate at all. Indeed even if we don't stick to
band plans I don't need to be able read a CW signal to know it is
there, and reconize the frequency is in use

UNTIL the Code requirement is abolished for good - which to my
recollection - it has not for U.S. hams (yet), then to get on H.F. you most
certainly are required to pass the 5 WPM code exam.

no harm will result if I don't know Morse code many hams ven now on HF
don't know it well enough to use indeed there was never a test to
determine if we could use it on the air at all


Also, I think if you read Part 97 - you may be surprised. VEs can give
either a receiving test OR "sending" test. USUALLY (most of the time) - it
is a "receiving" test. Whatever it takes for them to have "the examinee"
prove his/her knowledge of the code at 5 WPM. For example, you could claim
tone deafness to me - ok - so instead of "receiving" the code, I could have
you "send" the code. Before the code dropped to 5 WPM - you could get a
doctor to sign a waiver and you got code credit. BUT once the code was
dropped, so too were the waivers. I know it may sound hokey to have you
"send" code if you claim tone deafness, but the other options are a buzzer
sending YOU the code - you decipher - or a flashing light or whatever. AND
the FCC stated to the VEs that THOSE claiming handicaps are the ones
responsible for supplying the equipment to enable them to have every
reasonable chance of passing. Also, that code test "could" be broken down
into segments. Instead of playing a tape with a full message as you would to
most applicants, the VEs could break it down in segments of letters, words,
sentences at a time for someone with severe handicaps. WHATEVER was able to
give that applicant every reasonable chance of passing without much stress.
Argue that with THEM - "I" didn't make the rules.

So, just when was it that CODE was "abolished" as an "Exam" requirement?
Maybe I missed some mail from the VECs and FCC to tell me to quit testing
for 5 WPM code to get on H.F. ........... You give me a date that it went
into effect, and I'll retract my post.............

L.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:08:35 -0400, "L." wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:16:54 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:


I'm not sure where you're coming from with "these" statements.............

today theere is NO requirement for CW testing. It is not needed that I
know CW in order to operate at all. Indeed even if we don't stick to
band plans I don't need to be able read a CW signal to know it is
there, and reconize the frequency is in use

UNTIL the Code requirement is abolished for good -
the is no need or proper reason if you prefer that wording
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


OK, I'll buy that - but again, until the code {exam} is "ABOLISHED" - we are
"required" to have it for H.F. I WILL agree, once many pass their code
exams, they never see a key or listen to a code tape - again...........

For what it is worth and THIS I've not kept up with - I have heard that
there is a move afoot - by the FCC themselves - to abolish the code
requirement. For some strange reason, September or October of this year
comes to mind. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

L.

Al Klein wrote:
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.)

You are the one who suggested above that it is possible
to alter the past, i.e. "alter history".
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Al Klein wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

Get you a four-on-the-floor Mustang and beat it with a
buggy whip to make it go faster?

And Real Hams use straight keys to key cathodes, not some
computer assisted solid-state modern electronic crap.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Al Klein wrote:
Your accusation that I implied that Cecil stole his license is mine?
Not in this universe.

Who was it who said a Conditional exam taken away
from an FCC office probably involved cheating?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp