a MENSA
level IQ is worth magnitudes more to its possessor than is Morse
code skill even within the Amateur Radio Service. If all the coded
hams with IQ's less than 100 were transformed into nocode techs
with MENSA level IQ's, the ARS would be much better off and a lot
less prone to silliness. The ARRL might even stop publishing those
gross technical errors, e.g. reflections don't exist.
Cecil

you're trolling, aren't you?

If you truly believe this stuff, you're in sadder shape than I thought.

Your MENSA membership is dreck, dribble, dross. With code, there is, at
least, some grounding in practicality: a real world function.

"Whew! I knew I was a genius but now I have PROOF!" How completely sad.

MENSA has perverted the very nature of IQ in a manner not dissimilar to
the way Home Owner Associations have perverted the notion of individual
freedoms (guaranteed by our Constitution).

Enjoy your little trophy but I'm sure you'll keep yourself insulated
from the derision you richly deserve when you bring it up in this newsgroup.

I can tell that you're not a bad guy...but, the mensa thing makes you
seem, I don't know, ...(fill in the blank)

Be Good.
Hell, be more egalitarian for once in your life!
We all share a HOBBY!!!!

John
AB8O

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

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.

"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 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.

L. wrote:
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.
indeed that is why many of are here trashing it out one last time

NoCode got real montenum and organzation here t grow in to movement in
part in this very forum

there newpaper articles mention the same timefram and the noocders are
swatting the whinners that would like to try and derail that

L.