|
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
t... L. wrote: I have a ton of books in my reach too - so whats your point? If you are ambitious enough to already possess the knowledge, you don't need the books. I am too lazy to try to possess all knowledge so I need the books. Not having to memorize all knowledge frees up my mind for creative thought. And as for "Hitler" claiming that - as you said about his admiration for a brilliant lazy man - eh......... last I heard - the man was a fruit cake, lost the war, cost thousands of lives, innocent ones at that - and ended up committing suicide - WHAT A LOSER. And I would want to follow his examples/principles - why? The statements that I quoted were from a WWI German military leader probably uttered while Hitler was still a private or corporal. Why do you have to try to misrepresent what I said? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp OK, so maybe I misrepresented your quote "by accident" - big deal. HITLER was still a loser as was/is ANY ONE who bought/buys into that STUPID philosophy you spoke of. Pretty damned sad when you - speaking of ANYONE it applies to - are too "lazy" to "learn". That is almost laughable. Creative thinking - without knowledge? Surely you jest! I'm done arguing with someone who is "too" lazy to "learn". I'd prefer to talk to those who have "intelligence" to refer to - to stimulate the conversation. Good luck in your monologue. L. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
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. Why do you think he was an idiotic strategist? Why do you think he single-handedly lost WWI? If you know so much about him, what was his name? 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. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
L. wrote: "Cecil Moore" wrote in message t... L. wrote: I have a ton of books in my reach too - so whats your point? If you are ambitious enough to already possess the knowledge, you don't need the books. I am too lazy to try to possess all knowledge so I need the books. Not having to memorize all knowledge frees up my mind for creative thought. And as for "Hitler" claiming that - as you said about his admiration for a brilliant lazy man - eh......... last I heard - the man was a fruit cake, lost the war, cost thousands of lives, innocent ones at that - and ended up committing suicide - WHAT A LOSER. And I would want to follow his examples/principles - why? The statements that I quoted were from a WWI German military leader probably uttered while Hitler was still a private or corporal. Why do you have to try to misrepresent what I said? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp OK, so maybe I misrepresented your quote "by accident" - big deal. it shows that you are ignorant of what you are tlaking about HITLER was still a loser as was/is ANY ONE who bought/buys into that STUPID philosophy you spoke of. base effort t atr anyone that believes something you don't as a Nazi Pretty damned sad when you - speaking of ANYONE it applies to - are too "lazy" to "learn". That is almost laughable. Creative thinking - without knowledge? Surely you jest! without occopiing ones mind by consdiering triva I'm done arguing with someone who is "too" lazy to "learn". I'd prefer to talk to those who have "intelligence" to refer to - to stimulate the conversation. Good luck in your monologue. hardly a monlogou why do you misrepresent the state of reality L. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
L. wrote:
THIS WHOLE FREAKING ARGUMENT IS - STUPID. Yes, now you are getting it. I remember when hams like you were trying to keep the single-sidewinders off the air in the 1950's. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
L. wrote:
I'm done arguing with someone who is "too" lazy to "learn". I'd prefer to talk to those who have "intelligence" to refer to - to stimulate the conversation. My MENSA membership number is 1006281. What's your MENSA membership number? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
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. It is not a university degree. When I obtained all amateur privileges at the age of 15, I didn't know squat. 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? Do you know how to construct an IC-756PROII? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
Cecil Moore wrote: Al Klein wrote: wrote: You denigrate the resistor code. Not at all. It's a lot better than having the value printed on the resistor in numbers. Even with MIL quality and transparent coatings, the numbers on 1/8 watt resistors are kind of hard to read. Even with the resistor color code, most of us *MEMORIZED* a jingle like: Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls But Violet Gives Willingly I believe the military used to teach their technicians to *MEMORIZE* that jingle. Exactly how does one develop the resistor color code from first principles? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp How did capacitors escape getting color coded? |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
|
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
Cecil Moore wrote:
lid wrote: It used to be that there weren't a set of questions with corresponding answers - there was a syllabus from which the questions were set. It took understanding of the syllabus to apply the formulae that had been learnt to calculate the answer. It is true that the 1950's License Manuals were not multiple choice but the exams were. The License Manuals went like this: Q: What is the unit of electrical resistance? A: The unit of electrical resistance is the ohm. The exam then had multiple choices, one of them being "ohm". It is hard to understand how anyone could develop that correct answer from first principles or formulas. I memorized the correct answer and it still exists in my memory as something I once memorized long before I ever knew there was a man named Ohm after whom the unit of electrical resistance was named. The difference between memorizing the question pool answers from the 1950's License Manuals and memorizing the question pool answers of today is just splitting hairs. I used exactly the same memorizing techniques to ace the Extra exam in 2000 as I did to pass the Conditional exam in 1953. Here here (!) Cecil, I'm happy to agree with you. Modern testing techniques are intended to be transparent. This is true for FCC exams, Postal exams, any and all government qualification exams. (And because of this, all qualifying exams in the private sector, as well.) It took a lot of litigation to get there. Government agencies had to prove that their qualifying exams were directly linked to the specific tasks required of the given position for which the individual was applying. A Postal Carrier needn't know Pythagorus' theorum to deliver the mail. I took the Postal Carrier exam 35 years ago and did not do well. I wasn't good at sorting on a timed basis. This notion of a "cheapening" of FCC requirements because the question pool is open to the public is a red herring: transparency is the rule. If you look at the question pool and study it, you will gain the necessary expertise to pass the exam. This is not cheating, nor is it short-circuiting the "REAL" ham radio "requirements" that some view as sacrosanct. I used ARRL manuals to pass the Extra Exam and I do not defer to anyone in this regard. Does this make me a ham radio genius? Not AT ALL. Man, I have SO MUCH to learn. This newsgroup is "potentially" very helpful! For that, I give thanks. You know, I love ham radio. I'm happy so many join the ranks each year. If there still is a concern out there, be an Elmer and address it. John AB8O (yeah, I changed my call) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com