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

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:36:29 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:49:32 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 15:42:50 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

oncce you accpet that much of the testing involves memizztion the
question then comes down to where is your beef?

Those who memorize answers instead of learning concepts - what you
would have seen at the beginning of the thread had you paid attention.

I did

your point are a defference that makes no deffenerce that you can
explain

In a way that you can understand. Since you demonstrate so little
understanding of anything, that's no surprise.

you tread awfully close to libel there AL

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.

ask an lawyer if you don't believe me

You need to take your own advice. Also you need to ask an English
teacher - you don't seem to know the definitions of a lot of very
common words.

that is your peoblem dancing over minutia you don't seem to understand

Pot - kettle - ebon.

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

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:37:12 -0400, wrote:

no the core of the matter is that there is no matter just you and

other trying toalter hisoory

History is amateurs having to demonstrate proficiency in Morse code.
those trying to eliminate the code requirement are the ones trying to
alter history. Do you work for the government? It sure sounds like
it. "When we change history it's progress, when you try to change
things back to the way they were, it's 'changing history'."

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

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

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".

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

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:40:11 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:04:55 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

No, but at least you're consistent - your response is non-responsive
and incompetent.

no they are on point

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

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

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:42:01 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:02:09 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:51:28 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

I am too lazy

I think that says it all.
indeed but no t wat you think it say

Mark, if missing the point were worth money you'd be richer than
Gates.

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

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:47:21 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:14:47 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:48:36 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

It is not a university degree. When I obtained all amateur privileges
at the age of 15, I didn't know squat.

"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.

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.

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

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:51:06 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:51:10 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

There's nothing either malicious not defamatory in that. ("Who" am I
defaming? "Hair"?)

myself for example by comparing me to a theft

1) A theft is an act - I wasn't comparing anyone to an act.

2) Quote where I'm comparing you to anything.

Telling you something true about yourself isn't actionable, unless
done with certain intent, which you'd be hard-pressed to prove.

never said it was actiionable

You keep using the word "libel" - that means actionable, since libel
is a civil tort.

do you understand english it seem not

Oh, I understand it. It's difficult to get published if you don't
understand the language in which you're writing. Your posts, however,
demonstrate a clear lack of ability to use the language to communicate
clearly.

however when you keep compating someone to theifs in time I suspect it
would rise to being actionale

If I ever did, which I never have.

what protects you is that judgement is not particularly collectable
and therefore not worth an atorneys time

How would you know whether a judgment against me is collectable?

Or is this another case of what you say having nothing to do with what
you mean?

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

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. But, since you have such a limited view
of the world, you won't understand what that means.

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

"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

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

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"?