|
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
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. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
|
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
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. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
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. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
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 |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
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 |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
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 |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
|
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
On 14 Aug 2006 18:42:55 -0700, "
wrote: 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...:-) Try reading what I wrote. "They didn't" ... "escape". Looks like the impostor (as far as understanding simple English) isn't me. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:09 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com