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

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:49:43 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:43:48 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

Are you telepathic? No? Then you can't know what I think.

where is your proof

That you're not telepathic? I don't need any - either you aren't
telepathic or you aren't on the planet legally.

without proving that I am not a telpath or simply smarter than you you
can't proove that assertion

No matter how smart you are, I still know what I think better than you
do You'd realize that if you were as smart as the average human
adult.

Indeed I asert the claim you can't know what you think, anymore than I
can. based on science the human often decieves itself therfore you
don't know in many cases what you truly think, anymore than I know
what I truely think

Solipsism is its own defeat, and that comes awfully close.

That I don't understand isn't.

prove that assertion

I made the assertion. (Figure that one out.)

you can't
So what you think is incorrect and that's another fact.
maybe it is incorrect maybe it isn't that is the fact
you can not prove otherwise

By any standard definition, the proof is by definition.

you are worng it becoming hazing when the subject of the test is
unrelated to the prevlegdes it grannts

Nope - it's just a poor test. Hazing is something entirely different.

hazing is in the ye of the beholder

No, words have actual meanings sometimes.
yes they do

your point?

You mean the one you missed? Again?

do you have anything cogent to say?

Cogent in your eyes, no, since you and cogency have never met.

always the personal attack such a weak case you must have

In response to a personal attack there's nothing wrong with a personal
rejoinder.

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

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 03:48:18 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

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".

Keep going, Cecil, they'll name a book of aphorisms after you
eventually.

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

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 03:57:07 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

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?

Markie? Get out of Cecil's head.

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

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 03:59:46 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

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?

I don't know. You?

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

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.

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

Al Klein wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Who was it who said a Conditional exam taken away
from an FCC office probably involved cheating?

I don't know. You?

It was someone who replied to my posting about receiving
a Conditional class license in the '50's. I thought it
was you. If it wasn't, my apologies.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:26:50 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Who was it who said a Conditional exam taken away
from an FCC office probably involved cheating?

I don't know. You?

It was someone who replied to my posting about receiving
a Conditional class license in the '50's.

I wouldn't even think along those lines.

I thought it was you. If it wasn't, my apologies.

Accepted.

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

On 15 Aug 2006 07:23:50 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

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

Derail what, Markie? Oh, right, the change in the rules. And you
accuse us of being the ones who want to change things.

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

Al Klein wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 07:23:50 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

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

Derail what, Markie? Oh, right, the change in the rules. And you
accuse us of being the ones who want to change things.
never said anything was wrong with change per se changing histrical
facts to suit your case is wrong Al but is it what you want to change
that is the problem

BTW why are you such an ill manner lout that you can't address me by
name

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

Al Klein wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 07:23:50 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

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

Derail what, Markie? Oh, right, the change in the rules. And you
accuse us of being the ones who want to change things.
never said anything was wrong with change per se changing histrical
facts to suit your case is wrong Al but is it what you want to change
that is the problem

BTW why are you such an ill mannered lout that you can't address me by
name