On 11 Aug 2006 18:51:28 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

I think I know what I'm claiming a little better than you do.

not likely

Very juvenile of you.

your beef has nothing to do with the tests it is to do with end of the
Hazing ritual that is a bout to occour

There's a hazing rule in ham radio? Since when?

Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 18:51:28 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

I think I know what I'm claiming a little better than you do.

not likely

Very juvenile of you.
exactly on point

you can't even semem to make up your mind what you are claiming

your beef has nothing to do with the tests it is to do with end of the
Hazing ritual that is a bout to occour

There's a hazing rule in ham radio? Since when?
sure there is it is called Morse Code testing

On 12 Aug 2006 10:10:08 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 18:51:28 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

I think I know what I'm claiming a little better than you do.

not likely

Very juvenile of you.

exactly on point

Your claim to know what I'm thinking better than I do? Only if your
age is a single digit.

your beef has nothing to do with the tests it is to do with end of the
Hazing ritual that is a bout to occour

There's a hazing rule in ham radio? Since when?

sure there is it is called Morse Code testing

You don't win points by redefining words, you just make yourself look
desperate.

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:13:23 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:24:46 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

Your claim to know what I'm thinking better than I do? Only if your
age is a single digit.

sure I know better

Then you're claiming to be a child.

your beef has nothing to do with the tests it is to do with end of the
Hazing ritual that is a bout to occour

There's a hazing rule in ham radio? Since when?

sure there is it is called Morse Code testing

You don't win points by redefining words, you just make yourself look
desperate.

no refining word HERE at any rate

If you don't even know the difference between refining and redefining
(they're not even close in meaning), there's no way you can discuss
it. But testing for a license isn't hazing by any accepted definition
regardless of what's being tested for.

you are dancing around sutblies in the menaing of emorizing like mad

In your mind, because you can't understand the simple distinctions.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:34:58 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:54:12 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:13:23 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:24:46 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

Your claim to know what I'm thinking better than I do? Only if your
age is a single digit.

sure I know better

Then you're claiming to be a child.

nope you are claiming to something contary to fact

I'm claiming that I know what I think and you don't - which is a fact.

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.

you are dancing around sutblies in the menaing of emorizing like mad

In your mind, because you can't understand the simple distinctions.

and in the mind of engineer at least 2 of em and countless others as
well

Degrees don't guarantee competence - 50% of all engineers graduated in
the bottom half of the class.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:22:26 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:09:43 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:34:58 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:54:12 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:13:23 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:24:46 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

Your claim to know what I'm thinking better than I do? Only if your
age is a single digit.

sure I know better

Then you're claiming to be a child.

nope you are claiming to something contary to fact

I'm claiming that I know what I think and you don't - which is a fact.

prove it

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

I don't think you truely understand what you think, that is another
fact

That you don't think I do is a fact. That I don't understand isn't.
So what you think is incorrect and that's another fact.

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.

do you have anything cogent to say?

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

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.