Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 10:10:55 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

at some level all you can do a merorize

The discussion isn't about WHETHER you memorize, it's about WHAT you
memorize.
that is a chnge in tune

oncce you accpet that much of the testing involves memizztion the
question then comes down to where is your beef?
if it is that today we then to use multiguess questions pools verus
short answer of bygone day you likely out of luck the extra cost is not
going to be supported within the present system

I agree short answer would be an improvement over multible guess but
teks you issue up with other don't imply that the ams that have taken
and passed the required tetst have not done what is required

you tread awfully close to libel there AL ask an lawyer if you don't
believe me

an old friend wrote:
Al Klein wrote:

On 12 Aug 2006 10:10:55 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:


at some level all you can do a merorize

The discussion isn't about WHETHER you memorize, it's about WHAT you
memorize.

that is a chnge in tune

oncce you accpet that much of the testing involves memizztion the
question then comes down to where is your beef?
if it is that today we then to use multiguess questions pools verus
short answer of bygone day you likely out of luck the extra cost is not
going to be supported within the present system

I agree short answer would be an improvement over multible guess but
teks you issue up with other don't imply that the ams that have taken
and passed the required tetst have not done what is required

you tread awfully close to libel there AL ask an lawyer if you don't
believe me

I am sorry, but do you type with your feet?

Anyway,,
Back in the old days, we used to walk 5 miles in the snow to the FCC
field office to take our exams. We had to kneel on radiators while we
took the test. We used slide rules and crayons AND WE LIKED IT!!!

Then we'd wait 3 years to receive our license which gave us time to
teach electrons to enter and exit all the tubes...stupid little buggers,
those.

Boy, those were the days. When a ham was a ham, brass was for pounding
and AM signals were as wide as the day is long.

These "young" whippersnappers get off too easy.

I say, rank priveleges on the basis of how big an RF burn you can take,
or on the basis of personal weight.

I may have said it befo take the FCC out of it completely and go with
the FDA. Those boys know how to grade.

(Too much tea this morning!)

John
AB8O

jawod wrote:
an old friend wrote:
Al Klein wrote:

On 12 Aug 2006 10:10:55 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

you tread awfully close to libel there AL ask an lawyer if you don't
believe me

I am sorry, but do you type with your feet?

Anyway,,
Back in the old days, we used to walk 5 miles in the snow to the FCC
field office to take our exams. We had to kneel on radiators while we
took the test. We used slide rules and crayons AND WE LIKED IT!!!

Then we'd wait 3 years to receive our license which gave us time to
teach electrons to enter and exit all the tubes...stupid little buggers,
those.

Boy, those were the days. When a ham was a ham, brass was for pounding
and AM signals were as wide as the day is long.

These "young" whippersnappers get off too easy.

I say, rank priveleges on the basis of how big an RF burn you can take,
or on the basis of personal weight.

I may have said it befo take the FCC out of it completely and go with
the FDA. Those boys know how to grade.

(Too much tea this morning!)
I avoid answering question from that admit to using too much of any
drug legal or or not

John
AB8O

From: jawod on Sun, Aug 13 2006 8:16 am


an old friend wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 10:10:55 -0700, "an old friend" wrote:


Anyway,,
Back in the old days, we used to walk 5 miles in the snow to the FCC
field office to take our exams.

You forgot: "uphill both ways, barefoot..."

We had to kneel on radiators while we
took the test. We used slide rules and crayons AND WE LIKED IT!!!

You are still using crayons but I doubt you know how to
use a 1950 slide-rule...too complex for brass-pounders.

Oh, and FCC Field Offices were NOT 10 miles apart in the USA
now, in 1956 (when I took a train 80 miles into Chicago), nor
before then.

Then we'd wait 3 years to receive our license which gave us time to
teach electrons to enter and exit all the tubes...stupid little buggers,
those.

Wrongo, olde-fahrt. Electrons, fields, and waves will ONLY
obey THEIR rules. You can't "teach" them anything. All you
can do is provide paths for them...on THEIR terms.

Boy, those were the days. When a ham was a ham, brass was for pounding
and AM signals were as wide as the day is long.

That was well before 1960...like before WW2.

These "young" whippersnappers get off too easy.

Pizza off, olde-fahrt. 51 years ago I would be walking a mile
from a corner of an airfield NE of Tokyo to the transmitter
house in the center which housed 41 HF transmitters ranging
in power output from 1 KW to 40 KW. Not a single one of
them used manual (morse code) radiotelegraphy modes. About
two square miles of wire antennas doing 24/7 radio circuit
transmission to CONUS, Hawaii, Phillippines, Okinawa, Korea,
and a MAG in Vietnam. Six of those circuits used multichannel
SSB (the commercial variety, like in-use prior to WW2).

I STARTED that HF transmitter site work in '53, NO military
schooling on kilowatt transmitters, RTTY, or SSB and NO
"CW" skill necessary.

I say, rank priveleges on the basis of how big an RF burn you can take,
or on the basis of personal weight.

Sounds like you had TOO MANY of those "RF burns."

See Dr. Robeson in here...he will bandage your "burns" with
one of his medical-practice certificates...those are sterile.


I may have said it befo take the FCC out of it completely and go with
the FDA. Those boys know how to grade.

"Ham is the butchered meat of swine?"

Last guy I heard utter that phrase is SK...used to work with him
(he was a code-tested Extra)...he came out with that every once
in a while when some amateur morseman got too full of himself.

(Too much tea this morning!)

Try a detox program, okay? QRT.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I seem to recall you saying that anyone who didn't take
his test at an FCC office probably cheated.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:36:29 -0400, wrote:
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.

I seem to recall you saying that anyone who didn't take
his test at an FCC office probably cheated.
oh that doesn't count for who took the test having crawled though
broken glas in blizzard up hill both ways
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 20:45:32 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

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

I seem to recall you saying that anyone who didn't take
his test at an FCC office probably cheated.

Your memory is THAT faulty? Maybe it's just part of being lazy.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:24:36 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:12:03 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:36:29 -0400, wrote:

you can't explain it to me or to a frormer (or current memeber of
Mensa

Being a member of MENSA doesn't mean anything more than potential. It
certainly doesn't mean realized potential.

nor it seems can you explain where it counts...The FCC

I have to explain something to the FCC?

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.

why? you would simply dey it

I'd deny a link? Would you deny a sunrise? Are you *really* as daft
as you sound here?

but you compare those that took and passed the test required at the
time to theifs that sure soound calling em cheats to me

But since I never compared anyone to anything, it's all in your mind.