On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:14:08 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:09:47 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:01:51 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

So exactly what is the "formula or method" for determining Extra
frequency privileges outside of memorizing them?

Since frequency assignments aren't theory, your question is both
irrelevant and incompetent.

since feq assignment are large part of the test they go to the core of
the matter

Another case of your commenting on something you don't understand.
"The core of the matter" is the difference between rote memorization
and understanding - which you don't understand.

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:14:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:18:11 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

Any knowledgeable person knows that knowledge is valuable for its own
sake.

and also knows that not all knowledge is equaly valuable

There's a difference between "knowledge" as a class and specific
knowledge - something evidently outside the scope of your knowledge.

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:16:28 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:16:39 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

but there still ramins no need for me to ever know the differentce
between a collpitts and hartely occilator.

There's no *need* for you to even know that you can use a radio to
talk to people.

there is if I want a license for it

Learn (now there's a new concept for you) the difference between
"specific" and "general".

There's a need, if we want a ham license to say that the holder of
said license has achieved a certain level of technical competence, to
test for that competence. Otherwise all the license says is "I have
this piece of paper with ink on it".

no it say I have legal license to do xyz with it that is all it has
ever said

In your limited experience - which is about 0% relevant to anyone
else.

experhaps in the epriod where the general advanced and
Extra class all had the same preveldges

Which was ... oh ... only a few decades. But you weren't licensed
then, so they don't matter, right?

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:17:33 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:23:13 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:12:59 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Laziness allows one to achieve a goal by the most efficient
route. Some famous German military leader said he would
lots rather have brilliant and lazy officers than ambitious
and stupid ones.

As I recall, he was also known as one of the most idiotic strategists
the species has ever produced. His "fame" didn't stop him from being
the almost single-handed reason his country lost its big war, did it?

I personally would rather see brilliant
and lazy amateur radio operators than ambitious and stupid
ones hanging on for dear life to an obsolete testing
requirement.

Being both intelligent and ambitious doesn't appear on your radar?

but it is not a requirement of licensing after you have one

Your comment was totally irrelevant to THIS conversation, Mark. Ham
radio has nothing to do, in this context, with Hitler.

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

I am too lazy

I think that says it all.

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:37:41 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

My MENSA membership number is 1006281.

There ought to be a Godwin's Rule type of rule for using the MENSA
crutch. Maybe I should declare one.

Klein's rule - so you lose.

(The claim "I'm so intelligent that ..." proves lack of intelligence.)

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:57:13 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Since frequency assignments aren't theory, your question is both
irrelevant and incompetent.

So the questions on my Extra exam were irrelevant?

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

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 20:11:49 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:57:13 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

I would like to
see one and only one entry level amateur radio exam
leading to one brotherhood of amateur radio operators
devoid of the jealousy, pecking order, and back-biting
apparent in your postings and others.
amen

You wouldn't be able to pass it, Mark, but you'd be the only one who
would care about that.

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:04:45 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

But, since you don't know the difference between "learning" and
"memorizing", nor which subjects fall into which category, you
probably can't see the parallel.

Learning is impossible without memorizing.

Memorizing is possible without learning.

You are simply ignorant

I'm not the one who doesn't understand the discussion, inverting
"memorizing" and "learning". Maybe you need to stop being so lazy and
actually learn something.


Is English your second language?

Third. My internal language is (was) my first. Brooklynese was my
second. English is my third.

Again, from Websters

Again, Webster's is a compendium of common usage, not an unabridged
(regardless of the trademark) authoritative source. those who cling
to dictionary definitions as authoritative announce their lack of
actual knowledge.

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:08:14 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Here's the crux of your communications problem. From Webster's:

"The absolutely worst source of the definition of a technical term is
a non-technical dictionary.

"Memorize" is NOT a technical word.

As a technical term (the usage here) it is, by definition.

Please get
back to us when you have talked the IEEE into
putting your special definition of "memorize"
into their technical dictionary.

As soon as the IEEE becomes a body of experts in the usage of the
English language. In the meantime, why don't you go and learn
something? Anything. New experiences can be quite enjoyable.