MnMikew wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


MnMikew wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

Bottom line, if you want the priveleges, you takes the test (and that
pretty
much holds true for anything), you don't get to 'cherry-pick' the
particular
things that you feel comfortable with being tested on, or that which
YOU
feel
YOU have a use for.

You're sounding more and more Liberal with each post!

And you're sounding like the typical code zealot. You'd make the perfect
elitest liberal.

Are you currently licensed?

Nope. I'm waiting to see how the current license thing shakes out. Been
meaning to for awhile now. I listen in on some 2m nets and stuff via the
scanners and am starting to get the bug to talk insted of listen.

From what I've seen the current ham tests are just like what Microsoft had
for NT certification. Petty easy to pass with some memorization. But MSFT
got wise and made the tests harder with each OS release. It would be fairly
easy to make the tech test harder by not publishing the answers. You'd get a
better quality of hams then instead of people with good memory who can
barely do code.

That would certainly be true, however, it seems as though you do want a license
but are unwilling to learn the code. So, I guess you'll have to sit on the
sidelines waiting to see how things shake out.

But, you can obtain a license now and talk till your lungs collapse, you just
can't get on HF without doing that nasty code thing.

I hereby rest my case.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


MnMikew wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


MnMikew wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

Bottom line, if you want the priveleges, you takes the test (and
that
pretty
much holds true for anything), you don't get to 'cherry-pick' the
particular
things that you feel comfortable with being tested on, or that
which
YOU
feel
YOU have a use for.

You're sounding more and more Liberal with each post!

And you're sounding like the typical code zealot. You'd make the
perfect
elitest liberal.

Are you currently licensed?

Nope. I'm waiting to see how the current license thing shakes out. Been
meaning to for awhile now. I listen in on some 2m nets and stuff via the
scanners and am starting to get the bug to talk insted of listen.

From what I've seen the current ham tests are just like what Microsoft
had
for NT certification. Petty easy to pass with some memorization. But
MSFT
got wise and made the tests harder with each OS release. It would be
fairly
easy to make the tech test harder by not publishing the answers. You'd
get a
better quality of hams then instead of people with good memory who can
barely do code.

That would certainly be true, however, it seems as though you do want a
license
but are unwilling to learn the code. So, I guess you'll have to sit on the
sidelines waiting to see how things shake out.

No, I could go take the tech test tomorrow and probably pass. I waiting to
see if they change the test......again.

dxAce wrote:
But, you can obtain a license now and talk till your lungs collapse, you just
can't get on HF without doing that nasty code thing.

Some companies are putting big, big money into CW:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060124/nytu143.html?.v=43

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

clifto wrote:

dxAce wrote:
But, you can obtain a license now and talk till your lungs collapse, you just
can't get on HF without doing that nasty code thing.

Some companies are putting big, big money into CW:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060124/nytu143.html?.v=43

That's pretty good :-)

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


clifto wrote:

dxAce wrote:
But, you can obtain a license now and talk till your lungs collapse,
you just
can't get on HF without doing that nasty code thing.

Some companies are putting big, big money into CW:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060124/nytu143.html?.v=43

That's pretty good :-)

They could have been a bit more original with the name.