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

Al Klein wrote:
wrote:
the issue is simple some folks want to claim other folks that took and
passed the tests equire by by law are somehow "cheating"

If you can't even understand the issue, why do you keep opening your
mouth and proving it?

The issue is that if there's something wrong with the tests,
that is not the fault of the test takers. It is the fault
of the test designers. Given a person with a PhD in electronics,
50 years experience, and capable of doing 50 wpm in Morse code,
all he can do presently is pass the present day test requirements
and then be belittled by people like you who are inferior to him
in every way.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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

Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 07:57:47 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

the issue is simple some folks want to claim other folks that took and
passed the tests equire by by law are somehow "cheating"

If you can't even understand the issue, why do you keep opening your
mouth and proving it?

"My test was better than your test and that makes me a better ham."

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

Al Klein wrote:
You still don't understand (or want to acknowledge) the difference
between learning that Ohm was a scientist after whom the unit of
resistance was named, and "the answer to the question with the 10k
resistor is 'greater'".

Of course I understand. When I took my Conditional exam,
I didn't know Mr. Ohm from a hole in the ground. I simply
*MEMORIZED* that the ohm was the unit of resistance. I
had no idea how to know that except by *MEMORIZATION*.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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

wrote:
I learned the formulas ...

Did you *Heaven Forbid* memorize any formulas?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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

Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 07:57:47 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

the issue is simple some folks want to claim other folks that took and
passed the tests equire by by law are somehow "cheating"

If you can't even understand the issue, why do you keep opening your
mouth and proving it?
but I do uderstand the issue the real issue not the smoke screen you
are trying to blow (wether your own one you have been brainwashed into
accepting

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

Cecil Moore wrote in
m:

Slow Code wrote:
It was still Hokey. The aliens could do everything but provide their
own communications globally.

They also couldn't provide a decent firewall for their computers.



Maybe their OS was a Microsoft product too. LOL


SC

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

"an old friend" wrote in
oups.com:


Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 07:57:47 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

the issue is simple some folks want to claim other folks that took and
passed the tests equire by by law are somehow "cheating"

If you can't even understand the issue, why do you keep opening your
mouth and proving it?
but I do uderstand the issue the real issue not the smoke screen you
are trying to blow (wether your own one you have been brainwashed into
accepting



Mark, would you put these five steps on your web blog for me? Thanks. I
also want to try to get the moon bouncers to help us out. I think by
puting the five steps on your website, a lot more hams will see and agree
the five steps are a good idea. TNX, 73

SC



Step 1: No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and
pass all elements required for their license class.

Step 2: The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.

Step 3: Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.

Step 4: Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.

Step 5: Cancel your league membership until they decide to work
to improve things.

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

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:32:51 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

all he can do presently is pass the present day test requirements
and then be belittled

For claiming that the tests prove that he knows as much as those who
passed much more difficult tests, not for not having to pass those
more difficult tests.

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

On 11 Aug 2006 15:54:33 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 07:57:47 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

the issue is simple some folks want to claim other folks that took and
passed the tests equire by by law are somehow "cheating"

If you can't even understand the issue, why do you keep opening your
mouth and proving it?

but I do uderstand the issue

Then why do you keep pretending that you don't?

the real issue not the smoke screen you
are trying to blow (wether your own one you have been brainwashed into
accepting

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

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

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:36:49 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

You still don't understand (or want to acknowledge) the difference
between learning that Ohm was a scientist after whom the unit of
resistance was named, and "the answer to the question with the 10k
resistor is 'greater'".

Of course I understand. When I took my Conditional exam,
I didn't know Mr. Ohm from a hole in the ground. I simply
*MEMORIZED* that the ohm was the unit of resistance. I
had no idea how to know that except by *MEMORIZATION*.

Showing that you DON'T know the difference. Don't you even understand
what you post?