There's a difference between memorizing a formula or method and memorizing
specific answers to specific questions. The former is called learning, and
can be applied to many situations. The latter is called laziness, and
teaches nothing that can be used for any other purpose.


I don't view testing in this regard as a form of teaching. The goal, as
someone posted, is to "get in the door". What's wrong with that?

Memorizing precise answers and not processes is lazy, I guess. However,
following ARRL testing manuals, you HAVE to learn the processes.

Deep understanding of all principles involved will gain you an
educational degree. That's not the intent of FCC testing.

It's a hobby! Get in the door and have fun.

John
AB8O

wrote:
From: Steve Stone on Sat, Aug 12 2006 6:31 am
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner,

rec.radio.swap



Ham radio is gonna be flushed big time if this is all you old farts are
worried about.


Steve, you may be quite right!

There is NO expression from these federally-authorized morsemen
of amateur radio being a HOBBY. [it is a "service" to the
country or something para-military...and "hobby" is not in the
Rules (except by definition)] Indeed, they bristle and come
unglued at the slightest negativism of their mighty endeavors of
"professional amateurism" with all its rank, status, and glory.
Ham radio can't be just "fun" for its own sake, an enjoyable
pastime, something done for personal pleasure. No, one has to
enjoy ONLY Their views, like what they like, or suffer the
consequences of being considered "lower caste" on par with
river-bottom slime.

These mighty macho morsemen demand OBEDIANCE to their views and
opinions, are quick to call disbelievers any name they choose,
always denigrative, condescending, with heavy overtones of
attempted humiliation. They are the unforgiving in regards to
anyone NOT worshiping their status, rank, titles in amateurism.
Unforgiving to the point of attacking ANYONE against them.
They RULE. [they think...but only in here...]

While these mighty macho morsemen take out their frustrations,
resentments, anger against all not idolizing their opinions,
there are some actual amateur radio issues which need addressing.
The removal or continuation of the morse code test for US amateur
radio license testing is still in limbo; official Comment period
on the NPRM was over late last year. Access BPL recently had a
rules revision/addendum added by the FCC with a Report and Order
released on 7 August 2006. No one in here apparently cares about
it since the "ARRL is on the job," "fighting" to keep HF "safe"
(for their membership?). [ho, ho, some "fight"...]

No one cares to discuss two BIG issues. Everyone is busy, busy,
trying to insult anyone who doesn't subscribe to Their views.
Ain't no "discussion" here, hasn't been for years. Internecine
personal warfare is the order of the day. Everyone in here
either obeys the rulings of Big Brother in Newington or
they are considered lower forms of (barely) life.

The number of US amateur radio licensees is slowly dropping
(expirations greater than new licensees to the tune of 10K
in three years). Membership in the ARRL (the "representative"
of all, according to them) has never been more than a quarter
of all US licensees. Technician class licensees are very
very close to being a full half of all classes (49.07% of all
individual licensees as of 12 Aug 06).

Lettuce all bow our heads and worship morsemanship...these
are the salad days of the brass-pounders. Morse is the answer
to everything I'm told. [over and over again] :-)

Beep, beep...



JOIN us.

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

Cecil Moore wrote:
jawod wrote:

If you are confident in your intelligence, why do you need validation?


In my case, my wife's best friend's husband, who was a member
of MENSA, made a bet with me that I couldn't qualify for MENSA.
If I won, he would pay for the exam and my first year's dues.
If I lost, I was out the cost of the exam and dinner for 4.
I suppose you two argue over who has the lower number and how much
harder it USED to be to get into MENSA.

Olie wrote:
My MENSA membership number is 1006281.
What's your MENSA membership number?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

A MENSA membership means you have a high intelligence quotient. A high
intelligence quotient does not necessarily mean you know anything, only
that if you apply yourself that you have the ability to learn more easily
than an average person. I know some very lazy MENSA members that can't
even spell a large number of the words they use.

In other words, even people above average intelligence can be and often
are too lazy to learn. They do manage to apply what they do know better
than most.



Mensa - who gives a damned? Most of the "brilliant" people I've ever met -
had their thumbs up their ass when it came to doing the basic things in
life - they can't do them. What the hell good is a "brilliant" person if
they're too stupid to know how or lazy to do "basic" things? If having a
Mensa number means you're bankrupt in common sense or "lazy", I'd rather not
be a member - thank you. Often, it is "common sense" which gets you
through - NOT "brilliance". From all I've ever heard and /or seen -
"brilliance" and "common sense" don't go hand in hand. Sitting in a chair
with a bunch of books behind you to make you "appear" smart and not getting
off your lazy ass to use it or to further your education - is not a
"productive" person. I know a few welfare bums who fall into that
description- "appear" smart, "act" smart - lazy as hell. Being in the center
of a University Library with books on most any subject - is NOT going to
make you any more intelligent if you don't venture to "learn". Even at that,
if you don't use it, you lose it.

.............
This is funny as all getout angry diatribe snipped

Obviously the person claiming to be a Mensa member has poked a figurative
finger into your soft spot. Sensitive, are you? Taking umbrage? Apparently
you feel that the alleged Mensa member has slighted you either directly or
indirectly, ergo your lengthy and uncalled-for diatribe.
Of course, in your self-righteous response you probably did not consider the
possibility that the "Mensa" person was a troll. Makes no difference, does
it? He certainly set you off on a rant.
I give him five stars for that.

Sit back, read the post again and view it with a bit of a tongue-in-cheek
sense of humor. It will lower your blood pressure. Even if the guy IS a
Mensa member, by the simple fact of him bragging about same shows that he is
a blowgut braggart whose ego has gotten in the way of common sense.
I doubt he is what he says he is, but he certainly elicited a wordy response
from you.
He wins. You lost.




If MENSA membership is important to you, fine. Most of us find it a bit
pretentious and downright silly.

If someone wants to use MENSA to elevate themselves above the rest, they
are perched on very rickety stilts.

jawod wrote:
If MENSA membership is important to you, fine. Most of us find it a bit
pretentious and downright silly.

Ditto for the Morse code testing requirement.
That was the whole point.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
om...
Truth is, I got into MENSA because someone lost a bet and
paid for my exam and dues. I am not presently a member of
MENSA because the yearly dues exceed my threshold of pain.
But I am a member of OOTC and FISTS, #8741. :-)

Question (this is not a flame):.

1. Is the ability to decode Morse Code transmissions, in one's own wet modem
(brain), at high speed, proportional or even relevant in any possible way to
one's ability to pass a mensa test and be accepted for membership? Is mensa
membership useful? Is mensa membership a measure of Morse wet modem
throughput?

Cecil, I think you already answered all of the above as 'no'. That doesn't
mean I like the the brand of motorcycle you drive. I do not. I like BMW's
that don't require a toolkit for every 100 miles on the road.

2. Or, (as I suspect), is Morse ability only useful after you have
purchased one's HF equipment, now that one has passed the test (whose
investment you otherwise would not have made until you passed the trivial
but compulsory 5wpm test for Morse code proficiency) to have to have fun and
prevent future alien attacks?

I am an extra class op who passed 13 wpm several years ago, can do 25 wpm
now and getting better all the time just because of heavy (and fun) Morse
action on the cw sub-bands, and wanting to know what people are saying and
being able to communicate back; in fact, CW is almost as good as psk31.

3. Just the same, how much does this mensa thing cost? Is it worth a dinner
for 4?

Rusty Shackleford wrote:
1. Is the ability to decode Morse Code transmissions, in one's own wet modem
(brain), at high speed, proportional or even relevant in any possible way to
one's ability to pass a mensa test and be accepted for membership? Is mensa
membership useful? Is mensa membership a measure of Morse wet modem
throughput?

Rusty, let me answer you this way. In my humble opinion, a MENSA
level IQ is worth magnitudes more to its possessor than is Morse
code skill even within the Amateur Radio Service. If all the coded
hams with IQ's less than 100 were transformed into nocode techs
with MENSA level IQ's, the ARS would be much better off and a lot
less prone to silliness. The ARRL might even stop publishing those
gross technical errors, e.g. reflections don't exist.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

"jawod" wrote in message ...



In the example YOU give - Cecil - it could be taken either way. In the
case of the "frequencies" you're to operate on for a given license and
band - YES - you could simply "memorize" (not really commit to memory)
those frequencies - for the exam purposes and just refer to a chart from
there in. OR you COULD "memorize" them (actually committing to memory)
for the purpose of NOT having to use a chart! However, once you use those
frequencies after a while - especially if active - then you "would" tend
to "memorize" (for life) those frequencies. Yes, it is definately
splitting hairs!

L.
that makes no sense. to memorize is to commit to memory, by definition.

RE-READ IT - there were TWO people here in the beginning "splitting hairs"
about the use of or perhaps MIS use of the word "memorization. One was
leaning towards "memorizing" "ANSWERS" purely to satisfy an exam....... i.e;
ABCD.......... it isn't quite that simple. On the other hand, the other
argument was in the "true" sense of the word - TO MEMORIZE (commit to memory
for life).