On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:01:51 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
wrote:
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.

You must be at least 6 years old, Brenda Ann - Cecil can't seem to
make that distinction.

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.

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?
In that, I tend to agree with you. 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.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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 Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:40:11 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:04:55 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

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

no they are on point

You don't even know what an incompetent response is, so how can you
comment on it?

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:33:15 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:17:07 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

You don't even know what an incompetent response is, so how can you
comment on it?\

it is like pron I can't define it but I know it when I see it

it works for the law on Pornographic materail

No, actually the SCOTUS said that it DOESN'T work, which is why they
came up with a definition.

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 Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:39:45 -0400, wrote:

your effort to smeear anybody that disagrees with you not withstanding
or indeed if you succeeded in producing a test I could not pass you
would exclude a lot of people besides me and kill the ARS

Like it was "killed" all through the 30s, 40s, 50, 60s, etc.? Code
was required, as was drawing schematics. Yet there were more hams
every year than there were the year before. You have a strange
concept of "kill".

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:32:21 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:16:21 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:39:45 -0400, wrote:

your effort to smeear anybody that disagrees with you not withstanding
or indeed if you succeeded in producing a test I could not pass you
would exclude a lot of people besides me and kill the ARS

you reply which had zero relavance to my statement clipped

I hope you enjoyed arguing with yourself.

My statement if you enacted a standard that would in fact keep me from
passing, that would kill the ARS.

You're not that important, Markie. Or that well educated that if you
couldn't pass a test, very few others could.

That sort would require far more
than merely adding schamtics or going to short answer questions. it
would involved a test that would serious chalange Cecil and Len
Anderson both RF engineers, doing that would kill the ars as would the
asiine proposals of Mr Slow Code and many others

your notions are simplely not exexutable in anything like the current
sytem

Since you couldn't pass a final in a high school physics class, you
aren't qualified to determine what someone with an earned EE could or
couldn't do. As one who earned mine, I am.

the notion that multible guess is acceptable for pilots and drivers
(amoug others) but ham radio ops is silly

So you don't understand the difference between "choice" and "guess".
We'll just add that to the *L*O*N*G* list of things you don't
understand.

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 Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:37:12 -0400, wrote:

no the core of the matter is that there is no matter just you and

other trying toalter hisoory

History is amateurs having to demonstrate proficiency in Morse code.
those trying to eliminate the code requirement are the ones trying to
alter history. Do you work for the government? It sure sounds like
it. "When we change history it's progress, when you try to change
things back to the way they were, it's 'changing history'."