| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:55:28 -0500, jakdedert
wrote: There's a world of difference between technical electronics knowledge and ability to decipher code. Considering that someone with absolutely no knowledge of electronics can memorize enough to pass the test in about 8 hours, there's no longer any real test of anything but the ability to memorize. FWIW, I don't even have a ham license anymore. Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Al Klein wrote: On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:55:28 -0500, jakdedert wrote: There's a world of difference between technical electronics knowledge and ability to decipher code. Considering that someone with absolutely no knowledge of electronics can memorize enough to pass the test in about 8 hours, there's no longer any real test of anything but the ability to memorize. whta is needed and why? FWIW, I don't even have a ham license anymore. Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter. nope he has full standing he is an american that means the FCC is suposed serve not the ARS but the people of the USA. the problem with you procoders is that you think the ARS owns the bandwidth not the poeple of the USA |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:55:28 -0500, jakdedert wrote: There's a world of difference between technical electronics knowledge and ability to decipher code. Considering that someone with absolutely no knowledge of electronics can memorize enough to pass the test in about 8 hours, there's no longer any real test of anything but the ability to memorize. FWIW, I don't even have a ham license anymore. Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter. Ahh...but I did, once, at 15 years old; and I've picked up a fair amount of electronics knowledge as well...proving that one has little to do with the other. jak |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
jakdedert wrote: Al Klein wrote: On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:55:28 -0500, jakdedert wrote: There's a world of difference between technical electronics knowledge and ability to decipher code. Considering that someone with absolutely no knowledge of electronics can memorize enough to pass the test in about 8 hours, there's no longer any real test of anything but the ability to memorize. FWIW, I don't even have a ham license anymore. Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter. Ahh...but I did, once, at 15 years old; and I've picked up a fair amount of electronics knowledge as well...proving that one has little to do with the other. you still do don't let this bozo tell you otherwise (unless you are an ilgeal alien or something) jak |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert
wrote: Al Klein wrote: Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter. Ahh...but I did, once But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once. proving that one has little to do with the other. And that you have little to do with this conversation. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Al Klein" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert wrote: Al Klein wrote: Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter. Ahh...but I did, once But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once. proving that one has little to do with the other. And that you have little to do with this conversation. You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but it's just the sign of the times. BH |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Brian Hill" wrote in :
"Al Klein" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert wrote: Al Klein wrote: Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter. Ahh...but I did, once But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once. proving that one has little to do with the other. And that you have little to do with this conversation. You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but it's just the sign of the times. BH We have to keep trying to save Ham radio while we still can because once it's all the way in the ****ter it will be even harder to pull back out & clean up. A Ham who'll stand for nothing will sit for anything. I won't accept more dumbing down. Help save Ham radio: 1- No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all elements required for their license class every ten years. 2- The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%. 3- Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra. 4- Make the no-code license one year non-renewable. 5- Cancel your ARRL membership until they decide to work to improve things and stop them from proposing ham radio that is like CB. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Slow Code" wrote in message nk.net... "Brian Hill" wrote in : "Al Klein" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert wrote: Al Klein wrote: Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter. Ahh...but I did, once But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once. proving that one has little to do with the other. And that you have little to do with this conversation. You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but it's just the sign of the times. BH We have to keep trying to save Ham radio while we still can because once it's all the way in the ****ter it will be even harder to pull back out & clean up. A Ham who'll stand for nothing will sit for anything. I won't accept more dumbing down. Help save Ham radio: 1- No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all elements required for their license class every ten years. No reason to. This has never existed in the history of amateur radio and there is no reason to think it would improve things. 2- The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%. Might be OK. 3- Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra. Probably wouldn't make a real difference either way. 4- Make the no-code license one year non-renewable. Probably wouldn't make any difference. 5- Cancel your ARRL membership until they decide to work to improve things and stop them from proposing ham radio that is like CB. Terrible idea. The only way to get ARRL to change is to get involved in the politics of ARRL and work to try to effect the changes that you want. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Brian Hill wrote: "Al Klein" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert wrote: Al Klein wrote: Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter. Ahh...but I did, once But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once. proving that one has little to do with the other. And that you have little to do with this conversation. You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but it's just the sign of the times. Indeed I understand the points of the CW crwod but I simply reject the ntotions that merits of CW merit the strangle hold it has after all I can do even EME without knowing a BIT of Morse did so last night BH |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. | CB | |||
| Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. | CB | |||
| Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. | General | |||
| Rare Books on Electronics and Radio and Commmunications | Equipment | |||
| Rare Books on Electronics and Radio and Commmunications | Equipment | |||