I have a question for " an old friend ".

I noticed that you have a difficult time with writing the English
language, with regards to spelling and grammar, etc, but you do try to get
the thought across. I have a dyslexic daughter with the same problem, and
her teachers in grade school used to flunk her thinking she did not know
answers to the test questions, when actually, she really did know and
understand, but was afraid to write them out because of her dyslexia and the
resultant laughter and snickering that followed. When we all caught on to
this finally, we demanded that she be tested aurally, where she was asked
the questions out loud, and responded verbally with the answers instead of
writing things out. This made a hell of a difference in assessing her
learning and understanding during her education in the early years. As her
father, I was hard on her because of the frustration she caused us at first
when we did not understand what was really happening, and I still feel
guilty about it to this day.

Are you a native North American, or are you an immigrant? When you did
your ham test, or any test, did the teachers/instructors make these
allowances or alternate testing methods for you also? Were they easy on you,
or did they show frustration? Did they understand where you were coming
from? Did you have a pleasant attitude to deal with? I am not making fun of
you. This is a serious question. Thanks,

Jack


"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 09:57:19 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

it is not a sign sign of any superior knowledge to know that is a
particular circut is Collpitts or hartley ocilator

It's a sign of having learned it.
a sign of havigng learned something of NO value

no can that
difference by learned in any way other than memorization

You still don't understand the difference between memorizing facts and
memorizing answers.
at pesent their is no different when I learn the text of the right
answer to a given I leraned the answer to that question

there is no difference, none at all,

for some of the materail the only rational way of approuching it is
memorization, for other section you can learn some part of the
underlying theroy and use it but short of the Full course of Eltromatic
Theroy I hadin colledge you don't learn much

can you describe and USE Maxwell's equation? I can I found the
knowledge very helpfull on the rf safety question in the pools,
butstill useless without memorizing certain facts that have set as
arbitary level in the regs

the fact I need to an rf eval at at 51 watts on 2m is not something I
can know from guasses equation although guass' law allow me to easily
undertsand theprocess of doing the eval

Jack Ricci wrote:
I agree with the Morse Code ( or whatever exotic name it has evolved to
in modern day ) as still being useful. I think morse code is a lot of fun,
and very much a part of the ham hobby's old-time, nostalgic glamour. I see
no harm in making it part of a ham's testing and licensing requirement. I
feel that it is definitely useful, and provides communicants with an
international second language to deal with in emergencies.
if it were not treated as a go or nogo element I might be persauded to
agree with you

that isn't the case

indeed if the usa had adopted years something Canada is doing now I
would lay good money that NCI would never have existed

I do not think the newer hams are idiots for wanting to do away with
code, but I think they are missing out on a piece of irreplaceable history
that is so easy to maintain and cherish forever.
Viva le ham.

Jack

"cmdr buzz corey" wrote in message
oups.com...

Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 22:12:58 -0700, "cmdr buzz corey"
wrote:

an old friend wrote:

I am honest. I don't think CW has ANY value in todays world.

Kinda like you.

Except that code was useful once.

And still more useful today than an old idiot is.

On 12 Aug 2006 15:49:50 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 09:57:19 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

it is not a sign sign of any superior knowledge to know that is a
particular circut is Collpitts or hartley ocilator

It's a sign of having learned it.
a sign of havigng learned something of NO value

No value to you - that doesn't matter very much to the other 6
billion+ people on the planet.

You still don't understand the difference between memorizing facts and
memorizing answers.

at pesent their is no different

To you - which was what I said.

for some of the materail the only rational way of approuching it is
memorization

For some, yes. I'm referring to those who use the method for all the
answers - people like you.

, for other section you can learn some part of the
underlying theroy and use it but short of the Full course of Eltromatic
Theroy I hadin colledge you don't learn much

I doubt you learned much in college either.

On 12 Aug 2006 19:27:59 -0700, "cmdr buzz corey"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 22:12:58 -0700, "cmdr buzz corey"
wrote:

an old friend wrote:

I am honest. I don't think CW has ANY value in todays world.

Kinda like you.

Except that code was useful once.

And still more useful today than an old idiot is.

Urdu and Sanskrit are a lot more useful today than he is.

Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 15:49:50 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 09:57:19 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

it is not a sign sign of any superior knowledge to know that is a
particular circut is Collpitts or hartley ocilator

It's a sign of having learned it.
a sign of havigng learned something of NO value

No value to you - that doesn't matter very much to the other 6
billion+ people on the planet.

You still don't understand the difference between memorizing facts and
memorizing answers.

at pesent their is no different

To you - which was what I said.

for some of the materail the only rational way of approuching it is
memorization

For some, yes. I'm referring to those who use the method for all the
answers - people like you.

, for other section you can learn some part of the
underlying theroy and use it but short of the Full course of Eltromatic
Theroy I hadin colledge you don't learn much

I doubt you learned much in college either.

He went to clown college.

STFU MORON! DROP THE SUBJECT

WHO GIVE ****.

wrote:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:32:19 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:


On 12 Aug 2006 15:49:50 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:


Al Klein wrote:

On 12 Aug 2006 09:57:19 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:


it is not a sign sign of any superior knowledge to know that is a
particular circut is Collpitts or hartley ocilator

It's a sign of having learned it.

a sign of havigng learned something of NO value

No value to you - that doesn't matter very much to the other 6
billion+ people on the planet.

the knowledg is of no value to most of those people either

You still don't understand the difference between memorizing facts and
memorizing answers.

at pesent their is no different

To you - which was what I said.

to me and the FCC and reality

for some of the materail the only rational way of approuching it is
memorization

For some, yes. I'm referring to those who use the method for all the
answers - people like you.


as it happens I did not

I ordereda copy of the tech mnaul but it did not arive before the test
so I took it and passed based on what was in my headabout rf and
working the rules question mostly from the notion just which of these
answers sounds like the work of a real "crat


, for other section you can learn some part of the
underlying theroy and use it but short of the Full course of Eltromatic
Theroy I hadin colledge you don't learn much

I doubt you learned much in college either.


perhaps not perhaps so that is another matter

and one clearly without profit to go into
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0633-0, 08/14/2006
Tested on: 8/14/2006 3:32:49 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

STFU MORON! DROP THE SUBJECT

WHO GIVE ****.

wrote:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:33:53 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:


On 12 Aug 2006 19:27:59 -0700, "cmdr buzz corey"
wrote:


Al Klein wrote:

On 10 Aug 2006 22:12:58 -0700, "cmdr buzz corey"
wrote:


an old friend wrote:

I am honest. I don't think CW has ANY value in todays world.

Kinda like you.

Except that code was useful once.

And still more useful today than an old idiot is.

Urdu and Sanskrit are a lot more useful today than he is.

to you I am sure that is true but you are looking more like Robeson
and Wismen daily not a good thing
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0633-0, 08/14/2006
Tested on: 8/14/2006 3:33:01 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:58:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:32:19 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 15:49:50 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

It's a sign of having learned it.

a sign of havigng learned something of NO value

No value to you - that doesn't matter very much to the other 6
billion+ people on the planet.

the knowledg is of no value to most of those people either

I'm glad to know that you've been appointed to speak for them but, if
you don't mind, I'd rather hear it from them.

You still don't understand the difference between memorizing facts and
memorizing answers.

at pesent their is no different

To you - which was what I said.

to me and the FCC and reality

But not to those actually involved in the study of memory and
learning.

for some of the materail the only rational way of approuching it is
memorization

For some, yes. I'm referring to those who use the method for all the
answers - people like you.

as it happens I did not

I prefer to not take your word for something that contradicts what
you've said before.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:37:50 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:57:55 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

the knowledg is of no value to most of those people either

I'm glad to know that you've been appointed to speak for them but, if
you don't mind, I'd rather hear it from them.

you have heard from the appointed legel representives and you did not
listen to them either

Oh? I didn't know that we legally appointed "representatives" to tell
us what people think. Who, pray tell, are these telepathic
"representatives"?

but indeed enlight me
what value is derived from the knowledge that an occiclaotr is
colpitss type or hartley

Plenty of value to those who have to work with oscillators of various
types. It's difficult to design a circuit when you have no
understanding of it.

without adding something to mix they answer it has no value

Your contributions to these threads are what have no value.

But not to those actually involved in the study of memory and
learning.

when did you become nominated to speak for them

When those telepathic representatives of yours became appointed to
tell us what everyone thinks.

you are very sloppy about your facts

How would you know? You wouldn't recognize a fact if it came up to
you and hit you.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:38:03 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:14:47 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:37:50 -0400, wrote:

you have heard from the appointed legel representives and you did not
listen to them either

Oh? I didn't know that we legally appointed "representatives" to tell
us what people think. Who, pray tell, are these telepathic
"representatives"?

never said anything about their being telpaths but I was refering to
the FCC

The FCC doesn't tell us what the people think, it tells us what the
FCC thinks.

but indeed enlight me
what value is derived from the knowledge that an occiclaotr is
colpitss type or hartley

Plenty of value to those who have to work with oscillators of various
types. It's difficult to design a circuit when you have no
understanding of it.

nknowing the name and undertsnading the circut are 2 different things

Since you know neither, it's a distinction without a difference for
you.

why should I care if my vfo is a colpiitts or hartley occilator as
long as it ocilates at the right freq?

Oh, maybe you'd care to know why it's microphonic? Or what to look
for if it starts doing something wrong? Different circuits are prone
to different problems.

your personal attack only show the wekness of your arguement

And yours doesn't, I suppose.