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.

STFU MORON! WHO **** CARES

Al Klein wrote:

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.


---
avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0633-1, 08/15/2006
Tested on: 8/15/2006 8:29:36 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com





---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0633-1, 08/15/2006
Tested on: 8/15/2006 8:30:10 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

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

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

The same people who are interested in the fact you conversed with
bootleggers.


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

Neither of which you can do with your limited intelligence.
You weren't born, Markie, you were **** out.

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

That's our Markie, representing the Red States!


without adding something to mix they answer it has no value

Your contributions to these threads are what have no value.
in your opinion obviously mine differs

In everybody's opinion, stupid.


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.
then ae nopt authirized and should stop


Post when you sober up.


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.
your personal attack only show the wekness of your arguement

Oh, the irony.

Al Klein wrote:
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.
agred in practice but you are the one going about therory
..

an old friendless cocksucker wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
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.
agred in practice but you are the one going about therory

What the hell would you know, you are a no code beginner training wheel
ham who makes up EME contacts.