In article , Mike Coslo writes:

I've always jumped on every educational opporunity I could.

Didn't you at least buy them dinner first? :-)

LHA

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

I'm against that too. BTW, I got my EE degree in England, and you don't
have to go through any of that wholly irrelevant stuff. No English, no
social studies of any kind, no chemistry (which I understand is oftem
required over here).

Alun, California state undergraduate requirements in the 1960s had
two semesters of American History. Considering our history, like from
the 1776 breakaway, that isn't comparable to what you had to do in
the UK. :-) :-) :-)

I don't know why there is such a fervor of the PCTAs to equate an
academic degree with an amateur radio license class that requires
a demonstrated skill at morsemanship. Maybe the PCTA have a need
to stay with the King Kode rulers of the ARS kingdom? :-)

LHA

In article bXVPa.1425$Bd5.445@fed1read01, "Guessing" Djorkland's
writes:

I still maintain it is all a matter of achieve or cop out. Make excuses or
meet a challenge.

Stuff it, sausage.

I've "met" more challenges than you have, citizen of Djorkland. I have the
evidence...and a comfortable retired life with a career that still manages
to continue.

Considering I was actively operating and maintaining HF 24/7
communications a half century ago WITHOUT ever having to use ANY
morse codings then or since doesn't make you sound anything more
than a Djork.

Title 47 CFR Part 97 is NOT entiteled "Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service"
and it is NOT a federal requirement to love, honor, and obey morsemanship.

And you are correct "Code aptitude and IQ are completely unrelated" So much
for the "Engineer copout"

There IS some hope, Djork. At least one of your synapses closed. :-)

It has nothing to do whether you or I like or dislike the code.

It has to do with the TEST being there, stupid Djork.

It has nothing to do with "Antiquated technology"

Bulll****! It has EVERYTHING to do with a skill that was first used in
1844...and the ONLY skill that could have been used to make radio
any sort of communications means in 1896.

It has nothing to do with "I'll never use code"

WRONG!

It has everything to do with "Want HF Ham Ticket -- Pass the Test "(at the
moment) If dropped is all OK with me. Times and requirements change as they
should.

They DON'T "change as they should." That code test should have been
tossed long ago, longer than 13 years ago.

Black and white -- yep sure is -- society, government, et al make it that
way.

Color television was made broadcasting law back in the early 1950s.

You've FAILED your Ishihara color vision tests, haven't you?

Don't Drink and Drive, 3 strikes you are outta here -- Pass the Test --
pretty black and white to me.

OK, you've struck out. Now getoutahere! Bye...

LHA

How about a different parallel?? Drivers licenses! How many here have
earned ALL endorsements/license classes for their drivers license? i.e.
motorcycle operators permit etc.

Those that haven't must just be lazy too eh?


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
"JJ" wrote in message
...


Dick Carroll wrote:



Mygawd, Dwight, are you really licensed as a ham? And *that's* all you
know of
radiotelegraphy?
You been hiding out in the wilderness somewhere, in a cave? What do you
think
it was that started
radio in the first place, semaphores?

You mean you and Larry boy don't know semaphore Dick? Why that is
just plain LAZINESS. You know, when conditions are so bad that you
and Larry have to rely on CW and your faithful CW rigs gives up
the ghost or conditions get SO bad that CW can't even get through
you and Larry could save the world by using semaphore, if you had
that skill, that is.

In article m, "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

Absolutely. First of all you have to select the rightr hammer for the job.
Secondly if you are going to be hammering a lot, you need to know how to
select a hammer with the proper weight and balance to maximize the
effectivity of the hammer with a minimum of energy expenditure.

At most, one hour of practice, no audible wetware skills involved.

Real professional construction folks use electric and air hammers.
Saves time, money, and insures a better job of nailing.

Then there is an art to swinging the hammer.

When all you have is a nail, everything looks like a hammer.

Maybe you want to give construction workers and cabinetmakers HF
access for having a high art in hammer swinging?

Go for it. But, watch out at getting nailed on all that...

LHA

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Some people want to be narrowly focused. If you are that way, so be it.

But don't dismiss those of us who think there is more out there.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...those of you who think like you do are dismissing everyone
who doesn't think like you.

The old double standard still flies proudly over the PCTA camp!

LHA

On 16 Jul 2003 03:02:10 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

I must get around to learning Latin one of these days

I'm tempted to compose a post comparing Latin to Morse and chastise
you for not knowing it, concluding of course with the statement that
since you don't know Latin you are not a "real" man and are less
qualified than someone who knows Latin. I'm not going to do so,
because I've never used Latin since graduating high school and have
forgotten most of it, so I'm in no better shape with Len's statement
in latin than you are.

Besides which, Latin is a dead language, while Morse at this point
hasn't reached that stage...although it does seem to be running a
slight fever lately.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Absolutely. First of all you have to select
the rightr hammer for the job. Secondly if
you are going to be hammering a lot, you need
to know how to select a hammer with the proper
weight and balance to maximize the effectivity
of the hammer with a minimum of energy
expenditure. Then there is an art to swinging
the hammer. Beginners manage to hit a lot of
fingers and hands.


You also need to know when and how to cuss properly when the hammer is not
applied properly. Different situations mandate a difference response - a
polite "ouch" when you don't want someone to hear such language to throwing
the hammer into the next neighborhood as you employ a string of cuss words
rash enough to make a sailor blush when it really hurts.

You can always tell when a neighborhood has a lot of people who like to
build or work on things - it is amazing how many tools (of all types) can be
seen flying around. Because of this, area officials should clearly re-zone
some neighborhoods as "hard hat" areas.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:

Still no citation from Arnie concerning his claim that NCI is on
record for less technical exams.

Still no answer from you concerning these questions about your alleged /T5
operation:

What callsign was used?
What rigs and antennas were used?
Who did the equipment belong to?
What amateur bands and modes were used?
What countries and continents were worked?
How were the QSLs delivered?

Why is it alleged?

Because you haven't provided any information about or confirmation of your
alleged operation.

Then how do you know about it?

You have claimed here and elsewhere to have operated /T5 about a
decade ago. But you provided no details, even when directly asked. So
any reasonable person has cause to be skeptical.

Lemme think this through.

After you and several minions have performed an exhaustive search
concerning my operation in Somalia, and having turned up nothing, you
want me to corroborate my own operation so that you'll be less
skeptical?

Ha! That's a good one.

Go ahead and believe what you want to believe. You will anyway
regardless of anything I could say.

73, Brian

"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
On 11 Jul 2003 09:55:05 -0700, Brian wrote:

This whole flap has been based on the "need" for the FCC to bail away
from the labor (cost) associated with governing the code tests,
dealing with waivers, the VEs on code test issues, etc. and nothing
more.

Do you have an FCC policy letter stating that?

(a) Every FCC-watcher in the last 15 years knows that from public
statements made by top brass (especially Reed Hundt) about
cost-cutting.

(b) There was an internal policy memo circulated to staff talking
about the need to privatize as many functions as possible in order
to cut agency spending. This was not made public and is not
available under FOIA because it dealt strictly with internal
management issues. I did not retain a copy of same (because to do
so would have been illegal).

(c) Every FCC-watcher in the last 15 years recognizes that in every
"privitization" move by the FCC - or else they should be in some
other line of work.

Ah, I see. "Everybody knows..."