In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 18 Jul 2003 05:17:42 -0700, N2EY wrote:

OTOH, millions of young children today are "forced" to learn how to do
basic arithmetic even though inexpensive calculators have been around
for decades.

What "learning"? Go into your local fast-food place or grocery
store and see the blank look on the clerk's face if s/he has to make
change and the register is not working.....

In large part that's because dependence on the machine has reduced/eliminated
development of the skill. In most stores, employees are REQUIRED to go by what
the machine says.

I don't know about where others are, but in my school district the kids do
learn basic arithmetic. Most of them are good at it, and retain the skill.

But in this age of claculators and computers, why must ALL children be FORCED
to learn basic arithmetic - 'specially given that at least some don't retain
it? And it is FORCED on ALL children.

Would there be ANY sense in a rule that said "You can't play any other
instrument, no matter how good you might be at it, unless you first
demonstrate that you can play the piano proficiently." ???

But hey, we're missing the point here. Why should any musical
performance skill be needed to get a music degree, unless a person
wants to be a performer?

Most conservatories and music degree programs require piano
proficiency no matter what the instrument or specialty (performance,
composing, whatever) is. I got away from that by studying voice
privately, but that's the exception.

Exactly. But why must piano be required if a person doesn't want to play piano?
Why must any skill be required if the person doesn't want to be a performer?

This is the 21st century, and we've got synthesizers out the wazoo
that cost far less than, say, a Martin guitar or a Steinway piano.
And which are much easier to learn how to use. Why focus so much
time and effort on learning a "manual motor skill" to play one
instrument - any instrument - when there are machines which will do
the job with much less effort and error-free?

Effort and error rate aren't the real criteria of music performance.
Creating it by human effort/input is.

The exact same is true of about 99% of amateur radio operation.

This isn't far-fetched. The new contract for musicians who play on
Broadway has reduced the size of the orchestra required for a Broadway
musical performance, and allows for the use of recorded and
synthesized music. (Musicians are a major cost item in Broadway stage
prodcutions - or so the producers tell us). Why not go one better and
simply use recorded/synthesized music in all long-running shows?

You are really looking forward to a visit from Petrillo's goons,
aren't you ??? James Caesar Petrillo (the Idi Amin of the American
Federation of Musicians) may be dead but his legacy lives on. They
manhandled me when I was a recording engineer in college (mid-1950s)
and I haven't forgotten.

I am still amazed that the new contract got through.

I think the musicians would understand what I was trying to say.

Heck, some folks are even beginning to use synthesized voices rather
than singers, as was done in some of the music for the 1997
blockbuster "Titanic".

The day that I go into a synagogue and hear a synthesized cantor
leading services is the day that I find another congregation.

Now you know why Carl's "strawman" scheme will not be accepted.

(You do know that I have been trained as a cantor.)

I surmised as much.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

Dave Heil wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:

Dick Carroll wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:

To be honest, I don't think there is any answer that will satisfy
you.

Brian

At least not a truthful one.

Well then, that's it. Jim isn't satisfied with truthful answers. No
wonder he keeps asking.

You haven't even provided truthful responses now. You've been asked.
You have declined. You've provided reasons such as, "The questions are
just too hard". Jim and I have continued to ask because you've
continued to be evasive.

Dave K8MN

Most of the answers were given long, long ago.

Where? Not here on rrap.

Whether you or Jim believe me isn't my problem.

Yet you insist on being evasive rather than simply answering the questions.

Jim, that really bugs you, doesn't it?

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

Dick Carroll wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:

To be honest, I don't think there is any answer that will satisfy you.

Brian

At least not a truthful one.

Well then, that's it. Jim isn't satisfied with truthful answers. No
wonder he keeps asking.

Nope.

I haven't seen any truthful answers to my questions about your alleged /T5
operations.

You're amazing. You didn't believe me then, but somehow you'll believe me now.

To be honest, I don't think there is any answer that will satisfy you.

73, Brian

Dee D. Flint wrote:

I do not have a dislike for laziness. If the person is happy being lazy and
does not demand things he/she hasn't worked for, that's great. They are
probably the happiest people on earth. I will, however, always object to
the person who demands what they haven't earned regardless of the field of
endeavor.


Those who are lazy always have a negative impact on those around them.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Kim W5TIT wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:

X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte
limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library1-aux.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 20:16:15 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: !X@U/1k-Y-#+3:P-T$! (Encoded at Airnews!)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:

Dick Carroll wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:

To be honest, I don't think there is any answer that will
satisfy you.

Brian

At least not a truthful one.

Well then, that's it. Jim isn't satisfied with truthful
answers.
No
wonder he keeps asking.

You haven't even provided truthful responses now. You've been
asked.
You have declined. You've provided reasons such as, "The
questions
are
just too hard". Jim and I have continued to ask because you've
continued to be evasive.

Most of the answers were given long, long ago. Whether you or Jim
believe me isn't my problem.

Sure, it's your problem. You have a credibility problem, one which is
compounded by your saying that you've already answered the questions.

You haven't done so and your tale remains vapor.

Dave K8MN

heh heh...he just doesn't understand the concept of "not my problem,"
Brian!


Brian's saying that it isn't his problem does not mean that he has no
problem. In this case, it only means that he doesn't care to
acknowledge it.

Dave K8MN


If someone does not acknowledge/accept something as a problem to them, it is
generally a moot point from their perspective.

Fine. That does not mean that the person has no problem. It only means
that the individual chooses to ignore it.


But, you don't understand
such things, Dave.... You have a book to live by.

It is precisely because I have a book to live by that I understand such
things. I understand, for example, that this is simply another time
that you've attempted to inject yourself into an issue when you really
have nothing to say.

Dave K8MN

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

As stated many times before, a ham radio license is NOT a degree or
certificate of graduation ... it is a "learner's permit."

No, that's not true.

An amateur license, driver's license and a "certificate of graduation" (usually
called a diploma) indicate that the holder has met the minimum requirements, as
determined by the agency in charge. Doesn't mean the holder is an expert, fully
qualified, or that the learning is done. Just that the person is considered
permanently qualified to do certain things.

A learner's permit is a temporary, limited license, issued to allow the holder
to learn, under the immediate supervision of an experienced person, skills
which cannot be learned from a book or class. The holder of a learner's permit
is not supposed to stay at that level, but to "graduate" to a permanent
license.

Of course learning is a lifelong process, and no radio amateur knows all there
is to know about radio or even amateur radio. But a ham license is not a
"learner's permit" by any stretch of imagination. In the days when the Novice
was extremely limited (distinctive call, xtal control, tiny parts of a few
bands, very few modes) and nonrenewable, it might have been considered a
learner's permit. But those days are long gone.

Nice try, but no prize... care to play again?

Ahem.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com...
"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
The thing is Dee, a CW test is a very odd way to 'earn' HF. I'm not atall
sure that a person has not earned HF just beacause they haven't learnt CW.
Sure, Part 97 might agree with that rather peculiar proposition for the
time being, but it won't much longer.

The thing is that happens to be the current requirement regardless of our
individual opinions on whether it is peculiar or not. and I know people who
have been whining for 10 years waiting for the code requirement to go away.
It's rather peculiar that a person would wait that long and miss out on all
the operating that they profess to wanting to do.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Ditto buying a house. With interest rates at 40 year lows, now people
can afford to move out of crappy neighborhoods.

Different people have different reasons. I don't know why they didn't
move out of the crappy neighborhoods 10 years ago, but...

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...

I haven't seen any truthful answers to my questions about your alleged /T5
operations.

You're amazing. You didn't believe me then, but somehow you'll believe me
now.

To be honest, I don't think there is any answer that will satisfy you.

There isn't any. Reverend Jim spends most of his free time in here,
not on the air. He is living each and every thread and must emerge
the winner in every newsgroup dispute. :-)

I'm beginning to wonder if he works for a living...not just at the UNNAMED
place he is supposed to be doing electrical engineering. :-)

LHA

Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...

The thing is Dee, a CW test is a very odd way to 'earn' HF. I'm not atall
sure that a person has not earned HF just beacause they haven't learnt CW.
Sure, Part 97 might agree with that rather peculiar proposition for the
time being, but it won't much longer.


The thing is that happens to be the current requirement regardless of our
individual opinions on whether it is peculiar or not. and I know people who
have been whining for 10 years waiting for the code requirement to go away.
It's rather peculiar that a person would wait that long and miss out on all
the operating that they profess to wanting to do.

They don't do it because they are more interested in ham radio than the
people who just learned the requirments. ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...

I haven't seen any truthful answers to my questions about your alleged /T5
operations.

You're amazing. You didn't believe me then, but somehow you'll believe me
now.

To be honest, I don't think there is any answer that will satisfy you.

There isn't any. Reverend Jim spends most of his free time in here,
not on the air. He is living each and every thread and must emerge
the winner in every newsgroup dispute. :-)

Get it straight, Len. That's YOUR role here. You are the one not "on
the air" and who gets his jollies haunting an amateur radio newsgroup.

I'm beginning to wonder if he works for a living...not just at the UNNAMED
place he is supposed to be doing electrical engineering. :-)

It eats at you that he has no intention of telling you where he works
:-)

Dave K8MN