On 22 Jul 2006 12:45:02 -0700, "
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 22 Jul 2006 09:02:12 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Part of that code is honesty. How honest is it to memorize answers to
a test?

absolutely and conpletely honest

By taking the test you're claiming that you understand the questions
and know the answers. By memorizing the answers you're not learning
enough to understand the questions.

But I wouldn't expect you to understand what "honesty" means.

how balanced is to to place CW over all over ham knowledge?

No one is, any more than by requiring people to know the law one is
putting the law "over all ham knowledge".

How progressive is it?

How progressive is it to not require people to know ... oh, yeah,
that's progressive, since the new thing is to hand out licenses
because people have some kind of "right" to get on the air.

how loyal is it to denny the nation the benifits of allowing more
operators

What "benefits" does the country get from more people using radios who
don't know the first thing about them? (Whatever "denny" means.)

to aquire the expence needed to truely work on hf

You don't acquire knowledge (which is what's needed) by playing with a
radio.

how patriotic is it to keep a staion forom aquiing the skill to be
ready for service to conutry and community?

How does playing CB on the ham bands give one "the skill to be
ready for service to conutry and community"? Or any skill, other than
getting what you want? You don't acquire skill by doing something
that requires no skill. And you, particularly, don't acquire
knowledge by demanding something for nothing.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:14:17 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

The fit get a ham license. All the rest get cell phones, CB, and shortwave
listening.

No, SC - in today's society we can't hurt people's feelings, so the
loud get anything they want.

Al Klein wrote:
On 22 Jul 2006 12:45:02 -0700, "
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 22 Jul 2006 09:02:12 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Part of that code is honesty. How honest is it to memorize answers to
a test?

absolutely and conpletely honest

By taking the test you're claiming that you understand the questions
and know the answers. By memorizing the answers you're not learning
enough to understand the questions.
no, one is claiming they can pass the test

which is the only requirement

But I wouldn't expect you to understand what "honesty" means.
I do know what honesty means and you don't employ it


how balanced is to to place CW over all over ham knowledge?

No one is, any more than by requiring people to know the law one is
putting the law "over all ham knowledge"
you certainly are

but no one is required to know the law at all merely happpening to obey
it is enough

the current system place CW over all over modes combined any statement
to the contary is dishonest
..

How progressive is it?

How progressive is it to not require people to know ... oh, yeah,
that's progressive, since the new thing is to hand out licenses
because people have some kind of "right" to get on the air.
try that agin is english if you please

best I can make out is another of your snide (and unfreindly and
illcosidered) slaps at newer ops that have obeyed the rules

how loyal is it to denny the nation the benifits of allowing more
operators

What "benefits" does the country get from more people using radios who
don't know the first thing about them? (Whatever "denny" means.)
you statement makes no sense since obviously anyone that has a radio
and can turn it on knows at least the first thing ,if he/she can get on
the air he know a few more

to aquire the expence needed to truely work on hf

You don't acquire knowledge (which is what's needed) by playing with a
radio.
knowledge is needed why? It is helpfull I grant you but needed vs
experence
well that is Bull**** I know more I supect about radio and RF than you
having studied EM waves and their proerty at the College level and yet
this knowledge is only mildly usefull if I am on the HF bands as I
often am for Feild day or something to be a more effective operator I
need expernce at HF not knowledge of circuts

how patriotic is it to keep a staion forom aquiing the skill to be
ready for service to conutry and community?

How does playing CB on the ham bands give one "the skill to be
ready for service to conutry and community"?
what is playing CB mean? other than then pejoritive
Or any skill, other than
getting what you want?
babble all you like
You don't acquire skill by doing something
that requires no skill.
so you are claiming this is NO skill in passing traffic at HF I think I
could find people that woluld disagree with you
And you, particularly, don't acquire
knowledge by demanding something for nothing.
no knowledge is aquired by learning Morse Code certainly no secert of
the unverse is derived for it

No one is suggesting that ANYONE be given something for nothing
but it is a requirement of law that restictions in access to PUBLIC
reasources must be reasonable in nature

knowledge of Morse code is not realected to prevelegdes it brings ask
the Armmy how many CW opperators it uses in routine affairs, the answer
is zero (intel is not for this prupose routine nor is specail ops)

Al Klein wrote:
On 22 Jul 2006 12:45:02 -0700, "
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 22 Jul 2006 09:02:12 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Part of that code is honesty. How honest is it to memorize answers to
a test?

absolutely and conpletely honest

By taking the test you're claiming that you understand the questions
and know the answers.

By releasing the Question Pools, the FCC is claiming that you must
memorize the answers.

No one is claiming any such thing.

By memorizing the answers you're not learning
enough to understand the questions.

But I wouldn't expect you to understand what "honesty" means.

Why not?

how balanced is to to place CW over all over ham knowledge?

No one is, any more than by requiring people to know the law one is
putting the law "over all ham knowledge".

CW is pass/fail. To fail CW denies all HF privs (except for Alaska).

How progressive is it?

How progressive is it to not require people to know ... oh, yeah,
that's progressive, since the new thing is to hand out licenses
because people have some kind of "right" to get on the air.

Then why is it with the prospect of losing the CW Exam, that you'se
guys want to "beef up" the written exams?

how loyal is it to denny the nation the benifits of allowing more
operators

What "benefits" does the country get from more people using radios who
don't know the first thing about them? (Whatever "denny" means.)

It's always been that way. You could even buy Heathkits already
assembled. (and Get a context clue: deny).

to aquire the expence needed to truely work on hf

You don't acquire knowledge (which is what's needed) by playing with a
radio.

Then the military has wasted billions of dollars over the years
"training" radio operators.

how patriotic is it to keep a staion forom aquiing the skill to be
ready for service to conutry and community?

How does playing CB on the ham bands give one "the skill to be
ready for service to conutry and community"?

Who knows? That's not what Mark is talking about, is it?

Or any skill, other than
getting what you want? You don't acquire skill by doing something
that requires no skill.

So it really is all about CW. Why have a written Exam at all?

And you, particularly, don't acquire
knowledge by demanding something for nothing.

The requirements for an amateur radio license have been all over the
map over the history of the service. The ORIGINAL amateur radio
license had no Morse Code Exam, even when Morse Code was the only means
of communicating.

Get over it. Everyone else is moving on.

On 23 Jul 2006 07:26:05 -0700, wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

By taking the test you're claiming that you understand the questions
and know the answers.

By releasing the Question Pools, the FCC is claiming that you must
memorize the answers.

Must? Where's the "must"? Or do you mean "If you aren't intelligent
enough, or motivated enough, to learn a little, the only way to get a
license is to memorize the answers."

No one is claiming any such thing.

By memorizing the answers you're not learning
enough to understand the questions.

But I wouldn't expect you to understand what "honesty" means.

Why not?

Because he's already admitted that he's dishonest.

how balanced is to to place CW over all over ham knowledge?

No one is, any more than by requiring people to know the law one is
putting the law "over all ham knowledge".

CW is pass/fail. To fail CW denies all HF privs (except for Alaska).

Theory is also pass/fail. To fail to get the required number of
correct answers denies all privs - HF, VHF, UHF ...

How progressive is it?

How progressive is it to not require people to know ... oh, yeah,
that's progressive, since the new thing is to hand out licenses
because people have some kind of "right" to get on the air.

Then why is it with the prospect of losing the CW Exam, that you'se
guys want to "beef up" the written exams?

We don't. We want to get back the level it used to be before it was
dumbed down to the point that you could almost pass it if you never
heard of the FCC, ham radio or electronics. Just by guessing at the
answers. It used to require that you draw (was it 3?) schematics.
From scratch. Let's see how many people could do that today. A
Colpitts oscillator, a Hartley oscillator and some other circuit that
I've forgotten at the moment. They're still as relevant today as they
were 50 years ago.

how loyal is it to denny the nation the benifits of allowing more
operators

What "benefits" does the country get from more people using radios who
don't know the first thing about them? (Whatever "denny" means.)

It's always been that way. You could even buy Heathkits already
assembled.

But you had to actually *know* a little theory to use one legally.
Today all you need is the time to take the test and the money for the
test and the equipment. IOW, a CB "license" with a tiny bit of
annoyance up front. How does CB benefit the country?

You don't acquire knowledge (which is what's needed) by playing with a
radio.

Then the military has wasted billions of dollars over the years
"training" radio operators.

I trained operators when I was in the military. We didn't do it by
giving recruits radios and telling them to go jam each other.

how patriotic is it to keep a staion forom aquiing the skill to be
ready for service to conutry and community?

How does playing CB on the ham bands give one "the skill to be
ready for service to conutry and community"?

Who knows? That's not what Mark is talking about, is it?

That's exactly what he's talking about. Give someone a radio and a
"license" to use it and he'll "acquire the skill to be ready for
service to country and community". That's what Mark said, right up
above. How does one acquire skill by playing radio?

Or any skill, other than
getting what you want? You don't acquire skill by doing something
that requires no skill.

So it really is all about CW. Why have a written Exam at all?

You don't acquire technical skill by doing something that doesn't
require technical skill. You don't acquire operating skill by doing
something that requires no operating skill. And you don't acquire
skill in CW by cursing into a mike.

But that's what Mark and his ilk want - we'll have "skilled operators"
if we allow people to buy radios and put them on the air with no skill
or knowledge. By osmosis? Or by magic?

And you, particularly, don't acquire
knowledge by demanding something for nothing.

The requirements for an amateur radio license have been all over the
map over the history of the service. The ORIGINAL amateur radio
license had no Morse Code Exam, even when Morse Code was the only means
of communicating.

So you'd get a license not knowing CW, build a radio (you couldn't buy
one then) and ... what? Sit and look at it. Some things are just too
obvious to need mentioning.

Get over it. Everyone else is moving on.

Evidently not, or I'd be the only one in the world advocating that a
test should actually test for something. There are actually millions
of us who don't think lack of instant gratification is the worst thing
in the world.

What next? DXCC awards for those who *want* to work 100 countries?

Al Klein wrote:
On 23 Jul 2006 07:26:05 -0700, wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

By taking the test you're claiming that you understand the questions
and know the answers.

By releasing the Question Pools, the FCC is claiming that you must
memorize the answers.

Must? Where's the "must"? Or do you mean "If you aren't intelligent
enough, or motivated enough, to learn a little, the only way to get a
license is to memorize the answers."
well the only way you are going to lean the rules question is to
momorize

No one is claiming any such thing.

By memorizing the answers you're not learning
enough to understand the questions.

But I wouldn't expect you to understand what "honesty" means.

Why not?

Because he's already admitted that he's dishonest.
a admission that of itself proves me more honest than you


how balanced is to to place CW over all over ham knowledge?

No one is, any more than by requiring people to know the law one is
putting the law "over all ham knowledge".

CW is pass/fail. To fail CW denies all HF privs (except for Alaska).

Theory is also pass/fail. To fail to get the required number of
correct answers denies all privs - HF, VHF, UHF ...
no sigle element of i and besides you content nobody has trouble passig
it so it not pass fail but pass/pass


How progressive is it?

How progressive is it to not require people to know ... oh, yeah,
that's progressive, since the new thing is to hand out licenses
because people have some kind of "right" to get on the air.

Then why is it with the prospect of losing the CW Exam, that you'se
guys want to "beef up" the written exams?

We don't.
liar as you go on to prove
We want to get back the level it used to be before it was
dumbed down to the point that you could almost pass it if you never
heard of the FCC, ham radio or electronics.
establish the need ofr such testing and I will support you
Just by guessing at the
answers. It used to require that you draw (was it 3?) schematics.
so what?
From scratch. Let's see how many people could do that today. A
Colpitts oscillator, a Hartley oscillator and some other circuit that
I've forgotten at the moment. They're still as relevant today as they
were 50 years ago.
and when was the last time you had to assemble one without any notes to
help you?

how loyal is it to denny the nation the benifits of allowing more
operators

What "benefits" does the country get from more people using radios who
don't know the first thing about them? (Whatever "denny" means.)

It's always been that way. You could even buy Heathkits already
assembled.

But you had to actually *know* a little theory to use one legally.
nope you just had to pass the test
Today all you need is the time to take the test and the money for the
test and the equipment.
bull****

must you undermine the ars by insutling allnew ops?
that is not coutesous either Al
IOW, a CB "license" with a tiny bit of
annoyance up front. How does CB benefit the country?
why do you hate CB so bad? did one of pinn your coax?

no support for your postion just insults


You don't acquire knowledge (which is what's needed) by playing with a
radio.

Then the military has wasted billions of dollars over the years
"training" radio operators.

I trained operators when I was in the military. We didn't do it by
giving recruits radios and telling them to go jam each other.
I am glad to read that

neither does the ARS your point ? or were you just ranting?


how patriotic is it to keep a staion forom aquiing the skill to be
ready for service to conutry and community?

How does playing CB on the ham bands give one "the skill to be
ready for service to conutry and community"?

Who knows? That's not what Mark is talking about, is it?

That's exactly what he's talking about.
nope that isn't what I am tlaking about

Give someone a radio and a
"license" to use it and he'll "acquire the skill to be ready for
service to country and community". That's what Mark said, right up
above.
lying again
never said anything about giving a license away

what was that you said about being dishonest

How does one acquire skill by playing radio?
the only to aquire skill at using a radio is by USING a radio

Or any skill, other than
getting what you want? You don't acquire skill by doing something
that requires no skill.

So it really is all about CW. Why have a written Exam at all?

You don't acquire technical skill by doing something that doesn't
require technical skill.
meaning no need for a CW test?
You don't acquire operating skill by doing
something that requires no operating skill.
no need for writeen test either thn?
And you don't acquire
skill in CW by cursing into a mike.
who siad you did

but I for one have no interest in learning CW at all even if that were
possible for me (which I do not believe is the case bt that is another
arguement)

you OTOH seem to think it polite to disparage opertors that you likely
have never heard

But that's what Mark and his ilk want - we'll have "skilled operators"
honestly in time if we did give the license away the user would
develope skill with it
if we allow people to buy radios and put them on the air with no skill
or knowledge. By osmosis? Or by magic?
the same way the skill were devloped in the first trail and error would
still work althogh I don't advocate reling on it

And you, particularly, don't acquire
knowledge by demanding something for nothing.

The requirements for an amateur radio license have been all over the
map over the history of the service. The ORIGINAL amateur radio
license had no Morse Code Exam, even when Morse Code was the only means
of communicating.

So you'd get a license not knowing CW, build a radio (you couldn't buy
one then) and ... what? Sit and look at it. Some things are just too
obvious to need mentioning.

Get over it. Everyone else is moving on.

Evidently not, or I'd be the only one in the world advocating that a
test should actually test for something.
on here there are perhaps 3 people still advocating a Morse code test

OTOH nobody advocates ywe drop testing except occasion the frustrated
advocate of Code testing

Yes personalyI think some the thing we current test are at best
questionable I would prefer to foucs more on rules and safety question
I realy don't think any body needs to memorize thatwhat freg is white
in SSTV signal he know prehaps where to look it out but to have that
knowledge memorized no way and yet there is such a question on the
current extra pool
There are actually millions
of us who don't think lack of instant gratification is the worst thing
in the world.
what has that got to do with maintining your frat house game called
Morse Code testing?

What next? DXCC awards for those who *want* to work 100 countries?
who cares about a DXCC award? I certianly don't realy

or does not caring about working "countries that have no people in them
and sometimes barely exist at high tide make me not a ham either

Al Klein wrote in
:

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:14:17 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

The fit get a ham license. All the rest get cell phones, CB, and
shortwave listening.

No, SC - in today's society we can't hurt people's feelings, so the
loud get anything they want.


I guess that means I got to get louder too. LOL

SC

Slow Code wrote:
Al Klein wrote in
:

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:14:17 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

The fit get a ham license. All the rest get cell phones, CB, and
shortwave listening.

No, SC - in today's society we can't hurt people's feelings, so the
loud get anything they want.


I guess that means I got to get louder too. LOL
it is way too late for that SC

SC

Al Klein wrote:
On 23 Jul 2006 07:26:05 -0700, wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

By taking the test you're claiming that you understand the questions
and know the answers.

By releasing the Question Pools, the FCC is claiming that you must
memorize the answers.

Must? Where's the "must"? Or do you mean "If you aren't intelligent
enough, or motivated enough, to learn a little, the only way to get a
license is to memorize the answers."

No, not all all. It should be obvious that if you can make a
ridiculous statement such as the one you made above, I can make a
ridiculous statement also.

No one is claiming any such thing.

I guess you missed this part which is key to you're not understanding
that my statement was ridiculous.

By memorizing the answers you're not learning
enough to understand the questions.

But I wouldn't expect you to understand what "honesty" means.

Why not?

Because he's already admitted that he's dishonest.

When will you admit that you are dishonest?

how balanced is to to place CW over all over ham knowledge?

No one is, any more than by requiring people to know the law one is
putting the law "over all ham knowledge".

CW is pass/fail. To fail CW denies all HF privs (except for Alaska).

Theory is also pass/fail. To fail to get the required number of
correct answers denies all privs - HF, VHF, UHF ...

There is no pass/fail practical for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY, FAX,
Packet, PSK, etc, etc, etc.

How progressive is it?

How progressive is it to not require people to know ... oh, yeah,
that's progressive, since the new thing is to hand out licenses
because people have some kind of "right" to get on the air.

Then why is it with the prospect of losing the CW Exam, that you'se
guys want to "beef up" the written exams?

We don't.

That is not true.

We want to get back the level it used to be before it was
dumbed down to the point that you could almost pass it if you never
heard of the FCC, ham radio or electronics.

You're referring to the Conditional license, right?

Just by guessing at the
answers. It used to require that you draw (was it 3?) schematics.

You tell me? Was it 2 or was it 3? Is this your lucky day?

From scratch. Let's see how many people could do that today. A
Colpitts oscillator, a Hartley oscillator and some other circuit that
I've forgotten at the moment.

You should self-modify your license and cease amateur operation until
you remember.

The amateur is self-policing, and you no longer meet your own standard.

They're still as relevant today as they
were 50 years ago.

Other things are relevant today that weren't even known 50 years ago.

how loyal is it to denny the nation the benifits of allowing more
operators

What "benefits" does the country get from more people using radios who
don't know the first thing about them? (Whatever "denny" means.)

It's always been that way. You could even buy Heathkits already
assembled.

But you had to actually *know* a little theory to use one legally.

No you didn't.

Today all you need is the time to take the test and the money for the
test and the equipment. IOW, a CB "license" with a tiny bit of
annoyance up front. How does CB benefit the country?

Sounds like you need to look for a different hobby if you have such
disdain for your fellow amateurs. Best of Luck.

You don't acquire knowledge (which is what's needed) by playing with a
radio.

Then the military has wasted billions of dollars over the years
"training" radio operators.

I trained operators when I was in the military. We didn't do it by
giving recruits radios and telling them to go jam each other.

I used radios in the military. I never used a CW key in the military.
I never jammed another operator, although Brandywine asked me to reduce
power once.

how patriotic is it to keep a staion forom aquiing the skill to be
ready for service to conutry and community?

How does playing CB on the ham bands give one "the skill to be
ready for service to conutry and community"?

Who knows? That's not what Mark is talking about, is it?

That's exactly what he's talking about. Give someone a radio and a
"license" to use it and he'll "acquire the skill to be ready for
service to country and community". That's what Mark said, right up
above. How does one acquire skill by playing radio?

We self-train. It is a continuous process of improvements. You
mistakenly believe that at the conclusion of The Exam, the "operator"
is 100%.

Never was, Never will be, and neither were you weren't.

I'm beginning to think that you're from the school of "The Older I Get,
The Better I Was!"

Or any skill, other than
getting what you want? You don't acquire skill by doing something
that requires no skill.

So it really is all about CW. Why have a written Exam at all?

You don't acquire technical skill by doing something that doesn't
require technical skill. You don't acquire operating skill by doing
something that requires no operating skill. And you don't acquire
skill in CW by cursing into a mike.

Nor do you.

But that's what Mark and his ilk want - we'll have "skilled operators"
if we allow people to buy radios and put them on the air with no skill
or knowledge. By osmosis? Or by magic?

I've listened to emergency responders on a scanner before. They don't
use Morse Code, they don't use CW. They use FM/Voice. Somehow they
are effective at it, not having taken a Morse Code test. How can this
be?

Tell you what. The next time your YL dials 911 for you, she has to
communicate with the 911 Operator in Morse Code. She can just sound it
out with her mouth, no keyer, sounder, clacker or anything else
required.

When the Operator tells her to speak normally, your YL is allowed to
say once, and only once, using her normal voice, "Real communications
takes place with Morse Code" and then revert back to sounding out her
message with Morse Code dits and dahs.

Agreed?

On your block of granite, she will say, "Here Lays Al Klein, Who had no
use for Voice Modes. May He Rest In Peace"

And you, particularly, don't acquire
knowledge by demanding something for nothing.

The requirements for an amateur radio license have been all over the
map over the history of the service. The ORIGINAL amateur radio
license had no Morse Code Exam, even when Morse Code was the only means
of communicating.

So you'd get a license not knowing CW, build a radio (you couldn't buy
one then) and ... what? Sit and look at it. Some things are just too
obvious to need mentioning.

Please diagram that radio from "Scratch."

Get over it. Everyone else is moving on.

Evidently not, or I'd be the only one in the world advocating that a
test should actually test for something. There are actually millions
of us who don't think lack of instant gratification is the worst thing
in the world.

Dial 911 and tell the operator that you don't need instant
gratification, take your time.

What next? DXCC awards for those who *want* to work 100 countries?

You seem to be confused. DXCC is an award offered by the ARRL, not the
FCC. It has nothing to do with licensing.

You ask "What next?" How about a test for everyone else except you,
where you get to try to recall what was on your test, but can't.

Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:14:17 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

The fit get a ham license. All the rest get cell phones, CB, and shortwave
listening.

No, SC - in today's society we can't hurt people's feelings, so the
loud get anything they want.

Al, you're getting louder. SC has been loud for a long time.