Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod!think.com!yale!bunker!hcap!hnews!101!460!Ted.Filteau From: Ted.Filteau@f460.n101.z1.fidonet.org (Ted Filteau) Newsgroups: misc.handicap Subject: Re: Code wavers Message-ID: <16889@bunker.UUCP> Date: 14 Jan 91 21:33:15 GMT Sender: wtm@bunker.UUCP Reply-To: Ted.Filteau@f460.n101.z1.fidonet.org Distribution: misc Organization: FidoNet node 1:101/460 - VI/BUG, Holbrook MA Lines: 36 Approved: wtm@bunker.UUCP Index Number: 12954 [This is from the Blink Talk Conference] WS> Unless they changed it, you were suppose to have a choice WS> of taking the diagrams or not. If you chose not to take the WS> diagrams, they were not suppose to count at all. If they were WS> going to count them wrong, you should have taken a shot at WS> them. What would you have to loose? The way it was suppose WS> to be done, is not to count the diagrams at all. It should WS> have worked this way: if there were 125 questions on the WS> test, with the diagrams included, each question would count WS> for 4 points. If there were five diagrams on the test, and WS> you chose to not do the diagrams, there would be 20 questions WS> on the test, and each question would count for 5 points. WS> After all counting them wrong would do nothing for the WS> handicapped. Hi Walter, I took the FCC amateur tests in the 60s, and I did some of what you described. For my general, I didn't need the diagrams as I had less than eight wrong before the diagrams came up, which made them meaningless. For my extra, I did take a couple of shots at the diagrams because I needed the correct responses. If there was a choice of not counting the schematics, I was not aware of it. I do remember the FCC comming out with a braille general test without diagrams. I still think they've gone from one extreme to the other. ... Ted -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!101!460!Ted.Filteau Internet: Ted.Filteau@f460.n101.z1.fidonet.org