Help with 2 Meters
SR
Parkersburg, West Virginia. He has a 2 meter radio and echolink.
I do not have echolink.
Does anyone know of a repeater close to where I am, that I
would be able to hit with my 2 meter radio Radio Shack HTX 202 144-148 MHZ.
I live in Queens County NY.
Any information or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you,
73
Steven
Nunya Bizness
Check out the New York Repeater Directory at
http://www.nyrepeaters.com/2m.htm
That might get you in the ballpark. I'm not sure how complete it is but
it's a start.
Found that with a Google search.
73
Jim - KI4OCC
Ma...@kb9rqz.ars
wrote:
id sugest searching somelike like echolink .org or com where I once
found there was not an echolink system in my section of the state I
live it
all you need is to find a node you can hit and know something about
echolink comands and the id of the node your friend has
>
>73
>
>Jim - KI4OCC
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Stan
with a connection to the internet. It even works
with a dial up connection.I also made it work with a
Pentium 1 computer.
Also you need a sound
card with a Microphone connected with a speaker
or Headphones.Also you need a Valid Ham call
to get on.
Stan
Bryan
Hi Steven,
You might also try posting on alt.ham-radio.fm.
Regards,
Bryan
PS: mFire is my backup ISP... a very good dial-up provider.
Bill Griesch
lookup nodes that are in your area.check out this website:
http://www.echolink.org/links.jsp
hope that this helps
k2wdg-Bill Griesch
"SR" <mer...@mfire.com> wrote in message
news:12jj218...@corp.supernews.com...
Slow Code
I'd check with people on repeaters you can hear and ask them. Someone
should know unless they're also clueless no-coders. If all else fails,
you can take your HTX 202 back to Radio Shack and exchange blank stares
with the clerk.
SC
Pat Stevens
"Slow Code" <my....@no.spam> wrote in message
news:L795h.5463$ig4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...<snip>
> I'd check with people on repeaters you can hear and ask them. Someone
> should know unless they're also clueless no-coders.
> SC
Usually the no-code techs have a better idea as to how echolink and IRLP
work than most of the old-timers, because it is the only way that they can
access "long distance" radio. Most of the old-timers don't consider it to
be "real" radio and as such, are often stuck in their ways and slow to
accept the new form of communication on the service.
It is similar to many of the other forms that were incorporated into amateur
radio and were slow to be accepted, such as SSB, SSTV, even ATV. I don't
think any of these are any less ham radio than CW is ham radio.
dxAce
Pat Stevens wrote:
> "Slow Code" <my....@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:L795h.5463$ig4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > SR <mer...@mfire.com> wrote in news:12jj218...@corp.supernews.com:
> <snip>
> > I'd check with people on repeaters you can hear and ask them. Someone
> > should know unless they're also clueless no-coders.
> <snip>
> > SC
>
> Usually the no-code techs have a better idea as to how echolink and IRLP
> work than most of the old-timers, because it is the only way that they can
> access "long distance" radio. Most of the old-timers don't consider it to
> be "real" radio and as such..
That's because it's not 'real radio'..
Get a grip and get a clue.
Pat Stevens
"dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
news:4555C85B...@milestones.com...
>
> Pat Stevens wrote:
<snip>
>> Usually the no-code techs have a better idea as to how echolink and IRLP
>> work than most of the old-timers, because it is the only way that they
>> can
>> access "long distance" radio. Most of the old-timers don't consider it
>> to
>> be "real" radio and as such..
>> amateur
>> radio and were slow to be accepted, such as SSB, SSTV, even ATV. I don't
>> think any of these are any less ham radio than CW is ham radio.
>
>
> Get a grip and get a clue.
>
Well, as far as I know, SSB, SSTV, even ATV, along with IRLP and even
echolink as long as you are using a radio at one of the ends of it during a
conversation, would all be considered "real radio."
Talk about getting a grip and getting a clue. That isn't even an arguement.
At least try to make a point and back your claim.
James
daily, with no license needed.
You can do the same thing with a cellphone.
There is nothing wrong with Echolink, but it is silly and dishonest to call
it communicating by radio, which is what hams do.
When a person says he "worked" Germany on Echolink, he is either mistaken
or dishonest. What he has "worked" is his local telephone connection,
usually a distance of about five miles. It is hard for me to believe that
this person could really believe that he "worked" Germany. If I pick up
my cellphone and call Germany, can I get a QSL card for it, and get ARRL
credit ??? Huh ??
It utterly amazes me that a person would study for a ham exam, only to use
Echolink, when you can do the very same thing with any computer or
telephone. There is no ham license or ham equipment needed to talk on the
phone or on the computer. Ever heard of ICQ and other chat programs ?
Ever heard of Voice Over Internet ?
Lots of folks have fun on Echolink. For that reason, I truly think it is
Great !!! Just don't pretend that it is ham radio when the world knows
that it isn't.
Well, that's my two cents worth. See ya on the radio waves !!
73 de Jim K4PYT
Pat Stevens
"James" <jnipp...@nospamfdn.com> wrote in message
news:4pOdnT3X97YPRcjY...@comcast.com...
at least on one of the ends should be connected by radio. Preferably, your
end would be at least using the radio, or what is the purpose of getting a
radio license.
As for just calling someone in Germany, I can't say that I would know too
many people that I could just randomly call and would (a) be willing to talk
to me and (b) that I would be able to understand, since I don't know German.
At least, with ham radio you have a start, since you usually can hear them
before you start talking to them. I have never used echolink to
communicate, so I am not exactly sure how that is kept straight on there,
though.
Also, if I were to talk to someone in Germany, by echolink or IRLP, I would
state it as that and not that I "worked" them. I agree that there is much
more to be said for working a station by HF, than when someone is doing by
way of the Internet. But it is a form of communication that is available to
hams and should be exploited as much as possible, so that it can be used in
any times of need.
I am sure that probably locally during Katrina, all Internet was out, but if
someone was on the fringe of the outage and could reach a repeater that was
linked to IRLP or echolink, then he would be able to communicate anywhere
and get messages into out of the area by that means. Not quite as good as
HF, but if you don't have the privileges, then it is a start.
Slow Code
news:DBj5h.11125$zB4...@twister.nyroc.rr.com:
>
> "Slow Code" <my....@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:L795h.5463$ig4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> SR <mer...@mfire.com> wrote in
>> news:12jj218...@corp.supernews.com:
> <snip>
>> I'd check with people on repeaters you can hear and ask them. Someone
>> should know unless they're also clueless no-coders.
> <snip>
>> SC
>
> Usually the no-code techs have a better idea as to how echolink and IRLP
> work than most of the old-timers, because it is the only way that they
> can access "long distance" radio. Most of the old-timers don't consider
> it to be "real" radio and as such, are often stuck in their ways and
> slow to accept the new form of communication on the service.
Echolink isn't real radio, it's Retard DX.
"No internet = The band ain't open." ROFL
> It is similar to many of the other forms that were incorporated into
> amateur radio and were slow to be accepted, such as SSB, SSTV, even ATV.
> I don't think any of these are any less ham radio than CW is ham radio.
RTTY, SSTV, CW, AMTOR, PSK, PACKET, ATV, etc. are all real. No
internet required.
SC
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
>"Pat Stevens" <patst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in
>news:DBj5h.11125$zB4...@twister.nyroc.rr.com:
>
>>
>> "Slow Code" <my....@no.spam> wrote in message
>> news:L795h.5463$ig4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> SR <mer...@mfire.com> wrote in
>>> news:12jj218...@corp.supernews.com:
>> <snip>
>>> I'd check with people on repeaters you can hear and ask them. Someone
>>> should know unless they're also clueless no-coders.
>> <snip>
>>> SC
>>
>> Usually the no-code techs have a better idea as to how echolink and IRLP
>> work than most of the old-timers, because it is the only way that they
>> can access "long distance" radio. Most of the old-timers don't consider
>> it to be "real" radio and as such, are often stuck in their ways and
>> slow to accept the new form of communication on the service.
>
>
>Echolink isn't real radio, it's Retard DX.
stop the crap sc
Nunya Bizness
activate without a confirmed callsign. Because Echolink connects to
radio equipment that can transmit over amateur frequencies, you are
required to be a licensed amateur to use it. In that way, it differs
tremendously from standard Internet communication software.
As for whether or not it's "real radio," by using my 440 HT, I've called
one of our local repeaters that connects to Echolink. Via that link, I
spoke with someone in Australia who was using a mobile radio to
communicate with a local Echolink node in his area. Neither of us was
directly using a computer yet Echolink allowed two licensed hams to
communicate around the world.
To say that using Echolink like this isn't real radio is like saying
that using repeaters isn't real radio.
But this doesn't mean that Echolink will or should ever replace standard
ham radio. I also see the value of continuing to require code testing
in order to get greater privileges.
And those are my two cents.
Jim
KI4OCC/AG
(Yep, I passed my code test this weekend!)
James
more, nothing less. And, you are WRONG about one thing........ you DON'T
have to have a license to do that. NO person using a cellphone or
internet chat who is talking to a person in Austrailia has a license to do
that. It simply isn't needed. No nation or government requires it.
Your 440 contact to your local repeater was the only radio communication
that you had. If you were five miles from your repeater, then you had a
five mile contact. The internet did the rest. That is fine, but you did
not work Austrailia, and would not be able to confirm it or get ARRL credit
for it. You can only get confirmation for two-way RADIO contacts. As
you know, you have to have a license for that.
73 de Jim K4PYT
Nunya Bizness
that and it's not what I would call a DX contact (like I hope to be
making on my HF rig). I won't call it "working" Australia. I don't
think that the ARRL should ever consider giving credit for it. But we
did use radio.
Using a cellphone? I agree... no license. But I've never used my
cellphone to talk with people randomly around the world to get an idea
of how people in different locations live. That's not what the
cellphone is for.
Using an internet chat program? Again, I agree... no license. But many
people in internet chat rooms or using chat programs tend to feel that
the anonymity of the internet gives them some kind of special
dispensation to behave like total idiots. Just look at some of the
conversations that occur in the newsgroups (someone I have in my
newsgroup filters comes to mind at this time). And, again, I don't
often just chat with someone randomly just to see how his/her day is
going, what the weather is like and so on.
Using Echolink? You need to be licensed to use it. In that way, it
differs from standard internet chat. And talking via Echolink still
requires you to follow the same regulations and restrictions as using
any other kind of repeater. You still need to identify using your
callsign and you have to keep the language clean. The callsign means
that there's no hiding behind the anonymity that typical internet chat
allows and the regulations regarding language make people behave
themselves better than typical internet chat. So, IMHO, that makes it
far superior to ICQ, YIM or all the other standard internet chat software.
I think the problem here is one of definitions and splitting hairs.
I'll be the first to admit that talking to Australia via Echolink isn't
the same as talking to someone in Ohio with my HF rig despite the
difference in distance. But the idea that I can sit in my truck with an
HT and chat with people around the world because this new bit of
technology is pretty cool and something I'll never be able to do working
directly radio to radio (unless some unforeseen and miraculous bit of
propagation occurs).
In that way, I think that Echolink has its place in amateur radio. It's
a means of bringing together people with a common hobby and interests in
a civilized manner. I think that's why most of us get into ham radio;
we like talking with other ordinary people from different locations for
no particular reason other than being interested in people in general.
So when it comes to DX bragging rights, I fully agree with you. But
when it comes to the place of Echolink in amateur radio, I think it's
got its place and I hope people can see it that way.
73!
Jim
KI4OCC/AG
(Does passing my code test give ME some bragging rights? <grin>)
kb9r...@hotmail.com
Nunya Bizness wrote:
> James wrote:
> So when it comes to DX bragging rights, I fully agree with you. But
> when it comes to the place of Echolink in amateur radio, I think it's
> got its place and I hope people can see it that way.
>
> 73!
>
> Jim
> KI4OCC/AG
> (Does passing my code test give ME some bragging rights? <grin>)
intersting that you dmeand OTHERS not respond to such crosposting trol
and do so yourself
can you say hypocrtie
I know you can but I suspect you are not man enough to fess up
Nunya Bizness
Actually, Einstein, if you look back through my posts, I NEVER mentioned
cross-posting. What I commented on was your perpetually replying to a
troll giving the idiot exactly what he wanted.
I don't see James as a troll. He has an opinion and I have another.
This is called discussion, not just pointless insults. If the messages
are cross-posted, they're pertinent to the groups in which they're posted.
If, for some reason, James turns out to be a troll (he doesn't seem to
be), I'll drop this discussion like a hot rock.
You, on the other hand, are a tremendous troll so I'll send yet another
variation of your e-mail address to the kill filter.
You can do both of us a favor... add me to your kill filter then we
don't ever need to cross paths again. Seems reasonable, eh?
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
wrote:
>kb9r...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Nunya Bizness wrote:
>>> James wrote:
>>
>>> So when it comes to DX bragging rights, I fully agree with you. But
>>> when it comes to the place of Echolink in amateur radio, I think it's
>>> got its place and I hope people can see it that way.
>>>
>>> 73!
>>>
>>> Jim
>>> KI4OCC/AG
>>> (Does passing my code test give ME some bragging rights? <grin>)
>> intersting that you dmeand OTHERS not respond to such crosposting trol
>> and do so yourself
>>
>> can you say hypocrtie
>>
>> I know you can but I suspect you are not man enough to fess up
>>
>
>Actually, Einstein, if you look back through my posts,
as premitted you blame others rather than fess up to responding to
crosposting trols
hypocrtie but you know that deep down
James
well-taken.
73 de Jim K4PYT
Slow Code
news:1163362926.3...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Above you can see someone says they learned CW and passed the code test,
and Markie attacks them. Steve is not the problem in RRAP, Markie is.
SC
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
... -.-. -. . . -.. ... ... ..-. ..-
>
>SC
Eagle
No-code ops usually don't give a hoot about getting on the HF bands. They
are content with VHF/UHF communications, and so learning CW is not necessary
since that mode is for repeater I.D. AND NOTHING ELSE.
As far as learning the code, I see that as not only the most productive mode
for HF communication, but as a rite of passage.
The code tests should be more than 5 WPM, IMO.
Dave W6IML
<Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs> wrote in message
news:72ddl29u0l221448m...@4ax.com...
Eagle
<Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs> wrote in message
news:8p5il2h3rhcfgcpu2...@4ax.com...
Eagle
"Eagle" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:1DH9h.248546$FQ1.74717@attbi_s71...
John Doe
<snip>
<snip>
<snip>
damm I forgot what this stupid email was all about
>
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
>Funny post.
glad to amuse you
>No-code ops usually don't give a hoot about getting on the HF bands.
where do you get yoursample? Most Notechs of my aquantance would LIKE
HF access but it isn't worth the effort
>They
>are content with VHF/UHF communications, and so learning CW is not necessary
>since that mode is for repeater I.D. AND NOTHING ELSE.
wrong althought it is close to useless at VHF and above it has its
uses in EME and at the upper edges of in the microwaves bands for
those interptid folk
>As far as learning the code, I see that as not only the most productive mode
>for HF communication, but as a rite of passage.
"rite of Pasage" their you have the basic Rub of the whole issue if I
may focus the point . I and other NoCode test advocates feel that the
Govt has NO right to impose or support any rite of passage stuff
either in radio or elsewhere
as to it usefulness in HF I don't see it . if am I not going the ehar
the other Id rather deal with a keyboard of deal with another CW mode
Hell where the eye rather than the ear deal with the fuzy mode
>The code tests should be more than 5 WPM, IMO.
there believe or not where we come the closest to agreeing. I see no
value at all in 5wpm test it is should go away (which is what I think
should or should always have been higher to produce a use operator )
the current system which I only supported going as step to ending
testing is Hilary care for the mode
Eagle
5WPM, let alone 13 or 20 as it was.
Stay at VHF...it's where you need to be.
<Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs> wrote in message
news:7trem2l3ag3r3k9di...@4ax.com...
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
>You are right...no-code is what you should advocate since you couldn't pass
>5WPM, let alone 13 or 20 as it was.
nice of you to adknowlede that Nocode should be advocated
>Stay at VHF...it's where you need to be.
why?
Plexus
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 01:24:35 GMT, "Eagle" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote:
>
> >You are right...no-code is what you should advocate since you couldn't pass
> >5WPM, let alone 13 or 20 as it was.
>
> nice of you to adknowlede that Nocode should be advocated
> >Stay at VHF...it's where you need to be.
>
> why?
> >
Mark,
Eagle was stating that, since you may have difficulty passing a >5wpm
Morse test (or are reticent to do the work necessary to pass it), *you*
should advocate dropping the requirement altogether. I expect you
won't need to advocate it because, over the past 20 years, the FCC has
made it increasingly easy to pass a Morse test.
In 1970, the requirement was letter-perfect copy of at least 1 minute
out of 5 of random characters. It was impossible to "fill in" any
missed characters. As a Novice, we had *no* voice privelages (part of
the FCC's "Incentive Licensing" structure). Most Novices & Techs who
were interested in increased privelages on HF had no issues with doing
the "work" necessary to upgrade. I might've taken to it better than
most but, within 12 months, my Morse speed was good enough to pass the
Extra exam.
My point is that like anything, Morse can be thought of as work or
unecessary, or you can give it a chance to grow on you. I'm not saying
you should do it (just) because many of us "had to". I'm saying you
don't know how enjoyable it can be until you try it.
vy 73 ob es gud dx,
Bryan WA7PRC
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
>Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 01:24:35 GMT, "Eagle" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >You are right...no-code is what you should advocate since you couldn't pass
>> >5WPM, let alone 13 or 20 as it was.
>>
>> nice of you to adknowlede that Nocode should be advocated
>> >Stay at VHF...it's where you need to be.
>>
>> why?
>> >
>
>Mark,
>
>Eagle was stating that, since you may have difficulty passing a >5wpm
>Morse test (or are reticent to do the work necessary to pass it), *you*
>should advocate dropping the requirement altogether.
are you realy dumb enough to think I do not know what he meant
i choose to take his words at face value, for the comedic value
eagle is just one of the ProCode cowards that refuse to even sign
their name to bashing NoCoder like myself
> I expect you
>won't need to advocate it because, over the past 20 years, the FCC has
>made it increasingly easy to pass a Morse test.
I choose to advocate because I do not feel it belongs in the licnese
requirements
>
>In 1970, the requirement was letter-perfect copy of at least 1 minute
>out of 5 of random characters. It was impossible to "fill in" any
>missed characters. As a Novice, we had *no* voice privelages (part of
>the FCC's "Incentive Licensing" structure). Most Novices & Techs who
>were interested in increased privelages on HF had no issues with doing
>the "work" necessary to upgrade. I might've taken to it better than
>most but, within 12 months, my Morse speed was good enough to pass the
>Extra exam.
with respect I have had this lecture or versions of it a number of
time Indeed I was trying and failing to get a license is the early
70's
>
>My point is that like anything, Morse can be thought of as work or
>unecessary, or you can give it a chance to grow on you. I'm not saying
>you should do it (just) because many of us "had to". I'm saying you
>don't know how enjoyable it can be until you try it.
obviously you have not read much of my writing. I spent 5 years
trying and failing I have taken and failed more than 100 code tests
the legal standard of imposible is basical a year of trying something
even listening to it and trying to break it out of sound gives me a
headache I don't want to listen to it any more than I want to listen
to RTTY or Hellshreiabe or JT65 modes
it simply not worth my time
which is a mtter whole aprt from the issue of wether the mode should
tested for
give a real, convincing arguement why we should continue code tsting I
will support continueing it, dispite the impact that would have on me
personaly
>
>vy 73 ob es gud dx,
>Bryan WA7PRC
Eagle
> you should do it (just) because many of us "had to". I'm saying you
> don't know how enjoyable it can be until you try it.
Exactly!
Dave
Eagle
You need to work on your spelling before even THINKING about trying to pass
a 5WPM code test... lol!
Dave
<Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs> wrote in message
news:eemfm29sm0hn1ebt9...@4ax.com...
Plexus
> On 24 Nov 2006 21:48:49 -0800, "Plexus" <plexu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs wrote:
> >> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 01:24:35 GMT, "Eagle" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >You are right...no-code is what you should advocate since you couldn't pass
> >> >5WPM, let alone 13 or 20 as it was.
> >>
> >> nice of you to adknowlede that Nocode should be advocated
> >> >Stay at VHF...it's where you need to be.
> >>
> >> why?
> >> >
> >
> >Mark,
> >
> >Eagle was stating that, since you may have difficulty passing a >5wpm
> >Morse test (or are reticent to do the work necessary to pass it), *you*
> >should advocate dropping the requirement altogether.
>
>
> are you realy dumb enough to think I do not know what he meant
> i choose to take his words at face value, for the comedic value
I believe I have a fairly good command of the written English language.
The meaning and usage of his words and your response indicates that,
either you didn't understand what he meant, or you were replying in
sarcasm. I believed it to be the former.
> eagle is just one of the ProCode cowards that refuse to even sign
> their name to bashing NoCoder like myself
A coward chooses to do something difficult in order to gain something,
rather than take the easier road.
> > I expect you
> >won't need to advocate it because, over the past 20 years, the FCC has
> >made it increasingly easy to pass a Morse test.
>
> I choose to advocate because I do not feel it belongs in the licnese
> requirements
Would that be because you have been unable to master the minimum
requirement, after failing "more than 100 code tests"? Perhaps it is
simply a case that you are one of those who should be relegated to 6m
and above. If this had been 1970, you would not have a ham license of
any kind.
> >In 1970, the requirement was letter-perfect copy of at least 1 minute
> >out of 5 of random characters. It was impossible to "fill in" any
> >missed characters. As a Novice, we had *no* voice privelages (part of
> >the FCC's "Incentive Licensing" structure). Most Novices & Techs who
> >were interested in increased privelages on HF had no issues with doing
> >the "work" necessary to upgrade. I might've taken to it better than
> >most but, within 12 months, my Morse speed was good enough to pass the
> >Extra exam.
>
> with respect I have had this lecture or versions of it a number of
> time Indeed I was trying and failing to get a license is the early
> 70's
> >My point is that like anything, Morse can be thought of as work or
> >unnecessary, or you can give it a chance to grow on you. I'm not saying
> >you should do it (just) because many of us "had to". I'm saying you
> >don't know how enjoyable it can be until you try it.
>
> obviously you have not read much of my writing. I spent 5 years
> trying and failing I have taken and failed more than 100 code tests
> the legal standard of imposible is basical a year of trying something
>
> even listening to it and trying to break it out of sound gives me a
> headache I don't want to listen to it any more than I want to listen
> to RTTY or Hellshreiabe or JT65 modes
>
> it simply not worth my time
Then:
1) wait until the Morse requirement is dropped altogether (don't hold
your breath waiting for the FCC to act)
2) or learn to be satisfied with what you have.
> which is a mtter whole aprt from the issue of wether the mode should
> tested for
>
> give a real, convincing arguement why we should continue code tsting I
> will support continueing it, dispite the impact that would have on me
> personaly
> >
Morse is FUN.
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
>Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs wrote:
>> On 24 Nov 2006 21:48:49 -0800, "Plexus" <plexu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 01:24:35 GMT, "Eagle" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >You are right...no-code is what you should advocate since you couldn't pass
>> >> >5WPM, let alone 13 or 20 as it was.
>> >>
>> >> nice of you to adknowlede that Nocode should be advocated
>> >> >Stay at VHF...it's where you need to be.
>> >>
>> >> why?
>> >> >
>> >
>> >Mark,
>> >
>> >Eagle was stating that, since you may have difficulty passing a >5wpm
>> >Morse test (or are reticent to do the work necessary to pass it), *you*
>> >should advocate dropping the requirement altogether.
>>
>>
>> are you realy dumb enough to think I do not know what he meant
>> i choose to take his words at face value, for the comedic value
>
>I believe I have a fairly good command of the written English language.
> The meaning and usage of his words and your response indicates that,
>either you didn't understand what he meant, or you were replying in
>sarcasm. I believed it to be the former.
then you are a fool
>
>> eagle is just one of the ProCode cowards that refuse to even sign
>> their name to bashing NoCoder like myself
>
>A coward chooses to do something difficult in order to gain something,
>rather than take the easier road.
no a coward avoids doing things you claim a fair understanding of
English that sentence argues against such a claim
>
>> > I expect you
>> >won't need to advocate it because, over the past 20 years, the FCC has
>> >made it increasingly easy to pass a Morse test.
>>
>> I choose to advocate because I do not feel it belongs in the licnese
>> requirements
>
>Would that be because you have been unable to master the minimum
>requirement, after failing "more than 100 code tests"?
no. not that it would matter if that were the case
> Perhaps it is
>simply a case that you are one of those who should be relegated to 6m
>and above.
why should any be be "relagated" your word to anything based on Code
skill?
> If this had been 1970, you would not have a ham license of
>any kind.
so?
well it will take longer than I can hold my breathe I can't hold for
days could you?
>2) or learn to be satisfied with what you have.
you over looked that I have choosen chose three exercise my ruight as
a Citizen to petion My govt for redress and to contiue to do that
>
>> which is a mtter whole aprt from the issue of wether the mode should
>> tested for
>>
>> give a real, convincing arguement why we should continue code tsting I
>> will support continueing it, dispite the impact that would have on me
>> personaly
>> >
>
>Morse is FUN.
for you perhaps it is so
where is the real and convincing arguement
I can't in my own experence Morse is NOT fun
Plexus
> On 25 Nov 2006 10:30:55 -0800, "Plexus" <plexu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs wrote:
> >> On 24 Nov 2006 21:48:49 -0800, "Plexus" <plexu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 01:24:35 GMT, "Eagle" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >You are right...no-code is what you should advocate since you couldn't pass
> >> >> >5WPM, let alone 13 or 20 as it was.
> >> >>
> >> >> nice of you to adknowlede that Nocode should be advocated
> >> >> >Stay at VHF...it's where you need to be.
> >> >>
> >> >> why?
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Mark,
> >> >
> >> >Eagle was stating that, since you may have difficulty passing a >5wpm
> >> >Morse test (or are reticent to do the work necessary to pass it), *you*
> >> >should advocate dropping the requirement altogether.
> >>
> >>
> >> are you realy dumb enough to think I do not know what he meant
> >> i choose to take his words at face value, for the comedic value
> >
> >I believe I have a fairly good command of the written English language.
> > The meaning and usage of his words and your response indicates that,
> >either you didn't understand what he meant, or you were replying in
> >sarcasm. I believed it to be the former.
>
> then you are a fool
Thank you for your edification in regard to my cerebral capacity...
> >> eagle is just one of the ProCode cowards that refuse to even sign
> >> their name to bashing NoCoder like myself
> >
> >A coward chooses to do something difficult in order to gain something,
> >rather than take the easier road.
>
> no a coward avoids doing things you claim a fair understanding of
> English that sentence argues against such a claim
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coward
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/coward
By your definition, a coward chooses to *not* let the floodgates to HF
fone open for those w/o any Morse proficiency. In that case, I wear
the name "coward" with pride.
> >> > I expect you
> >> >won't need to advocate it because, over the past 20 years, the FCC has
> >> >made it increasingly easy to pass a Morse test.
> >>
> >> I choose to advocate because I do not feel it belongs in the licnese
> >> requirements
> >
> >Would that be because you have been unable to master the minimum
> >requirement, after failing "more than 100 code tests"?
>
> no. not that it would matter if that were the case
My point was that, I believe that is your sole incentive to abolish the
Morse requirement. Further, if that were the case, I believe it would
not be sufficient justification to the FCC for abolishing the Morse
requirement entirely. They threw you a bone (with the no-code
Technician license) and now you want the whole steer.
> > Perhaps it is
> >simply a case that you are one of those who should be relegated to 6m
> >and above.
>
> why should any be be "relagated" your word to anything based on Code
> skill?
It's a matter of available spectrum vs signal bandwidth. On a per-band
basis, 6m and up are several megahertz wide and can accommodate wider
phone signals. This is not the case with HF.
> > If this had been 1970, you would not have a ham license of
> >any kind.
>
> so?
So, you should feel fortunate for having *any* level of ham license.
I don't need to. Many others also don't need to -- they "cowboy up"
and learn Morse.
> >2) or learn to be satisfied with what you have.
>
> you over looked that I have choosen chose three exercise my ruight as
> a Citizen to petion My govt for redress and to contiue to do that
Then, please do so.
> >> which is a mtter whole aprt from the issue of wether the mode should
> >> tested for
> >>
> >> give a real, convincing arguement why we should continue code tsting I
> >> will support continueing it, dispite the impact that would have on me
> >> personaly
> >> >
> >
> >Morse is FUN.
>
> for you perhaps it is so
...and many thousands of other hams.
> where is the real and convincing arguement
See above.
> I can't in my own experence Morse is NOT fun
I sincerly find that unfortunate.
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
>Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs wrote:
>> On 25 Nov 2006 10:30:55 -0800, "Plexus" <plexu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs wrote:
>> >> On 24 Nov 2006 21:48:49 -0800, "Plexus" <plexu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 01:24:35 GMT, "Eagle" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >You are right...no-code is what you should advocate since you couldn't pass
>> >> >> >5WPM, let alone 13 or 20 as it was.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> nice of you to adknowlede that Nocode should be advocated
>> >> >> >Stay at VHF...it's where you need to be.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> why?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Mark,
>> >> >
>> >> >Eagle was stating that, since you may have difficulty passing a >5wpm
>> >> >Morse test (or are reticent to do the work necessary to pass it), *you*
>> >> >should advocate dropping the requirement altogether.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> are you realy dumb enough to think I do not know what he meant
>> >> i choose to take his words at face value, for the comedic value
>> >
>> >I believe I have a fairly good command of the written English language.
>> > The meaning and usage of his words and your response indicates that,
>> >either you didn't understand what he meant, or you were replying in
>> >sarcasm. I believed it to be the former.
>>
>> then you are a fool
>
>Thank you for your edification in regard to my cerebral capacity...
your welcome
do you intend to offer futher proof in this post?
>
>> >> eagle is just one of the ProCode cowards that refuse to even sign
>> >> their name to bashing NoCoder like myself
>> >
>> >A coward chooses to do something difficult in order to gain something,
>> >rather than take the easier road.
>>
>> no a coward avoids doing things you claim a fair understanding of
>> English that sentence argues against such a claim
>
>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coward
>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/coward
>By your definition, a coward chooses to *not* let the floodgates to HF
>fone open for those w/o any Morse proficiency.
no Fool a coward is some one that makes offesive and errous statement
and lack the cowarage to even sign there name in an identifable manner
a Procoder CAN have courage. you and eagle do not
> In that case, I wear
>the name "coward" with pride.
well it it yours in pride or not
>
>> >> > I expect you
>> >> >won't need to advocate it because, over the past 20 years, the FCC has
>> >> >made it increasingly easy to pass a Morse test.
>> >>
>> >> I choose to advocate because I do not feel it belongs in the licnese
>> >> requirements
>> >
>> >Would that be because you have been unable to master the minimum
>> >requirement, after failing "more than 100 code tests"?
>>
>> no. not that it would matter if that were the case
>
>My point was that, I believe that is your sole incentive to abolish the
>Morse requirement
again you choose to proove yourself a fool
>. Further, if that were the case, I believe it would
>not be sufficient justification to the FCC for abolishing the Morse
>requirement entirely.
there is not since the WRC2003 a legl standing for them to mantian the
test we are simply dealing the inertia
not I have neevr contended that my personal ability or lack or lack
should be the deciding factor
> They threw you a bone (with the no-code
>Technician license) and now you want the whole steer.
I want what is mine by right of the constitution of the USA, for the
stadard of licensure to fall within the Constitutional parameter of US
law
>
>> > Perhaps it is
>> >simply a case that you are one of those who should be relegated to 6m
>> >and above.
>>
>> why should any be be "relagated" your word to anything based on Code
>> skill?
>
>It's a matter of available spectrum vs signal bandwidth.
bullshit were that the case SSB would not be allowed at hf it clearly
is and PSK of Hell manage BW limits as a manual morse
> On a per-band
>basis, 6m and up are several megahertz wide and can accommodate wider
>phone signals. This is not the case with HF.
more bullshit yes VHF and up has room for FM but sssb is basicaly the
same width oh hf and VHF
>
>> > If this had been 1970, you would not have a ham license of
>> >any kind.
>>
>> so?
>
>So, you should feel fortunate for having *any* level of ham license.
why?
it is MY right to fair and reasonable test for access regardless of
the date
again so? you not establish any reason to require morse code above all
other skills indeed passing the code does even insure one can use CW
morse at any speed on air
but you are back do or be called lazy BS
>
>> >2) or learn to be satisfied with what you have.
>>
>> you over looked that I have choosen chose three exercise my ruight as
>> a Citizen to petion My govt for redress and to contiue to do that
>
>Then, please do so.
I have and we are awaiting the result which according to FCC should eb
out this year
>
>> >> which is a mtter whole aprt from the issue of wether the mode should
>> >> tested for
>> >>
>> >> give a real, convincing arguement why we should continue code tsting I
>> >> will support continueing it, dispite the impact that would have on me
>> >> personaly
>> >> >
>> >
>> >Morse is FUN.
>>
>> for you perhaps it is so
>
>...and many thousands of other hams.
granted
>
>> where is the real and convincing arguement
>
>See above.
I saw and NO convicing argument was made
one of the problem with your argument is that it claims for Morse
encode CW peorpties for Morse Code that are by right also the property
of other CW modes such as Hellshrieber
>
>> I can't in my own experence Morse is NOT fun
>
>I sincerly find that unfortunate.
but given many thousand indeed 100's of thousands would seem to agree
with me that it is NOT fun or not much fun you statement Morse Code is
fun fails to serve as reason for testing for it
Sal M. Onella
"Plexus" <plexu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164479455....@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
< snip >
> Morse is FUN.
Yeah, if you can do it. (Not everyone can.)
Plexus
Your response indicates that, apparently, you did not understand the
meaning of the words I used.
> >
> >> >> eagle is just one of the ProCode cowards that refuse to even sign
> >> >> their name to bashing NoCoder like myself
> >> >
> >> >A coward chooses to do something difficult in order to gain something,
> >> >rather than take the easier road.
> >>
> >> no a coward avoids doing things you claim a fair understanding of
> >> English that sentence argues against such a claim
> >
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coward
> >http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/coward
> >By your definition, a coward chooses to *not* let the floodgates to HF
> >fone open for those w/o any Morse proficiency.
>
> no Fool a coward is some one that makes offesive and errous statement
> and lack the cowarage to even sign there name in an identifable manner
Me thinks that (at least) the kettle is calling the pot black.
I *have* used my real name and callsign in this thread.
> a Procoder CAN have courage. you and eagle do not
> > In that case, I wear
> >the name "coward" with pride.
>
> well it it yours in pride or not
> >
> >> >> > I expect you
> >> >> >won't need to advocate it because, over the past 20 years, the FCC has
> >> >> >made it increasingly easy to pass a Morse test.
> >> >>
> >> >> I choose to advocate because I do not feel it belongs in the licnese
> >> >> requirements
> >> >
> >> >Would that be because you have been unable to master the minimum
> >> >requirement, after failing "more than 100 code tests"?
> >>
> >> no. not that it would matter if that were the case
> >
> >My point was that, I believe that is your sole incentive to abolish the
> >Morse requirement
>
> again you choose to proove yourself a fool
Eh... so you say...
> >. Further, if that were the case, I believe it would
> >not be sufficient justification to the FCC for abolishing the Morse
> >requirement entirely.
>
> there is not since the WRC2003 a legl standing for them to mantian the
> test we are simply dealing the inertia
> not I have neevr contended that my personal ability or lack or lack
> should be the deciding factor
oic. Then, could it be due to *collective* inability???
> > They threw you a bone (with the no-code
> >Technician license) and now you want the whole steer.
>
> I want what is mine by right of the constitution of the USA, for the
> stadard of licensure to fall within the Constitutional parameter of US
> law
I must've missed that, the last time I read the Constitution...
> >
> >> > Perhaps it is
> >> >simply a case that you are one of those who should be relegated to 6m
> >> >and above.
> >>
> >> why should any be be "relagated" your word to anything based on Code
> >> skill?
> >
> >It's a matter of available spectrum vs signal bandwidth.
>
> bullshit were that the case SSB would not be allowed at hf it clearly
> is and PSK of Hell manage BW limits as a manual morse
?Huh? No habla gibberish.
> > On a per-band
> >basis, 6m and up are several megahertz wide and can accommodate wider
> >phone signals. This is not the case with HF.
>
> more bullshit yes VHF and up has room for FM but sssb is basicaly the
> same width oh hf and VHF
SSB requires exactly the same bandwidth regardless of the radio
frequency. My point was that the HF bands have less room for expansion
of the fone spectrum to accommodate the increased use. If the entire
portion of an HF band were allocated to fone and the Morse requirement
was abolished, the crowding would be unbearable because of the all the
no-coders. Thankfully, as for myself, I'm ready with a narrow 270Hz IF
filter for Morse.
> >> > If this had been 1970, you would not have a ham license of
> >> >any kind.
> >>
> >> so?
> >
> >So, you should feel fortunate for having *any* level of ham license.
>
> why?
For the reason I explained... the already relaxed requirements. Had it
been the 1970s, you would've had to pass a real 5wpm Morse test in
order to operate as a Technician class licensee above 30MHz.
> it is MY right to fair and reasonable test for access regardless of
> the date
As it is now, it is *more* than fair. As explained, the Morse speed
requirement has been reduced to a paltry 5wpm, and one has to get only
70% correct (instead of 100%).
That's the point of learning Morse -- so a person can communicate using
it.
> but you are back do or be called lazy BS
?Huh? No habla gibberish.
> >> >2) or learn to be satisfied with what you have.
> >>
> >> you over looked that I have choosen chose three exercise my ruight as
> >> a Citizen to petion My govt for redress and to contiue to do that
> >
> >Then, please do so.
>
> I have and we are awaiting the result which according to FCC should eb
> out this year
> >
> >> >> which is a mtter whole aprt from the issue of wether the mode should
> >> >> tested for
> >> >>
> >> >> give a real, convincing arguement why we should continue code tsting I
> >> >> will support continueing it, dispite the impact that would have on me
> >> >> personaly
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Morse is FUN.
> >>
> >> for you perhaps it is so
> >
> >...and many thousands of other hams.
>
> granted
> >
> >> where is the real and convincing arguement
> >
> >See above.
>
> I saw and NO convicing argument was made
Please try to pay attention.
> one of the problem with your argument is that it claims for Morse
> encode CW peorpties for Morse Code that are by right also the property
> of other CW modes such as Hellshrieber
> >
> >> I can't in my own experence Morse is NOT fun
> >
> >I sincerly find that unfortunate.
>
> but given many thousand indeed 100's of thousands would seem to agree
> with me that it is NOT fun or not much fun you statement Morse Code is
> fun fails to serve as reason for testing for it
Alright; for the sake of argument, let's assume Morse is not fun and
not enough argument in favor of keeping the Morse requirement. How
about some numbers (with sources)...
Source: http://www.qrz.com/i/census.html
Total # of US hams: 675274
Extra: 105552 (15.63%)
Advanced: 79253 (11.74%)
General: 139251 (20.62%)
Tech+: 57986 (8.59%)
Tech: 262422 (38.86%)
Novice: 30810 (4.56%)
Code Total: 412852 (61.14%)
No Code Total: 262422 (38.86%)
There are nearly twice as many people who've passed a Morse test
(412852 or 61.14%), compared to those who haven't (262422 or 38.86%).
Nearly a super-majority managed to get to at least 5wpm. One could
speculate that there may be only 38.86% interest in dropping the Morse
requirement. It may be difficult to know how many non-hams would be
for it.
Source: ARRL Poll (http://www.arrl.org/survey.php3?pollnr=307)
This recent online poll indicates a majority of hams are/were against
abolishing the Morse requirement.
Fine with me: 2896 (45.1 %)
It is a terrible idea: 3107 (48.4 %)
I don't care either way: 415 (6.5 %)
Total votes: 6418
There were only 6418 responses but, it is the only hard measure in
regard to the proposal.
Source: ARRL Poll (http://www.arrl.org/survey.php3?pollnr=342)
This interesting poll shows the breakdown of Morse proficiency:
5 to 10 WPM 16.3% (850)
10 to 20 WPM 27.8% (1450)
20 to 30 WPM 14.4% (749)
30 to 40 WPM 4.4% (229)
40 to 50 WPM 1.3% (68)
Higher than 50 WPM 1.0% (51)
I don't operate CW 34.8% (1816)
Total votes: 5213
Discounting the lowest and the 3 highest ranges, a majority of hams
(2199 or 42.9%) are proficient in the 10 to 30wpm range. Assuming the
"I don't operate CW" hams are the only ones in favor of dropping the
Morse requirement, they are clearly outnumbered by the hams with a
"mid-range" proficiency.
You've stated that there are "100's of thousands would seem to agree
with me that it is NOT fun or not much fun". Assuming that refers to
the 34.8% figure above, you would be correct (0.348 * 675274 = 234995.
It's still a small minority. You need to quote a higher percentage
(with verifiable sources), if you're going to make your argument to
anyone in power to me -- or anyone.
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
no you have already adknoewled the possibility of srcasm and now you
post further proof of your cowardly nature
which is the statndard these days of the ProCoders
>
>> >
>> >> >> eagle is just one of the ProCode cowards that refuse to even sign
>> >> >> their name to bashing NoCoder like myself
>> >> >
>> >> >A coward chooses to do something difficult in order to gain something,
>> >> >rather than take the easier road.
>> >>
>> >> no a coward avoids doing things you claim a fair understanding of
>> >> English that sentence argues against such a claim
>> >
>> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coward
>> >http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/coward
>> >By your definition, a coward chooses to *not* let the floodgates to HF
>> >fone open for those w/o any Morse proficiency.
>>
>> no Fool a coward is some one that makes offesive and errous statement
>> and lack the cowarage to even sign there name in an identifable manner
>
>Me thinks that (at least) the kettle is calling the pot black.
then you are an idiot but w e knew that
>I *have* used my real name and callsign in this thread.
but you don't now becuase you are afraid to have these words conceted
with your name and call
>
>> a Procoder CAN have courage. you and eagle do not
>> > In that case, I wear
>> >the name "coward" with pride.
>>
>> well it it yours in pride or not
>> >
>> >> >> > I expect you
>> >> >> >won't need to advocate it because, over the past 20 years, the FCC has
>> >> >> >made it increasingly easy to pass a Morse test.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I choose to advocate because I do not feel it belongs in the licnese
>> >> >> requirements
>> >> >
>> >> >Would that be because you have been unable to master the minimum
>> >> >requirement, after failing "more than 100 code tests"?
>> >>
>> >> no. not that it would matter if that were the case
>> >
>> >My point was that, I believe that is your sole incentive to abolish the
>> >Morse requirement
>>
>> again you choose to proove yourself a fool
>
>Eh... so you say...
indeed so I Mark Morgan say
you are whom? you tell to go look for your name
>
>> >. Further, if that were the case, I believe it would
>> >not be sufficient justification to the FCC for abolishing the Morse
>> >requirement entirely.
>>
>> there is not since the WRC2003 a legl standing for them to mantian the
>> test we are simply dealing the inertia
>
>> not I have neevr contended that my personal ability or lack or lack
>> should be the deciding factor
>
>oic. Then, could it be due to *collective* inability???
noppe the leaders of the Nocode Movement passed the code test at
various speeds
>
>> > They threw you a bone (with the no-code
>> >Technician license) and now you want the whole steer.
>>
>> I want what is mine by right of the constitution of the USA, for the
>> stadard of licensure to fall within the Constitutional parameter of US
>> law
>
>I must've missed that, the last time I read the Constitution...
did yu EVER read the constitution and think about what it said esp the
10th manedment?
>
>> >
>> >> > Perhaps it is
>> >> >simply a case that you are one of those who should be relegated to 6m
>> >> >and above.
>> >>
>> >> why should any be be "relagated" your word to anything based on Code
>> >> skill?
>> >
>> >It's a matter of available spectrum vs signal bandwidth.
>>
>> bullshit were that the case SSB would not be allowed at hf it clearly
>> is and PSK of Hell manage BW limits as a manual morse
>
>?Huh? No habla gibberish.
you no Habla anything
>
>> > On a per-band
>> >basis, 6m and up are several megahertz wide and can accommodate wider
>> >phone signals. This is not the case with HF.
>>
>> more bullshit yes VHF and up has room for FM but sssb is basicaly the
>> same width oh hf and VHF
>
>SSB requires exactly the same bandwidth regardless of the radio
>frequency. My point was that the HF bands have less room for expansion
>of the fone spectrum to accommodate the increased use.
if true (another point entirely) so?
> If the entire
>portion of an HF band were allocated to fone and the Morse requirement
>was abolished, the crowding would be unbearable because of the all the
>no-coders.
an asertion you make without reference to physics indeed the ARRL and
hams were sure that HF could not accomadate the number of hams we have
NOW so they convinced the FCC of incentive lecining now we more
numbers than ever and yet the bands are still mostly silent
based on what I here all the techs could arrive tomarrow without
overcrowding thebnads if tranmit in same protions as the current users
of those bands
>Thankfully, as for myself, I'm ready with a narrow 270Hz IF
>filter for Morse.
>
>> >> > If this had been 1970, you would not have a ham license of
>> >> >any kind.
>> >>
>> >> so?
>> >
>> >So, you should feel fortunate for having *any* level of ham license.
>>
>> why?
>
>For the reason I explained... the already relaxed requirements.
no you explained nothing indeed I have always been willing to conceed
I might be worng and this a valid reason for code testing but in that
unlikely event YOU don't know it
but you refuse to address the fact I have simply been allowed now what
I should have been allowed since the 60's
>
>> it is MY right to fair and reasonable test for access regardless of
>> the date
>
>As it is now, it is *more* than fair.
no it isn't
one obelelete mode is favoured above the others that ain't fair
> As explained, the Morse speed
>requirement has been reduced to a paltry 5wpm, and one has to get only
>70% correct (instead of 100%).
so? NO Morse Code skil is required at on air therefore no test for it
is fair
which is not assured by the test as given therefore it is afailure
even there
>
>> but you are back do or be called lazy BS
>
>?Huh? No habla gibberish.
you understand you are afraid to face it
>
>> >> >2) or learn to be satisfied with what you have.
>> >>
>> >> you over looked that I have choosen chose three exercise my ruight as
>> >> a Citizen to petion My govt for redress and to contiue to do that
>> >
>> >Then, please do so.
>>
>> I have and we are awaiting the result which according to FCC should eb
>> out this year
>> >
>> >> >> which is a mtter whole aprt from the issue of wether the mode should
>> >> >> tested for
>> >> >>
>> >> >> give a real, convincing arguement why we should continue code tsting I
>> >> >> will support continueing it, dispite the impact that would have on me
>> >> >> personaly
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Morse is FUN.
>> >>
>> >> for you perhaps it is so
>> >
>> >...and many thousands of other hams.
>>
>> granted
>> >
>> >> where is the real and convincing arguement
>> >
>> >See above.
>>
>> I saw and NO convicing argument was made
>
>Please try to pay attention.
I did
you made NO convicing arguement
>
>> one of the problem with your argument is that it claims for Morse
>> encode CW peorpties for Morse Code that are by right also the property
>> of other CW modes such as Hellshrieber
you have to avoid that point like all procoders
>> >
>> >> I can't in my own experence Morse is NOT fun
>> >
>> >I sincerly find that unfortunate.
>>
>> but given many thousand indeed 100's of thousands would seem to agree
>> with me that it is NOT fun or not much fun you statement Morse Code is
>> fun fails to serve as reason for testing for it
>
>Alright; for the sake of argument, let's assume Morse is not fun and
>not enough argument in favor of keeping the Morse requirement. How
>about some numbers (with sources)...
number of what?
no I don't the figure (do you realy want the cenus of the USA suggest
that roughly 200milion amercans don't find mores fun and few hunderd
thousand might since surely you will conceed some of those that passed
morse code tests did not find the mode fun
38 percent is hardly a small mnority we in law make perviosn for far
smaller ones
OTOH you armgument that Morse fun even if proven that 99 percent of
people founf this ture is not a reason to test for it
we are to the end and agin you refuse to sign your name to your drivel
Nunya Bizness
I think I'll weigh in on this one. I started an interest in getting my
ham license back when I was 10 in 1970. Only last year did I become
aware that there was a no-code license available so I took a class
offered by the local ARES group and passed my test easily in March.
Like lots of people, I was convinced that there was no way I could learn
Morse code. After all, I'd been trying for over 35 years. However, I'd
failed to do the one thing I really needed to do: actually dedicate some
time and effort to learning code. I found out that's all I needed to
do. I took my element 3 test in July and spent at least half an hour at
least every other evening for the next four months studying code. Sure,
I had fits and starts but eventually, I started picking it up pretty well.
I took my test on November 11 and on November 15, the FCC listed me in
the ULS as a general class operator.
One person I really owe my success to is Simon, the guy who runs
www.aa9pw.com. His site had a way of learning code that worked for me.
It started by learning a few basic letters, then numbers, punctuation
and so on. The last step is simulated QSOs with tests that are very
much like the test I took.
The practical upshot of all this? If I can do it, there's no reason
that others can't. And by relaxing the standards required to be a ham
operator too much, ham radio runs the risk of becoming like CB. Spend
an hour listening to typical CB and you'll understand why some of us
advocate keeping the code requirement.
73 de KI4OCC
Jim
Telamon
"Eagle" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote:
> Shouldn't this be in alt.ham-radio.flame?
< Snip >
Nope. It belongs in the kill file with all other cross posts about
either being a ham or using code Mr. Eagle eyes.
< Plonk >
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
<telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote:
>In article <aFH9h.248548$FQ1.221986@attbi_s71>,
> "Eagle" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote:
>
>> Shouldn't this be in alt.ham-radio.flame?
>
>< Snip >
>
>Nope. It belongs in the kill file with all other cross posts about
>either being a ham or using code Mr. Eagle eyes.
>
>< Plonk >
ah yes asserting your specail right to respond to materail you
consider improper
get e alife
Slow Code
news:aFH9h.248548$FQ1.221986@attbi_s71:
> Shouldn't this be in alt.ham-radio.flame?
Everything Markie posts is a flame ie. crap-job if he's following up to a
real radio operator. My advice, Ignore Markie, you'll just get a headache
if you try to figure out what he is trying to say.
SC
Slow Code
news:o09ah.35501$zT4....@newsfe11.phx:
Sal.
Please keep your whiney ass out of the CW threads. If you want to shit
your diaper, please take it to the CB group, or start up a new own thread
with Markie and Opus.
SC
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
looking at yourself in the glare of your monitor again steve
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
>"Sal M. Onella" <salmo...@food.poisoning.org> wrote in
>news:o09ah.35501$zT4....@newsfe11.phx:
>
>>
>> "Plexus" <plexu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1164479455....@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> < snip >
>>
>>> Morse is FUN.
>>
>> Yeah, if you can do it. (Not everyone can.)
>
>
>Sal.
>
>Please keep your whiney ass out of the CW threads.
why you whine in all th thread and spew your hatred of REAL Hams like
me
> If you want to shit
>your diaper, please take it to the CB group, or start up a new own thread
>with Markie and Opus.
get help for your intantace on toilet sex discussion in radio NGs,
steve
>
>SC
Eagle
"Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-6...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
an_old_friend
Eagle wrote:
> What is a plonk?
>
>
he is claiming he has killfiled you
net speack you might know if you were not obessed with Morse Code
Eagle
"Sal M. Onella" <salmo...@food.poisoning.org> wrote in message
news:o09ah.35501$zT4....@newsfe11.phx...
The only reason 'not everyone can' is that these ops refuse to invest the
time and effort it takes to learn something new. It takes very little effort
to learn a dot from a dash.
Code is indeed fun and very rewarding!
Eagle
an_old_friend
Eagle wrote:
> "Sal M. Onella" <salmo...@food.poisoning.org> wrote in message
> news:o09ah.35501$zT4....@newsfe11.phx...
> >
> > "Plexus" <plexu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1164479455....@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > < snip >
> >
> >> Morse is FUN.
> >
> > Yeah, if you can do it. (Not everyone can.)
> >
> >
>
> The only reason 'not everyone can' is that these ops refuse to invest the
> time and effort it takes to learn something new.
what 5 years 40 mintue a day 7 day a week isn't enough for you?
>It takes very little effort
> to learn a dot from a dash.
if only that was all that was required
> Code is indeed fun and very rewarding!
for some it is
but if this is the norma why does it need the prod to learn it
the test is nothing more than Mode Welfare and I am opposed to welfare
>
> Eagle
Eagle
him...lol!
You sound like a no coder...true?
"an_old_friend" <kons...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164676264.6...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Eagle
>
> Eagle wrote:
>> "Sal M. Onella" <salmo...@food.poisoning.org> wrote in message
>> news:o09ah.35501$zT4....@newsfe11.phx...
>> >
>> > "Plexus" <plexu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1164479455....@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > < snip >
>> >
>> >> Morse is FUN.
>> >
>> > Yeah, if you can do it. (Not everyone can.)
>> >
>> >
>>
>> The only reason 'not everyone can' is that these ops refuse to invest the
>> time and effort it takes to learn something new.
>
> what 5 years 40 mintue a day 7 day a week isn't enough for you?
And you STILL haven't learned code???
>
>>It takes very little effort
>> to learn a dot from a dash.
>
> if only that was all that was required
Well, a bright mind would help, but it isn't nessesary.
>
>> Code is indeed fun and very rewarding!
>
> for some it is
>
> but if this is the norma why does it need the prod to learn it
Prod? You can take the time to learn?
>
> the test is nothing more than Mode Welfare and I am opposed to welfare
Then get off welfare.
>
>
>>
>> Eagle
>
Sal M. Onella
"Nunya Bizness" <a...@imight.tel> wrote in message
news:eAmah.39956$nG1....@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> Sal M. Onella wrote:
> > "Plexus" <plexu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1164479455....@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > < snip >
> >
> >> Morse is FUN.
> >
> > Yeah, if you can do it. (Not everyone can.)
> >
> >
>
> I think I'll weigh in on this one.
< snip >
If I can do it, there's no reason
> that others can't.
I think that's a weak argument. I've been into electronics since the 1950's
and I'm very good at it. I'm intelligent and hard working -- university
degree and uninterrupted employment daily since 1962. I've done
installation, repair, circuit design, system engineering, T&E -- almost
everything except R&D. Somehow, that's not enough.
I have dyslexia, which prevents me from effectively distinguishing the
strings of dits and dahs from one another. IT JUST DOESN'T STICK! Fourteen
years and I still don't know the whole Morse alphabet. And I have to get
the numerals, too? I doubt it, Bub.
Bottom line: Just because you can do something, it doesn't mean everybody
can. Have a heart.
Sal M. Onella
"Eagle" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:55Mah.161107$aJ.151195@attbi_s21...
It takes very little effort
> to learn a dot from a dash.
Baloney!
gwatts
> ... If you want to shit
> your diaper, please take it to the CB group, or start up a new own thread
> with Markie and Opus.
>
> SC
Is this how you only start a thread and let everyone else keep it going?
You're rapidly approaching pitiful.
W8LNA
Nunya Bizness
Fourteen years? That's about half as long as I tried. Like you, I
thought it must be something that I could never do. That was true until
I actually sat and dedicated the time and effort to learn it.
Incidentally, dyslexia is a reading disorder (from the Latin "lexis"
meaning "book" or "written word"). Morse isn't about reading. It's
about rhythm.
Despite what you may think, I have a heart. I just think that most
people who say "I can't" would be better served if they changed it to "I
haven't but I'll keep trying until I do." I know two young men who took
the Element 2 test over _20_ times before passing. Now they're active
members of our local ham community. I think of how much we'd be missing
if they'd given into "I can't."
73 de KI4OCC
--Jim
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
>What a loser. Now that he has killfiled me, he won't see me laughing at
>him...lol!
>You sound like a no coder...true?
odoit you have been flaming as as one
>
>
>"an_old_friend" <kons...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1164676264.6...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Eagle wrote:
>>> What is a plonk?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> he is claiming he has killfiled you
>>
>> net speack you might know if you were not obessed with Morse Code
>>
>
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
wrote:
no he he is wil past past that
>
>W8LNA
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
>
>"an_old_friend" <kons...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1164676987....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Eagle wrote:
>>> "Sal M. Onella" <salmo...@food.poisoning.org> wrote in message
>>> news:o09ah.35501$zT4....@newsfe11.phx...
>>> >
>>> > "Plexus" <plexu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:1164479455....@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>>> >
>>> > < snip >
>>> >
>>> >> Morse is FUN.
>>> >
>>> > Yeah, if you can do it. (Not everyone can.)
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> The only reason 'not everyone can' is that these ops refuse to invest the
>>> time and effort it takes to learn something new.
>>
>> what 5 years 40 mintue a day 7 day a week isn't enough for you?
>
>And you STILL haven't learned code???
yep
>>
>>>It takes very little effort
>>> to learn a dot from a dash.
>>
>> if only that was all that was required
>
>Well, a bright mind would help, but it isn't nessesary.
I am a former memeber of MENSA man inteligence simply does not relate
it is a fairly spesific talent
>>
>>> Code is indeed fun and very rewarding!
>>
>> for some it is
>>
>> but if this is the norma why does it need the prod to learn it
>
>Prod? You can take the time to learn?
I have wasted enough but the question is is morse is so much fun why
does it require mode welfare in thenlicense scheme
>>
>> the test is nothing more than Mode Welfare and I am opposed to welfare
>
>
>Then get off welfare.
I am not on Code is
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Eagle
Merlin-7 KI4ILB
I am a new ham (general) that said, I think that code should be dropped for
the simple reason that none of the other digital modes are required. (yes
code is a digital mode) There is no easy fix that will make everyone happy
on this subject but why should someone have to learn a mode that they will
never use? Why not add all the modes, rtty,psk etc.?
I did notice one thing that I did not like about the general test. I took
the test Aced it but I still did not know anything about proper operating
practices. I found that out by listening. I think that the testing and study
materal should have a lot more in the way of operating practices.
However, as soon as I pass my extra, I plan on sharping up on my code but I
think its fun.
I do know someone that just plain cant do code at all. I do not know if it
is the way he hears sounds or what, he just cant get it.
I look at code like learning another language say french or german. Some
people that have been in code a long time quit hearing letters, they hear
words.
my 2 cents
Joe
KI4ILB
solar powered ham radio 24/7
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
<merl...@sc.rr.com> wrote:
>From my point of view...
>
> I am a new ham (general) that said, I think that code should be dropped for
>the simple reason that none of the other digital modes are required. (yes
>code is a digital mode) There is no easy fix that will make everyone happy
>on this subject but why should someone have to learn a mode that they will
>never use? Why not add all the modes, rtty,psk etc.?
>
> I did notice one thing that I did not like about the general test. I took
>the test Aced it but I still did not know anything about proper operating
>practices. I found that out by listening. I think that the testing and study
>materal should have a lot more in the way of operating practices.
inded I agree that we need to tinker a good deal with what the written
test cover and don't cover
>
> However, as soon as I pass my extra, I plan on sharping up on my code but I
>think its fun.
and I will wil not when I acheieve my extra becuase for me is is hell
on radio and that freedom should ours
>
> I do know someone that just plain cant do code at all. I do not know if it
>is the way he hears sounds or what, he just cant get it.
oir the way he processe langage we don't all process the same things
the same way
>
> I look at code like learning another language say french or german. Some
>people that have been in code a long time quit hearing letters, they hear
>words.
>my 2 cents
> Joe
> KI4ILB
> solar powered ham radio 24/7
>
solar eh I prefe my win generaors myself but I live a windy area (my
home produces over time more power than it uses althought I use u
tility power at times and reutn power to grid at other)
Slow Code
news:u8Wah.6331$Ka1....@news01.roc.ny:
He wanted to push for dumbing down ham radio, and we can't let that happen
in a thread that wants to protect it.
SC
kb9r...@hotmail.com
nobdoy but the ProCode want Ham radio dumbed down
we are just trying to free Ham radio form the orible hamr done by the
ARRL with incentive licensing
>
> SC
Ron
<kb9r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164850369.6...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Are you a "Pro-Code" person? If so, then how is it that you can be so with
such poor spelling skills?
If you are an example of what a "Pro-Code" person is, then I don't think
that HAM can really be "dumbed" down any further.
Ron
K4YZ
Ron wrote:
> <kb9r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > we are just trying to free Ham radio form the orible hamr done by the
> > ARRL with incentive licensing
>
> Are you a "Pro-Code" person? If so, then how is it that you can be so with
> such poor spelling skills?
>
> If you are an example of what a "Pro-Code" person is, then I don't think
> that HAM can really be "dumbed" down any further.
Ron, Morkie is the No-Code camp's worst enemy...He's one of "them".
Morkie (Mark Morgan, KB9RQZ) claims to have three college degrees,
is allegedly now a geologist, and claims to have been "colonel" in the
US Army Chemical Corps. He's the only multi-degreed professional that
seems to be so incompetent as to be unable to employ spellchecking
software, however.
The funny thing about his latter claim was that he (a) alleged to
have been "drafted", (b) would have only bee SEVEN years old as the
last conscriptee was being mustered out in the 70's, and (c)
brandishes a sexual perversity that would get ANY officer's security
clearance pulled, let alone play with NBC / CBR items.
He also claims to be a Jewish Pagan, whatever those are supposed
to be, and has apparently "married" a male person while in Israel,
which I find hard to believe...Not that he'd "marry" a man, but that
the government of Israel would allow such things to occur in the Holy
Land.
He's trashed every newsgroup he's come into contact with and has
actually searched out newsgroups in order to cross post items in a lame
attempt to intimidate those who he'd like to see go away since they
make it a habit of busting him for his lying and tales.
So...Basically you're right when you say it can't get much "dumber"
than what it is...He passed the writtens...perhaps. The jury's out on
whether or not he was able to find a corruptable VE team to pass him
after he passed them an undetermined quantity of Jacksons or
Franklins.....
In any case...caveat emptor when it comes to dealing with him. I
do it because I'm already in a high stress job and he's cheap
entertainment.
73
Steve, K4YZ
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
<apositi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
><kb9r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1164850369.6...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Slow Code wrote:
>>> gwatts <gwa...@frontiernet.net> wrote in
>>> news:u8Wah.6331$Ka1....@news01.roc.ny:
>>>
>>> > Slow Code wrote:
>>> >> ... If you want to shit
>>> >> your diaper, please take it to the CB group, or start up a new own
>>> >> thread with Markie and Opus.
>>> >>
>>> >> SC
>>> >
>>> > Is this how you only start a thread and let everyone else keep it
>>> > going?
>>> >
>>> > You're rapidly approaching pitiful.
>>> >
>>> > W8LNA
>>>
>>>
>>> He wanted to push for dumbing down ham radio, and we can't let that
>>> happen
>>> in a thread that wants to protect it.
>>
>> nobdoy but the ProCode want Ham radio dumbed down
>>
>> we are just trying to free Ham radio form the orible hamr done by the
>> ARRL with incentive licensing
>
>Are you a "Pro-Code" person?
no
indeed I think the ARS would better off if code use were banned but I
still believe in free speech
> If so, then how is it that you can be so with
>such poor spelling skills?
GIGO
>
>If you are an example of what a "Pro-Code" person is, then I don't think
>that HAM can really be "dumbed" down any further.
we are trying to end the dumbing down by ending code testing
>
>Ron
John Smith
"K4YZ" <steven...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164905170.1...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> ...
> do it because I'm already in a high stress job and he's cheap
> entertainment.
>
> 73
>
> Steve, K4YZ
>
If you are NOT SC, you are his brother... indeed the
glitch/mis-configuration/error or settings which have been introduced
into your news reader/poster is a dead giveaway!
Perhaps your "high stress" job leads you to commit such mistakes? You
really should look into getting some help with that "little problem" of
yours, they have done wonders with new medications, yanno? <grin>
JS
an old friend
John Smith wrote:
> "K4YZ" <steven...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1164905170.1...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> > ...
> > do it because I'm already in a high stress job and he's cheap
> > entertainment.
> >
> > 73
> >
> > Steve, K4YZ
> >
>
> If you are NOT SC, you are his brother... indeed the
> glitch/mis-configuration/error or settings which have been introduced
> into your news reader/poster is a dead giveaway!
for my edifcation would you care to elaborate I am always insterested
in learning new things
>
> Perhaps your "high stress" job leads you to commit such mistakes? You
> really should look into getting some help with that "little problem" of
> yours, they have done wonders with new medications, yanno? <grin>
it isn't his job it is the stress he feels whan anybody step out of the
box at all or opposes him
Tood dress his fire for the harmless if IMO silly interest Todd in
anime
Ander in his stubbron insistance on hold the ARSaccoutable for the
large amount of specturm we do hold ( and we deserve to held to it)
BB for just daring to disagree on what the ARS and how will it does it
with of course it started out as a simple disagree then he dicovered I
am Bisexaul tried to balck mail me about and I simply came out of the
ham shack closet. I made a fool years over his death threats and after
8 years he is still pissed about it
SC is Robeson borther of coconspirtor or siamaesetwin i can't realy
tell and I don't realy care abiout the detail
>
> JS
John Smith
http://www.qrz.com/callsign/K4YZ
I once dated a nurse, yanno? She didn't look like him!
JS
"an old friend" <kb9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164910335....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
<assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Interesting site:
>http://www.qrz.com/callsign/K4YZ
indeed and I wonder how much of it SciFi
Slow Code
news:ekn5up$5ll$1...@news.ndhu.edu.tw:
>
> "K4YZ" <steven...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1164905170.1...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>> ...
>> do it because I'm already in a high stress job and he's cheap
>> entertainment.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Steve, K4YZ
>>
>
> If you are NOT SC, you are his brother... indeed the
> glitch/mis-configuration/error or settings which have been introduced
> into your news reader/poster is a dead giveaway!
You're as looney as Markie, John. Stop trying to figure out who
everyone is and maybe try to work on being a good radio operator. Then
maybe your presence on the internet will be valuable.
SC
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
steve/SC you have ben busted
John Smith
No trouble at all...
Noticing who the idiots are is easy, more so in your case, but easy with
most of 'em...
JS
Ron
<Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs> wrote in message
news:vl3um2l9dhdjftl39...@4ax.com...
Interesting. Does speach apply to CW? After all, it is a non-voice form of
operation.
>> If so, then how is it that you can be so with
>>such poor spelling skills?
>
> GIGO
Can I assume by that you mean that you never learned to spell?
OK, neither did I, but then again my news reader has a spell-checking
program.
>>
>>If you are an example of what a "Pro-Code" person is, then I don't think
>>that HAM can really be "dumbed" down any further.
>
> we are trying to end the dumbing down by ending code testing
>>
>>Ron
>>
> http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
I am a no-code op. Removing the requirement for CW neither dumbs down the
HAM service, nor makes it more intelligent. CW is a niche form of operation
anymore. Some people enjoy it for reasons that I cannot personally fathom,
but what the heck, if its their thing then let them have at it. More power
to them. CW is no longer the main mode of operation used anywhere in the
world. Phone is. CW has no "practical" use any longer, it is used for
entertainment only. Again, more power to those who choose to do it.
Removing the 5wpm requirement for more advanced licensing only makes sense.
No one requires anyone to know PSK31 or RTTY now do they? The FCC does not
add that as a specific element of the testing process because it is a "mode"
of operation, no more or less than CW is. Knowing and being able to operate
CW does not make one more of a man, more of a woman, smarter, taller,
slimmer, or better looking. Its just another mode of operation, one that is
going into retirement slowly and painfully. Why not just let those who
enjoy it, do so, and let the rest of us get on with expanding the hobby into
new areas that technology make available to us. Why force us to regress 30
years instead of allowing those who enjoy CW to learn and participate in the
revolution that technology is providing for the Amateur Radio Service?
Ron
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
sure it does
which is ilrelavant to the fact that the ARS would be better off if it
were banned
staing that the ARS would be better if CW USE were banned is not the
same as calling for it to be to be
that you choose imply it is is indicative of your lack of skill with
english or in your lack of belief in the free speech rights of all
the facts you object and insinate that I lack the free speech to state
my opinion is IMO indicative that you don't truely believe in free
speech etc for yourself
>
>>> If so, then how is it that you can be so with
>>>such poor spelling skills?
>>
>> GIGO
>
>Can I assume by that you mean that you never learned to spell?
you can assume what ever you like. that amoug your absolute rights
as is the right to be an ass
you excerise both as you choose
>
>OK, neither did I, but then again my news reader has a spell-checking
>program.
the one I prefer does not
>
>>>
>>>If you are an example of what a "Pro-Code" person is, then I don't think
>>>that HAM can really be "dumbed" down any further.
>>
>> we are trying to end the dumbing down by ending code testing
>>>
>>>Ron
>>>
>> http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
>
>I am a no-code op.
realy? so am I
> Removing the requirement for CW neither dumbs down the
>HAM service, nor makes it more intelligent.
indeed
> CW is a niche form of operation
>anymore. Some people enjoy it for reasons that I cannot personally fathom,
>but what the heck, if its their thing then let them have at it. More power
>to them. CW is no longer the main mode of operation used anywhere in the
>world. Phone is. CW has no "practical" use any longer, it is used for
>entertainment only. Again, more power to those who choose to do it.
>Removing the 5wpm requirement for more advanced licensing only makes sense.
>No one requires anyone to know PSK31 or RTTY now do they? The FCC does not
>add that as a specific element of the testing process because it is a "mode"
>of operation, no more or less than CW is. Knowing and being able to operate
>CW does not make one more of a man, more of a woman, smarter, taller,
>slimmer, or better looking. Its just another mode of operation, one that is
>going into retirement slowly and painfully. Why not just let those who
>enjoy it, do so, and let the rest of us get on with expanding the hobby into
>new areas that technology make available to us. Why force us to regress 30
>years instead of allowing those who enjoy CW to learn and participate in the
>revolution that technology is providing for the Amateur Radio Service?
all true
John Smith
> the one I prefer does not
Mark:
Take a look at this link, the software is shareware, claims to work with
ANY windows app. I am hoping it might be worth your time, look for the
download link, I have not tried it.
http://www.sharewareconnection.com/spell-magic.htm
Regards,
JS
K4YZ
John Smith wrote:
> "K4YZ" <steven...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1164905170.1...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> > ...
> > do it because I'm already in a high stress job and he's cheap
> > entertainment.
> >
> > 73
> >
> > Steve, K4YZ
> >
>
> If you are NOT SC, you are his brother... indeed the
> glitch/mis-configuration/error or settings which have been introduced
> into your news reader/poster is a dead giveaway!
Nope.
The IP Address and servers are complete proof that I do NOT share
any annonymous character's "address".
> Perhaps your "high stress" job leads you to commit such mistakes? You
> really should look into getting some help with that "little problem" of
> yours, they have done wonders with new medications, yanno? <grin>
Sounds like Lennie, to me....
Steve, K4YZ
John Smith
> Nope.
>
> The IP Address and servers are complete proof that I do NOT share
> any annonymous character's "address".
>
>
> Steve, K4YZ
>
To anyone with even an elementary understanding of anonymous proxies,
anonymous remailers, zombie backdoors, etc., the ability to change ones
IP address and header details is simplistic, indeed, with little time
spent anyone can appear to be "coming" from anywhere in the world.
You waste my time. Worse, you think us all idiots here. You remind me
of the "street smart" prosecutors and defense attorneys who stack jurys
with members of little or no technical knowledge and then call in
"expert witnesses" and propose arguments of technical details to boggle
their minds.
You have only proven that you, yourself are either ignorant to such
technical details, or else you are indeed street smart, I favor the
latter in this case (however, if you in the dark about such things, 15
minutes on google will enlighten you.)
JS
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
>
>John Smith wrote:
>> "K4YZ" <steven...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1164905170.1...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>> > ...
>> > do it because I'm already in a high stress job and he's cheap
>> > entertainment.
>> >
>> > 73
>> >
>> > Steve, K4YZ
>> >
>>
>> If you are NOT SC, you are his brother... indeed the
>> glitch/mis-configuration/error or settings which have been introduced
>> into your news reader/poster is a dead giveaway!
>
> Nope.
yep
>
> The IP Address and servers are complete proof that I do NOT share
>any annonymous character's "address".
Steve I can easily fake a set of header for any location where I had
interenet access in the past
I lack the knowledge of how to generate new one but I know it is can
be done
you are therefore lying when you claim thae fact you succeeded in
comiting forgery is proof you are not SC
it is merely proof you are a forger
>
>> Perhaps your "high stress" job leads you to commit such mistakes? You
>> really should look into getting some help with that "little problem" of
>> yours, they have done wonders with new medications, yanno? <grin>
>
> Sounds like Lennie, to me....
>
>Steve, K4YZ
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
I use it some but it is very cumbersome and certainly unuable due to
time constraints when some like robeson is in full vioce or keyboard
is you prefer
>
>Regards,
>JS
A. G. Bell
<Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs> wrote in message
news:0ks0n2hpd00e5ncmb...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:05:10 -0800, John Smith
> <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs wrote:
> >
> >> the one I prefer does not
> >
> >Mark:
> >
> >Take a look at this link, the software is shareware, claims to work with
> >ANY windows app. I am hoping it might be worth your time, look for the
> >download link, I have not tried it.
> >
> >http://www.sharewareconnection.com/spell-magic.htm
>
> I use it some but it is very cumbersome and certainly unuable due to
> time constraints when some like robeson is in full vioce or keyboard
> is you prefer
> >
> >Regards,
> >JS
Don't waste your time sounding intelligent, Mark! God forbid you'd miss a
chance to dump on any of Steve's posts at least six times each.
Steve Robesin is apparetly to you what Lloyd Davies is to Roger Wiseman. He
stalks, you punce.
Slow Code
You still hoping to be a good radio operator some day or did you decide to
pack it in like Markie?
SC
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
JS is code tested and aprooved just missed the brain washing sessions
you attened steve
>
>SC
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
wrote:
>
><Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs> wrote in message
>news:0ks0n2hpd00e5ncmb...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:05:10 -0800, John Smith
>> <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs wrote:
>> >
>> >> the one I prefer does not
>> >
>> >Mark:
>> >
>> >Take a look at this link, the software is shareware, claims to work with
>> >ANY windows app. I am hoping it might be worth your time, look for the
>> >download link, I have not tried it.
>> >
>> >http://www.sharewareconnection.com/spell-magic.htm
>>
>> I use it some but it is very cumbersome and certainly unuable due to
>> time constraints when some like robeson is in full vioce or keyboard
>> is you prefer
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >JS
>
>Don't waste your time sounding intelligent, Mark!
I waste nothing sir
>God forbid you'd miss a
>chance to dump on any of Steve's posts at least six times each.
god forbids no such nor do I post more than or twice to any of steve
posts that he chooses to post the same over and over 300 times as he
did today required the cuting and pasting of 30 replies is all
you don't like the reptivenes ask Roesb to at least come up with new
lies to tell
>Steve Robesin is apparetly to you what Lloyd Davies is to Roger Wiseman. He
>stalks, you punce.
I defend myself but thank you for publicly agreeing that Steve is
Stalking me that is a crime
why is it that you blame the victum of the crime for the result?
Plexus
Eagle wrote:
> Brian,
> You need to work on your spelling before even THINKING about trying to pass
> a 5WPM code test... lol!
>
> Dave
Dave,
Please don't confuse me with our (former member of) Mensa friend! btw,
I passed 13 wpm decades ago, when the Morse test was administered by
the FCC. That was when you had to be letter-for-letter perfect one
minute straight, of random 5-letter code groups... and (for the
majority of us) it was no big strain. Since then, the test has been
slowed-down and dumbed-down considerably.
Fortunately, for those unable/unwilling to put a modicum of effort into
achieving a paltry 5 wpm proficiency, the FCC appears to have decided
to eliminate Element 1 entirely.
Unfortunately, for those of us who thought it was no big deal to attain
13 wpm (and even 5 wpm) proficiency, the recently expanded HF fone
bands will now be clogged with lids.
Bryan
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
Dlod it would help if you went and found some gruop where everybody is
indeed stupid to try your misderection tricks in
"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams
woger you are a Congress all in your own head
http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/
G
Dloyd Lavies
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark, why would I need a group where everyone is stupid when I have
you? You seem to have enough stupidity to cover the entire group.
Like I've said and you can believe what you want to believe, I really
don't care, I only post under this nym or my own call, I don't need
mulitple nyms, I have no need, one is sufficent and appears that it
still is because you have been unable to detect who I am. Think for a
minute Mark, what purpose would it serve to have multiple nyms? None.
Dloyd
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
you might convince somebody you were a man in such a gruop
and you don't have me dloyd
> You seem to have enough stupidity to cover the entire group.
and you are theif a fraud and a coward all things that make for a BAD
ham
>Like I've said and you can believe what you want to believe, I really
>don't care,
might generous of you
> I only post under this nym or my own call, I don't need
>mulitple nyms,
so you say but you are proven dishonest so...
> I have no need,
that is a lie you need the other to have something to tlak to when the
thread does not go your way
> one is sufficent and appears that it
>still is because you have been unable to detect who I am. Think for a
>minute Mark, what purpose would it serve to have multiple nyms? None.
you keep lying te purpose it to sound like a legion when you are only
one bitter old ham
lacking the support of anybody real you invent followers plenty of
prupose there
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
Ma...@k4yz.org
kb9rqz
----- Original Message -----
From: <Ma...@k4yz.org>
Newsgroups:
alt.ham-radio.vhf-uhf,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 4:01 PM
Subject: Dloyd Lavies, Usenet Moron and Thread Hi-Jacke, Blackmailer and
Supreme hypocrtie
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 09:36:47 -0800, John Smith
> <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >K4YZ wrote:
> >> Nope.
> >>
> >> The IP Address and servers are complete proof that I do NOT share
> >> any annonymous character's "address".
> >>
> >> Sounds like Lennie, to me....
> >>
> >> Steve, K4YZ
> >>
> >
> >To anyone with even an elementary understanding of anonymous proxies,
> >anonymous remailers, zombie backdoors, etc., the ability to change ones
> >IP address and header details is simplistic, indeed, with little time
> >spent anyone can appear to be "coming" from anywhere in the world.
> >
Except that Mark hasn't the savvy to do so.
> >You waste my time.
Then stfu.
>Worse, you think us all idiots here.
As you have just proven.
You remind me
"If I want a cock I go for a man if I
want pussy I go fo r a fmeale simple as that [sic]"
Ma...@k4yz.org
>
Dloyd Lavies, Usenet Moron and Thread Hi-Jacke, Blackmailer and
Supreme hypocrti
"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
Ma...@k4yz.org
<assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
larry face facts you have no proof
Ma...@tayleorrobesin.org
<assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
just something the needs saying again IMO
Not Roger
<Ma...@TayleorRobesin.org> wrote in message
news:8n5o831ffppl85h8r...@4ax.com...
Ma...@tayleorrobesin.org
<assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
something you need to dloyd dloyd is I know something of the ab
Ma...@tayleorrobesin.org
<assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams
woger you are a Congress all in your own head
http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/
and get ou the newly recovered KB9RQZ.blogspot.com as well