Avast Ye Varments!
CB Pirate
ARRRRRRGGG! The sunspots arrr a cummin'
an yore 10 Meter Band will be arrrrrrrs!
HAR HAR HAR!
Yoo Hoo Hoo!
and an Alpha 76!
CB Pirate
--
www.cotse.com - Anonymous USENET posting made easy!
Larry Roll K3LT
writes:
>
>ARRRRRRGGG! The sunspots arrr a cummin'
>an yore 10 Meter Band will be arrrrrrrs!
>
>HAR HAR HAR!
>
>Yoo Hoo Hoo!
>and an Alpha 76!
>
>CB Pirate
You can have it. The last time I tried to work 10-meter phone, I got
cussed out for not having a Ten-Ten number! I've been on 20, 30, 40, and
15 meter CW ever since! Your posting is precisely the level of
intelligence I expect to find on ANY phone band -- so why should I
bother with it? Knock yourself right, flat out!
73 de Larry, K3LT
Lawrence J. Roll, K3LT | FISTS nr. 2008; CC nr. 703
k3lt@ka3bdr.#cde.de.usa.noam | http://www.qrz.com/wrad/directory.cgi?K3LT
(302) 678-4841 | ARRL OBS - DE
W6RCecilA
> The last time I tried to work 10-meter phone, I got
> cussed out for not having a Ten-Ten number!
Hmmmmm, that's a lot like getting cussed out for not
knowing Morse code, Hmmmmmm
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
W6RCecilA
> Well, it just so happens that not knowing Morse Code is something
> WORTH being cussed-out for -- ass-u-&-me-ing that you aspire to be
> an amateur radio operator!
I'm worried about people like you who base all of their self-
esteem on an outdated, archaic skill for which there is very
little real demand in the modern world. What will happen when
the majority of future hams look down on you as a kunckle-
dragging caveman?
W1RFI
>Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
>> The last time I tried to work 10-meter phone, I got
>> cussed out for not having a Ten-Ten number!
>Hmmmmm, that's a lot like getting cussed out for not
>knowing Morse code, Hmmmmmm
>--
Not only that, but I have seen a number of NCTAs berating Ten-10 numbers, too.
You don't think that Larry has a tendencies here he isn't admitting, do you?
:-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Larry Roll K3LT
writes:
>
>Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
>> The last time I tried to work 10-meter phone, I got
>> cussed out for not having a Ten-Ten number!
>
>Hmmmmm, that's a lot like getting cussed out for not
>knowing Morse code, Hmmmmmm
Cecil:
Well, it just so happens that not knowing Morse Code is something
WORTH being cussed-out for -- ass-u-&-me-ing that you aspire to be
an amateur radio operator!
73 de Larry, K3LT
Dick Carroll
> I'm worried about people like you who base all of their self-
> esteem on an outdated, archaic skill for which there is very
> little real demand in the modern world.
Lets see, now.... Where is the commercial radio demand for
RTTY, PACTOR, PACKET, or CLOVER? Or SSB?
Brian
> Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
> > The last time I tried to work 10-meter phone, I got
> > cussed out for not having a Ten-Ten number!
>
> Hmmmmm, that's a lot like getting cussed out for not
> knowing Morse code, Hmmmmmm
> --
> 73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
Larry should "just do it!" Work ten 10-10 members and get their
numbers. Send those numbers in to 10-10 International and they'll send
you your very own 10-10 number.
The purpose behind 10-10 International is to foster amateur use of the
10 meter band so as to prevent it from being reassigned to some other
service.
It's kind of like what your beloved FISTS organization is doing.
73, Brian
Brian
Military uses PACKET on HF. Not exactly commercial, but close enough
for civilian use.
Brian
> Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
> > Well, it just so happens that not knowing Morse Code is something
> > WORTH being cussed-out for -- ass-u-&-me-ing that you aspire to be
> > an amateur radio operator!
>
> I'm worried about people like you who base all of their self-
> esteem on an outdated, archaic skill for which there is very
> little real demand in the modern world. What will happen when
> the majority of future hams look down on you as a kunckle-
> dragging caveman?
> --
> 73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
Perhaps he can get a job in Historical Williamsburg, VA as a telegraph
operator. But the 1st time his buddy sends QFU to him over the wire,
they'll can him.
W6RCecilA
>
> W6RCecilA wrote:
>
> > esteem on an outdated, archaic skill for which there is very
> > little real demand in the modern world.
>
> RTTY, PACTOR, PACKET, or CLOVER? Or SSB?
I don't base my self-esteem on any of those modes, do you,
Dick? Do you know any hams who base their self-esteem on
digital modes or SSB like they do on CW/Morse? I don't.
Have you ever seen a ham running around saying, "I can
do PACTOR and you can't and that makes me a better
ham/person than you"? or "Everyone who can't do RTTY
should just stay away from amateur radio"?
W6RCecilA
> Perhaps he can get a job in Historical Williamsburg, VA as a telegraph
> operator. But the 1st time his buddy sends QFU to him over the wire,
> they'll can him.
I'm willing to bet he is so ignorant that he cannot even read Morse
code on a telegraph sounder.
W6RCecilA
> Larry should "just do it!" Work ten 10-10 members and get their
> numbers. Send those numbers in to 10-10 International and they'll send
> you your very own 10-10 number.
Naaahhh, Larry is too lazy to do anything except sit on his butt
and whine, whine, whine about no-coders.
John D. Kasupski
> Lets see, now.... Where is the commercial radio demand for
>RTTY, PACTOR, PACKET, or CLOVER? Or SSB?
Depends what you call commercial radio. Obviously the AM broadcast
stations aren't interested in SSB, though there is a growing number if
international shortwave broadcasters using the mode, but AM
broadcasting is a dying medium anyway because FM has become much more
popular over the last few decades. But then, do you really want to
listen to Nine Inch Nails, or Rush Limbaugh, in USB on your AM car
radio on the way home from work every day? I sure don't.
But on HF, are you kidding? Or do you really never get your HF rig
tuned to any frequencies outside of the amateur CW sub bands?
RTTY is in daily use around the world by government, military, and
commercial HF stations who transmit news, maritime information, and
stuff we can't decode to find out the nature of because it's
encrypted. Want some frequencies to check out? Check the
Communications Confidential column in Popular Communications every
month, it's loaded with hobby SWL'ers logs of RTTY, as well as PACTOR,
SSB, and other modes. The December issue includes five pages of
loggings - some of which originated from myself, in fact.
Packet seems to be kind of rare for commercial use, although there has
been a discussion just this week on the WUN reflector at qth.net
concerning the use of packet by aeronautical stations in Europe.
As for SSB, I've enjoyed 33 years of monitoring HF utility stations
using this mode, and I can attest to the fact that there is still
plenty of activity on HF SSB even if you discount military use. Tune
through the maritime radiotelephone bands some time, and you'll find
that there is a lot of traffic there. Ditto for the SSB comms coming
from oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico - I've logged several oil rigs in
the vicinity of Texas and Louisiana in particular. Then there are the
MWARA and LDOC stations doing air traffic control of airlines flights
overseas, which is accomplished through the use of SSB and SELCAL, as
well as the VOLMET stations worldwide transmitting aviation weather.
Want government use of HF SSB? Park on 6780.0 LSB long enough and
you'll catch the FAA's Southern Region Net, usually with KUV64 as NCS.
HF SSB is also routinely used by NASA, FEMA, SHARES, the FBI, the DEA,
and U.S. Customs, to name a few agencies. (SHARES also uses a lot of
PACTOR, by the way, check out the KGD34 SHARES BBS 0n 10588.7 or the
SHARES BBS on 13244.2 for a few examples)
As for military use, monitoring HF military UTES is my specialty.
There's the USAF's Global HF System (GHFS), there's Mystic Star (used
by diplomatic and military passenger flights from Air Force One on
down to planes ferrying cabinet members, department heads, and
high-ranking military officials - USN captain and above), there's the
Navy LINK-11 (TADIL-A) voice coordination nets that come up whenever a
USN carrier battle group is under way, there is considerable traffic
from the National Guard, there is considerable traffic from the US
Coast Guard, there's the NAOC net which operates under the command of
the Joint Chiefs Of Staff...all of which use SSB (as well as RTTY and
other modes). And that's just the American forces. I've also logged
the German, Dutch, British, Japanese, and Australian navies on HF in
SSB, Canadian air force, navy and coast guard, Bermuda SDF, British
SAR, and McMurdo Station in Antarctica.
Oddly enough, Dick, there's only one mode that's at issue here that I
note is singularly rare these days - loggings of CW stations. About
the only time you hear Morse used by the commercial HF UTES anymore is
if you hear the Morse ID marker on an idling SITOR station. I caught
one on Wednesday - the ID was NMN. That's the only use the US Coast
Guard has for Morse these days. NMN is USCG Communications Area Master
Station Atlantic (CAMSLANT), located at Portsmouth, VA. In short,
there is PLENTY of commercial, government, and military use of SSB,
PACTOR, and RTTY on HF - though admittedly I don't see too much
commercial use of packet - what's extremely rare these days is to find
knuckle-draggers still using CW.
73 and good DX'ing,
John D. Kasupski
KC2FNG, KNY2VS, KJK-14120, KSO-9650, AE279, USCB-53
Note: this address does not accept unsolicited e-mail. Please contain all
discussion regarding USENET posts to the appropriate newsgroup thread.
Arnie W. Macy
>I'm worried about people like you who base all of their self-
>esteem on an outdated, archaic skill for which there is very
>little real demand in the modern world. What will happen when
>the majority of future hams look down on you as a kunckle-
>dragging caveman?
>--
Cecil,
I'm worried about people like you who base all of their self-esteem on an
outdated, archaic skill for which there is very little real demand in the
modern world. I'm talking about the outdated, archaic SSB mode which has
been around for at least 50 years. What will happen when the majority of
future hams look down on you as a kunckle-dragging caveman?
Regards,
Arnie -
Arnie W. Macy
>
>Oddly enough, Dick, there's only one mode that's at issue here that I
>note is singularly rare these days - loggings of CW stations. About
>the only time you hear Morse used by the commercial HF UTES anymore is
>if you hear the Morse ID marker on an idling SITOR station. I caught
>one on Wednesday - the ID was NMN. That's the only use the US Coast
>Guard has for Morse these days. NMN is USCG Communications Area Master
>Station Atlantic (CAMSLANT), located at Portsmouth, VA. In short,
>there is PLENTY of commercial, government, and military use of SSB,
>PACTOR, and RTTY on HF - though admittedly I don't see too much
>commercial use of packet - what's extremely rare these days is to find
>knuckle-draggers still using CW.
>
Funny, I didnt see any mention of Amateur Radio. You remember Amateur
Radio, don't you, John? Lots of CW still there. Give a listen sometime
*in* the ARS CW bands, you just might hear some. Unless of course you
prefer to listen to encrypted RTTY signals. Oh, and last time I checked, my
knuckles weren't dragging on the ground. You must have mistaken this CW op
with someone else when you made that general statement. Oh, and good
DXing./SWLing.
Regards,
Arnie -
KT4ST
W6RCecilA
> Cecil,
> I'm worried about people like you who base all of their self-esteem on an
> outdated, archaic skill for which there is very little real demand in the
> modern world. I'm talking about the outdated, archaic SSB mode which has
> been around for at least 50 years. What will happen when the majority of
> future hams look down on you as a kunckle-dragging caveman?
You've got the wrong guy, Arnie. I don't think I've been on SSB all year
on my HF base station. CW and PACTOR are all I run at home. I have spoken
out many times about how archaic SSB is and will probably be replaced in
the future by digital voice.
CW is a great mode and fun for a lot of people. But when someone says,
"I'm a better human being than someone who doesn't know Morse code",
I'm sorry, there's something seriously mentally wrong with him.
W6RCecilA
> Well, you can rest easy since that's not what he said. And
> of course you understand that what he DID say was that a ham
> who is skilled in the use of Morse code is a better
> qualified ham than one who is not.
Only better qualified at Morse code. He may not be able to hold
a candle to some NCTs in all other aspects of amateur radio.
I would like for Larry to debate Dr. Williamson on the technical
aspects of ham radio. Larry would come out feeling like the
deepest layer of whale shit on the bottom of the ocean.
A. Jones
>I've been left with the impression that if the average phone operator's
>brains were dynamite, he couldn't blow his nose!
Oh Geese. Larry's done it again. Get ready for another lobster dinner offer
from Ed...
Dick Carroll
>
when someone says,
> "I'm a better human being than someone who doesn't know Morse code",
> I'm sorry, there's something seriously mentally wrong with him.
Well, you can rest easy since that's not what he said. And
of course you understand that what he DID say was that a ham
who is skilled in the use of Morse code is a better
qualified ham than one who is not.
Sort of a no-brainer.
You have this penchant for ascribing "mental illness" to
anyone who doesn't agree with your particular Agenda. That
in itself is a sign of poor mental health, Pal.
Larry Roll K3LT
writes:
>> > I'm worried about people like you who base all of their self-
>> > esteem on an outdated, archaic skill for which there is very
>> > little real demand in the modern world.
>>
>> Lets see, now.... Where is the commercial radio demand for
>> RTTY, PACTOR, PACKET, or CLOVER? Or SSB?
>
>I don't base my self-esteem on any of those modes, do you,
>Dick? Do you know any hams who base their self-esteem on
>digital modes or SSB like they do on CW/Morse? I don't.
>
>Have you ever seen a ham running around saying, "I can
>do PACTOR and you can't and that makes me a better
>ham/person than you"? or "Everyone who can't do RTTY
>should just stay away from amateur radio"?
>-
Cecil:
Well, not only do I use RTTY, Pactor, and Packet (haven't tried
CLOVER yet), I also type at well over 100 WPM! Therefore I am
able to use text-based modes with much higher efficiency and
effectiveness than most hams I've worked on-the-air, who seem
totally dependent on software-based F-key programming for
insertion of responses, or who reply with a few words to my several
lines of text. Yet, you right -- I don't feel any particular increase
in my self-esteem over this ability -- mainly because I'm sure there
are other hams out there who can type as well as I can! And I'm
also sure that anyone who had the desire and motivation to become
a high-speed keyboardist could certainly acquire that skill.
73 de Larry, K3LT
(This reply took less than two minutes to compose)
Larry Roll K3LT
writes:
>Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
>> Well, it just so happens that not knowing Morse Code is something
>> WORTH being cussed-out for -- ass-u-&-me-ing that you aspire to be
>> an amateur radio operator!
>
>I'm worried about people like you who base all of their self-
>esteem on an outdated, archaic skill for which there is very
>little real demand in the modern world. What will happen when
>the majority of future hams look down on you as a kunckle-
>dragging caveman?
Well, Cecil, if it's any consolation, I'm sure a lot already do! But,
then again, I also use other "knuckle dragger" modes -- like
AM/FM/SSB phone (strictly during Field Day and VHF/UHF contests --
not on a regular, daily basis!). Sooo -- I must say that individuals
who reside in vitreous abodes should refrain from hurling aggregate
projectiles!
73 de Larry, K3LT
Larry Roll K3LT
>
>> Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
>> > The last time I tried to work 10-meter phone, I got
>> > cussed out for not having a Ten-Ten number!
>>
>> Hmmmmm, that's a lot like getting cussed out for not
>> knowing Morse code, Hmmmmmm
>> --
>> 73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
>
>Larry should "just do it!" Work ten 10-10 members and get their
>numbers. Send those numbers in to 10-10 International and they'll send
>you your very own 10-10 number.
>
>The purpose behind 10-10 International is to foster amateur use of the
>10 meter band so as to prevent it from being reassigned to some other
>service.
>
>It's kind of like what your beloved FISTS organization is doing.
>
>73, Brian
Brian:
You may be surprised to learn this, but I already *have* a 10-10
number -- I just don't remember what it is! All I remember is that it's
somewhere in the 860 "dollar" range. I got the 10-10 number in my
early days as a ham, when I hadn't been turned off to phone. After
a couple of years, I was on 10-meter phone one day, couldn't
remember my number, and got the tounge-lashing I referred to
earlier. All I wanted was the guy's QSL for the State/County -- but
he had to have that precious number, or I wasn't worth his time!
I'll never forget that day! Unfortunately, the exact same situation
repeated itself on the YLSSB net a few days later! Since then, I've
been left with the impression that if the average phone operator's
brains were dynamite, he couldn't blow his nose!
73 de Larry, K3LT
John D. Kasupski
wrote:
>Funny, I didnt see any mention of Amateur Radio. You remember Amateur
>Radio, don't you, John? Lots of CW still there. Give a listen sometime
>*in* the ARS CW bands, you just might hear some. Unless of course you
>prefer to listen to encrypted RTTY signals. Oh, and last time I checked, my
>knuckles weren't dragging on the ground. You must have mistaken this CW op
>with someone else when you made that general statement. Oh, and good
>DXing./SWLing.
Dick's original question, Arnie, was the following:
> Lets see, now.... Where is the commercial radio demand for
>RTTY, PACTOR, PACKET, or CLOVER? Or SSB?
My comments did not address the considerable use of CW on the amateur
bands because that was not what was asked.
The reference to knuckle-dragging was meant to zing those like Dick
who seem to have no use for any mode other than CW, and not meant to
zing people who enjoy the use of that mode IN ADDITION to regular use
of other modes, whether mentioned in the discussion in question, or
not. If the shoe fits, feel free to model it for us, otherwise, keep
those knuckles up where they belong and have a nice day. :-)
Brian
> W6RCecilA wrote ...
>
> >I'm worried about people like you who base all of their self-
> >esteem on an outdated, archaic skill for which there is very
> >little real demand in the modern world. What will happen when
> >the majority of future hams look down on you as a kunckle-
> >dragging caveman?
> >--
>
> Cecil,
>
> I'm worried about people like you who base all of their self-esteem on an
> outdated, archaic skill for which there is very little real demand in the
> modern world. I'm talking about the outdated, archaic SSB mode which has
> been around for at least 50 years. What will happen when the majority of
> future hams look down on you as a kunckle-dragging caveman?
>
> Regards,
>
> Arnie -
So Arnie, when do you suppose the human race will stop talking? Any guesses
about specifically about my wife?
Brian
Brian
And? You'se gots to put in yer dues if you'se wants to be a real ham. You of all
people should know that.
> Unfortunately, the exact same situation
> repeated itself on the YLSSB net a few days later! Since then, I've
> been left with the impression that if the average phone operator's
> brains were dynamite, he couldn't blow his nose!
What were you doing on a YL net?
>
>
> 73
> de Larry, K3LT
By the way, 10-10 International will search and give you back your old $860 number
- if you ask (and don't act like a jerk while asking).
73, Brian
W6RCecilA
> I also type at well over 100 WPM!
Wow, when I was in high school, the world record was around 75 wpm.
Now you can type ten characters per second - amazing. I can't even
type the same character ten times in one second. I barely can send
ten dits per second with my straight key. You never cease to amaze
me, Larry, and I really mean that.
W6RCecilA
> Well, Cecil, if it's any consolation, I'm sure a lot already do! But,
> then again, I also use other "knuckle dragger" modes -- like
> AM/FM/SSB phone (strictly during Field Day and VHF/UHF contests --
> not on a regular, daily basis!).
But, in another posting, you admitted that you don't get your self-
exteme from those modes like you do CW. Why are you so proud of
yourself for your Morse code skill - proud enough to demand that
approximately 200,000 duly licensed hams who don't know Morse
code should stay away from ham radio?
W6RCecilA
> All I wanted was the guy's QSL for the State/County -- but
> he had to have that precious number, or I wasn't worth his time!
That's a lot like demanding that a ham know Morse code or else
he's not worth your time. Now you know how it feels, Larry.
W1RFI
>when I hadn't been turned off to phone. After
>a couple of years, I was on 10-meter phone one day, couldn't
>remember my number, and got the tounge-lashing I referred to
>earlier.
Larry,
It appears that the toungue lashing you got is part of what has turned you off
to phone operation.
I suspect that the toungue lashing you have given many about Morse code
operation has had the same effect on them about Morse code.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
>Oh Geese. Larry's done it again. Get ready for another lobster dinner offer
>from Ed...
Any chance I get... :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Dave Hall
>
> John D. Kasupski wrote in part ...
> >
>
> >Oddly enough, Dick, there's only one mode that's at issue here that I
> >note is singularly rare these days - loggings of CW stations. About
> >the only time you hear Morse used by the commercial HF UTES anymore is
> >if you hear the Morse ID marker on an idling SITOR station. I caught
> >one on Wednesday - the ID was NMN. That's the only use the US Coast
> >Guard has for Morse these days. NMN is USCG Communications Area Master
> >Station Atlantic (CAMSLANT), located at Portsmouth, VA. In short,
> >there is PLENTY of commercial, government, and military use of SSB,
> >PACTOR, and RTTY on HF - though admittedly I don't see too much
> >commercial use of packet - what's extremely rare these days is to find
> >knuckle-draggers still using CW.
> >
> Radio, don't you, John? Lots of CW still there. Give a listen sometime
> *in* the ARS CW bands, you just might hear some. Unless of course you
> prefer to listen to encrypted RTTY signals. Oh, and last time I checked, my
> knuckles weren't dragging on the ground. You must have mistaken this CW op
> with someone else when you made that general statement. Oh, and good
> DXing./SWLing.
>
That is because many hams are still stuck in the past or have a much
bigger case of nostalgia, than they realize. I think the point that John
was trying to make is that if CW is obsolete from a commercial
standpoint, then the only reason that hams still cling to it like
rusticles on the Titanic, is for purely aesthetic reasons. There isn't
much that CW gives you that a more modern mode cannot (And usually with
a much faster BPS rate).
Dave
"Sandbagger"
Dick Carroll
>
> The reference to knuckle-dragging was meant to zing those like Dick
> who seem to have no use for any mode other than CW
Which means that you have no idea of my communications
experience nor preferences, within or outside of hamradio.
Which means you don't read what is posted here. Which means
you just type, and don't intend to be confused by facts
since your mind is made up. Which means you don't listen,
you just talk. Which means you are a typical no-coder.
Larry Roll K3LT
writes:
>
>CW is a great mode and fun for a lot of people. But when someone says,
>"I'm a better human being than someone who doesn't know Morse code",
>I'm sorry, there's something seriously mentally wrong with him.
Not to mention people who put words into people's fingertips that they
didn't type!
Larry Roll K3LT
writes:
>
>Dick Carroll wrote:
>> Well, you can rest easy since that's not what he said. And
>> of course you understand that what he DID say was that a ham
>> who is skilled in the use of Morse code is a better
>> qualified ham than one who is not.
>
>Only better qualified at Morse code. He may not be able to hold
>a candle to some NCTs in all other aspects of amateur radio.
>I would like for Larry to debate Dr. Williamson on the technical
>aspects of ham radio. Larry would come out feeling like the
>deepest layer of whale shit on the bottom of the ocean.
Dick/Cecil:
Of course, I don't recall ever claiming technical superiority to the
good Dr. Williamson, or anyone else, for that matter! All I claim to
be is a *qualified* radio AMATEUR.
Larry Roll K3LT
>
>So Arnie, when do you suppose the human race will stop talking? Any guesses
>about specifically about my wife?
>
>Brian
Oh, Mrs. Burke, Brian just said you talk too much! (Brian -- if I were
you, I'd be on the lookout for flying cookware!)
Larry Roll K3LT
>
>By the way, 10-10 International will search and give you back your old $860
>number
>- if you ask (and don't act like a jerk while asking).
>
>73, Brian
Brian:
Now, what could possibly be the point of that?
Larry Roll K3LT
writes:
>
>Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
>> I also type at well over 100 WPM!
>
>Wow, when I was in high school, the world record was around 75 wpm.
>Now you can type ten characters per second - amazing. I can't even
>type the same character ten times in one second. I barely can send
>ten dits per second with my straight key. You never cease to amaze
>me, Larry, and I really mean that.
Cecil:
All I know about my typing speed is what Mavis Beacon tells me!
And I can "max out" her typing speed test -- which I believe tops at
90 WPM! If you haven't seen me type, I'd suggest that you hold the
cynicism!
Larry Roll K3LT
writes:
>
>Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
>> All I wanted was the guy's QSL for the State/County -- but
>> he had to have that precious number, or I wasn't worth his time!
>
>That's a lot like demanding that a ham know Morse code or else
>he's not worth your time. Now you know how it feels, Larry.
Cecil:
I'm not "demanding" anything of anyone. Anyone with a Tech-Plus
already possesses 99.7 percent of all available amateur radio
privileges, including worldwide HF phone capability. All I'm asking
is that we retain the requirement to learn and master a uniquely
practical, effective, efficient, and universal communications skill
in order to qualify for the remaining .3 percent! How "demanding"
is that? I call it downright liberal!
Brian
> In article <3834B4EE...@IEEE.org>, W6RCecilA <Cecil....@IEEE.org>
> writes:
>
> >
> >CW is a great mode and fun for a lot of people. But when someone says,
> >"I'm a better human being than someone who doesn't know Morse code",
> >I'm sorry, there's something seriously mentally wrong with him.
>
> Not to mention people who put words into people's fingertips that they
> didn't type!
>
> 73 de Larry, K3LT
>
> Lawrence J. Roll, K3LT | FISTS nr. 2008; CC nr. 703
> k3lt@ka3bdr.#cde.de.usa.noam | http://www.qrz.com/wrad/directory.cgi?K3LT
> (302) 678-4841 | ARRL OBS - DE
We didn't type your "Favorite Black on the Bus, Welfare Mother's of Color with
their Hands Out, Kiss my Gleaming White Ass, Knuckle Dragging Trailer Trash with
Southern Accents, Don't let the Door Hit you on the Ass..." remarks. You did that
all by yerself there Larrah.
Brian
> Dick/Cecil:
>
> Of course, I don't recall ever claiming technical superiority to the
> good Dr. Williamson, or anyone else, for that matter! All I claim to
> be is a *qualified* radio AMATEUR.
>
> 73 de Larry, K3LT
>
> Lawrence J. Roll, K3LT | FISTS nr. 2008; CC nr. 703
> k3lt@ka3bdr.#cde.de.usa.noam | http://www.qrz.com/wrad/directory.cgi?K3LT
> (302) 678-4841 | ARRL OBS - DE
Careful there Larry, last time I said I was a better ham than someone else, he
insisted that he was a fraction of a farm animal's buttocks.
Brian
> In article <38353215...@icss.net>, Brian <bur...@icss.net> writes:
>
> >
> >By the way, 10-10 International will search and give you back your old $860
> >number
> >- if you ask (and don't act like a jerk while asking).
> >
> >73, Brian
>
> Brian:
>
> Now, what could possibly be the point of that?
>
> 73 de Larry, K3LT
Because there are lots of benefits to not acting like a jerk.
Brian
> In article <38352924...@icss.net>, Brian <bur...@icss.net> writes:
>
> >
> >So Arnie, when do you suppose the human race will stop talking? Any guesses
> >about specifically about my wife?
> >
> >Brian
>
> Oh, Mrs. Burke, Brian just said you talk too much! (Brian -- if I were
> you, I'd be on the lookout for flying cookware!)
>
> 73 de Larry, K3LT
There's already a sign on the garage door leading into the house, "Hard Hats
Required."
A. Jones
>if CW is obsolete...
>then the only reason that hams still cling to it like
CW for aesthetic reasons? That may be a good word for it. I would have used
the word *fun*. Hams like CW for much the same reason that equestrians like
horses, even though there are more modern modes of transportation.
The problem is that many people can't separate the issues of the *CW
mode* and the *code test*. They attack CW because they don't like the code
test.
Try to think of it as the separation of church (the CW religion) and state
(the FCC code test)...
A. Jones
>Any chance I get... :-)
Ed wrote
>Perhaps it is best if I choose not to rebut that...
>[non-response to my troll]
Good answers! I now pronounce you *troll resistant* from Larry and me.
That was a free sample of my new course "Troll Trouncing for Dummies".
For only $19.95 you can get the full course to protect yourself from
all the other nasty people here...
W6RCecilA
> Of course, I don't recall ever claiming technical superiority to the
> good Dr. Williamson, or anyone else, for that matter! All I claim to
> be is a *qualified* radio AMATEUR.
So is he, Larry, so is he. Probably very much more over-qualified
than you.
W6RCecilA
>
> In article <3834B4EE...@IEEE.org>, W6RCecilA <Cecil....@IEEE.org>
> writes:
>
> >
> >CW is a great mode and fun for a lot of people. But when someone says,
> >"I'm a better human being than someone who doesn't know Morse code",
> >I'm sorry, there's something seriously mentally wrong with him.
>
> Not to mention people who put words into people's fingertips that they
> didn't type!
Oh? Did I misinterpret, "I'm better than you"?
Ed Hare, W1RFI
> I'm not "demanding" anything of anyone. Anyone with a Tech-Plus
> already possesses 99.7 percent of all available amateur radio
> privileges, including worldwide HF phone capability. All I'm asking
> is that we retain the requirement to learn and master a uniquely
> practical, effective, efficient, and universal communications skill
> in order to qualify for the remaining .3 percent! How "demanding"
> is that? I call it downright liberal!
Well, that 0.3 percent is too liberal, Larry. I propose that we change
it so that the no-coders only get that 0.3 percent and have to pass a
code test for the rest! Well, okay, that is too extremen. How about we
require a code test for only those frequencies about 2 GHz. That is
still the LION'S share of amateur priveleges, so if someone wants it
all, they have to earn it!
:-), of course.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Ed Hare, W1RFI
If you really want to see your fellows on this forum not get sucked into
trolls, I have a suggestion for you. . .
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W6RCecilA
>
> W6RCecilA <Cecil....@IEEE.org writes:
>
> >Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
> >
> >Wow, when I was in high school, the world record was around 75 wpm.
> >Now you can type ten characters per second - amazing. I can't even
> >type the same character ten times in one second. I barely can send
> >ten dits per second with my straight key. You never cease to amaze
> >me, Larry, and I really mean that.
>
> And I can "max out" her typing speed test -- which I believe tops at
> 90 WPM! If you haven't seen me type, I'd suggest that you hold the
> cynicism!
What made you think I was being cynical? What was it you can shoot
blindfolded with your pistol? - an 8" pattern at 100 yards?
W6RCecilA
> I'm not "demanding" anything of anyone. Anyone with a Tech-Plus
> already possesses 99.7 percent of all available amateur radio
> privileges, including worldwide HF phone capability. All I'm asking
> is that we retain the requirement to learn and master a uniquely
> practical, effective, efficient, and universal communications skill
> in order to qualify for the remaining .3 percent! How "demanding"
> is that? I call it downright liberal!
But that 0.3 percent is the butter out of the buttermilk. Do you
like buttermilk, Larry? What the heck is wrong with allowing free
citizens in a free country to choose the communications hobby
mode that they want to learn first?
Richard R. Plourde (Dick)
:>when I hadn't been turned off to phone. After
:>a couple of years, I was on 10-meter phone one day, couldn't
:>remember my number, and got the tounge-lashing I referred to
:>earlier.
W1RFI wrote:
:It appears that the toungue lashing you got is part of what has turned you
off
:to phone operation.
:
:I suspect that the toungue lashing you have given many about Morse code
:operation has had the same effect on them about Morse code.
Hello Ed...
I wouldn't believe Troll if I were you. Here is another 'story' Larry bored
us with last December...
____________________________________________________
The 10-10'ers used to annoy me, as well, but I decided to just solve the
problem by giving them what they want -- a 10-10 number! I just make up a
10-10 number (like three hundred ninety fife dollars and forty five cents)
every time I'm asked. I make sure the number falls in a range well below
their own number, just so they think it's a "valid" 10-10 number! If they
want a QSL, I tell them to send their QSL with an SASE, and to please
include "my" 10-10 number because that's how my 10-10 database is indexed!
Clever, eh?
73 de Larry, K3LT
Lawrence J. Roll, K3LT | FISTS nr. 2008
k3lt@ka3bdr.#cde.de.usa.noam |
http://www.qrz.com/wrad/directory.cgi?K3LT
(302) 678-4841 | ARRL OBS - DE
____________________________________________________
He's so 'oppressed'!!! It's just as well to ignore him and hope he goes
away...
--
73 de Dick, N1SJM
http://home.att.net/~rplourde/
http://www.qsl.net/n1sjm/
Arnie W. Macy
>CW for aesthetic reasons? That may be a good word for it. I would have used
>the word *fun*. Hams like CW for much the same reason that equestrians like
>horses, even though there are more modern modes of transportation.
>
>The problem is that many people can't separate the issues of the *CW
>mode* and the *code test*. They attack CW because they don't like the code
>test.
>
>Try to think of it as the separation of church (the CW religion) and state
>(the FCC code test)...
>
>
Mr. Jones,
I couldn't have said it better. Your post was absolutely brilliant. It
just is beyond my ability to comprehend, why people *must* attack CW because
they don't like the code test. Where you listening, John? Because someone
likes and uses CW, does not make them a knuckle-dragger.
Regards,
Arnie-
Non-Knuckle-Dragger
Arnie W. Macy
>So Arnie, when do you suppose the human race will stop talking? Any
guesses
>about specifically about my wife?
>
Talking via CW for someone that is proficient at it, is just as easy as
using a PTT. As far as your wife is concerned, if she's anything like mine
... best to just stand back and let her do her thing. Most people say that
married people live longer ... I say it just seems longer. :- )
Regards,
Arnie -
KT4ST
W6RCecilA
> Because someone likes and uses CW, does not make them a knuckle-dragger.
What makes them a knuckle-dragger is when they worship CW so much
they want to make it a requirement for everyone else. "Can't go
to Ham Heaven without Morse code skill."
Arnie W. Macy
>What makes them a knuckle-dragger is when they worship CW so much
>they want to make it a requirement for everyone else. "Can't go
>to Ham Heaven without Morse code skill."
Cecil,
My problem, as I have stated, is when people trash CW (the mode) so they can
score points as an NCTA. Because they don't, won't, or can't use the mode,
is not a valid reason to denigate it. You have stated on many occasions,
that you have nothing against CW (the mode), that's fine. But when, John
makes a blanket statement about CW = Knuckle-draggers, when I doubt he has
ever actually used the mode; then I find the comment unwarranted. As you
know, CW is something that must be experienced in order to gain a valid
opinion about it's use or enjoyment value. Simply coming to a conclusion
without ever experiencing it, is like saying I hate swimming without ever
being in the water (how do ya know?)
Regards,
Arnie -
KT4ST
W6RCecilA
> But when, John
> makes a blanket statement about CW = Knuckle-draggers, when I doubt he has
> ever actually used the mode; then I find the comment unwarranted.
Well, in a sense, he's right. CW is old. Knuckle-draggers are old. In a
lot of ways, I'm a knuckle-dragger.
> without ever experiencing it, is like saying I hate swimming without ever
> being in the water (how do ya know?)
So Arnie, how do you know you wouldn't enjoy dying? :-)
Arnie W. Macy
>So Arnie, how do you know you wouldn't enjoy dying? :-)
When I applied for a job in Federal Law Enforcement, I had to take a series
of qualifying examinations. One of them involved abstract reasoning. You
are the absolute master of that, Cecil. : - )
To answer your question:
When we die, I believe we can go to only one of two places. Based on the
day I had today, this would not be a good time to go :- )
Regards,
Arnie -
KT4ST
Brian
> In article <3835782B...@icss.net>, Brian <bur...@icss.net> writes:
>
> >> >By the way, 10-10 International will search and give you back your old
> >$860
> >> >number
> >> >- if you ask (and don't act like a jerk while asking).
> >> >
> >> >73, Brian
> >>
> >> Brian:
> >>
> >> Now, what could possibly be the point of that?
> >>
> >> 73 de Larry, K3LT
> >
> >Because there are lots of benefits to not acting like a jerk.
>
> No, silly -- I meant learning what my 10-10 number is! You'd better
> put your hard hat back on -- you've taken too many hits from the
> Revere Ware!
>
> 73 de Larry, K3LT
Oh, the 10-10 number? Just make one up.
Brian
> In article <38357888...@icss.net>, Brian <bur...@icss.net> writes:
>
> >> Oh, Mrs. Burke, Brian just said you talk too much! (Brian -- if I were
> >> you, I'd be on the lookout for flying cookware!)
> >>
> >> 73 de Larry, K3LT
> >
> >There's already a sign on the garage door leading into the house, "Hard Hats
> >Required."
>
> Brian:
>
> If I were you, I'd take that warning literally! Otherwise, you may end up
> with a permanent impression on your skull that says "T-Fal."
>
> 73 de Larry, K3LT
Too late. I've got one on my forehead that says "Lodge - Season with Lard."
Brian
Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
> I'm sure you've heard the saying "You may live in a democracy, but
> you don't work in one." The same concept applies to the Amateur
> Radio Service, and any other activity in which participants are
> required to be licensed in order to exercise certain privileges which
> are not ordinarily available to them. I don't think it necessarily
> follows that radio amateurs should be allowed to "choose" from a
> menu of necessary skills in order to become licensed operators. I
> believe that the current licensing standards are logical, reasonable,
> and, since they are proven to be achievable by persons from all
> walks of life, they are more than fair. Changing those requirements
> merely to accommodate the entitlement culture doesn't appeal to
> me at all.
>
> 73 de Larry, K3LT
Others don't think its reasonable or logical. The FCC axed, and thats what we
told them.
A. Jones
>Sorry, Ed, I've just had my supper! No need to snap at your well-baited
>hook as you go trolling along!
He baits his hook with lobsters...
A. Jones
>When we die, I believe we can go to only one of two places.
I'll bet rrap is one of em...
LCC
>
> W6RCecilA wrote:
> >
> > Arnie W. Macy wrote:
> > > Because someone likes and uses CW, does not make them a knuckle-dragger.
> >
> > they want to make it a requirement for everyone else. "Can't go
> > to Ham Heaven without Morse code skill."
>
> every other country issuing HF amateur licenses are knuckle-draggers? I
> think I have this straight--they and anyone who supports a continued
> morse testing element for HF access are wrong. You, a person who can't
I've read many countries have been itching to get that formality off the books though. The reasons
are also not based on opinions.
> keep his stories straight and who leans toward fabrication, are the
> enlightened one. Does that about sum it up? I sure wish I could take
> you seriously.
>
> Dave Heil 5H3US, K8MN
>
> --
> For 5H3US photos, go to:
> http://jjr.ne.mediaone.net/5H3US/
> For information on the U.S. Embassy in Tanzania, go to:
> http://www.cats-net.com/amemb/main.htm
W1RFI
> All I claim to be is a *qualified* radio AMATEUR.
As is anyone who has passed the tests stipulated in Part 97. If those tests
change, it is still Part 97 that "qualifies" anyone as an amateur.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Larry Roll K3LT
73 de Larry, K3LT
Lawrence J. Roll, K3LT | FISTS nr. 2008; CC nr. 703
Larry Roll K3LT
>> Oh, Mrs. Burke, Brian just said you talk too much! (Brian -- if I were
>> you, I'd be on the lookout for flying cookware!)
>>
>> 73 de Larry, K3LT
>
>There's already a sign on the garage door leading into the house, "Hard Hats
>Required."
Brian:
If I were you, I'd take that warning literally! Otherwise, you may end up
with a permanent impression on your skull that says "T-Fal."
73 de Larry, K3LT
Larry Roll K3LT
writes:
>Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
>> Of course, I don't recall ever claiming technical superiority to the
>> good Dr. Williamson, or anyone else, for that matter! All I claim to
>> be is a *qualified* radio AMATEUR.
>
>So is he, Larry, so is he. Probably very much more over-qualified
>than you.
Well, Cecil, I can't really respond to that, since I don't consider
myself to be "over qualified" as a radio amateur! My qualifications,
based on the examinations I took and passed at the time I was
licensed, are just right. And if the FCC ever came out with anything
higher than the Amateur Extra class license, it would be up to me
to meet the requirements for that license, or live with my present
privileges. That's how these things work.
Larry Roll K3LT
>
>Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
>
>> I'm not "demanding" anything of anyone. Anyone with a Tech-Plus
>> already possesses 99.7 percent of all available amateur radio
>> privileges, including worldwide HF phone capability. All I'm asking
>> is that we retain the requirement to learn and master a uniquely
>> practical, effective, efficient, and universal communications skill
>> in order to qualify for the remaining .3 percent! How "demanding"
>> is that? I call it downright liberal!
>
>Well, that 0.3 percent is too liberal, Larry. I propose that we change
>it so that the no-coders only get that 0.3 percent and have to pass a
>code test for the rest! Well, okay, that is too extremen. How about we
>require a code test for only those frequencies about 2 GHz. That is
>still the LION'S share of amateur priveleges, so if someone wants it
>all, they have to earn it!
>
>:-), of course.
Sorry, Ed, I've just had my supper! No need to snap at your well-baited
hook as you go trolling along!
73 de Larry, K3LT
Larry Roll K3LT
writes:
>> >CW is a great mode and fun for a lot of people. But when someone says,
>> >"I'm a better human being than someone who doesn't know Morse code",
>> >I'm sorry, there's something seriously mentally wrong with him.
>>
>> Not to mention people who put words into people's fingertips that they
>> didn't type!
>
>Oh? Did I misinterpret, "I'm better than you"?
Perhaps, since I don't recall having said it!
Larry Roll K3LT
writes:
>> All I know about my typing speed is what Mavis Beacon tells me!
>> And I can "max out" her typing speed test -- which I believe tops at
>> 90 WPM! If you haven't seen me type, I'd suggest that you hold the
>> cynicism!
>
>What made you think I was being cynical? What was it you can shoot
>blindfolded with your pistol? - an 8" pattern at 100 yards?
Cecil:
If I were ever stupid enough to fire a pistol blindfolded, I would expect
the "pattern" to form on my feet!
Larry Roll K3LT
writes:
>Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
>> I'm not "demanding" anything of anyone. Anyone with a Tech-Plus
>> already possesses 99.7 percent of all available amateur radio
>> privileges, including worldwide HF phone capability. All I'm asking
>> is that we retain the requirement to learn and master a uniquely
>> practical, effective, efficient, and universal communications skill
>> in order to qualify for the remaining .3 percent! How "demanding"
>> is that? I call it downright liberal!
>
Cecil:
>But that 0.3 percent is the butter out of the buttermilk. Do you
>like buttermilk, Larry?
No, I don't. I happen to be lactose intolerant. And if the lactose
didn't make me sick, the fat and cholesterol would!
What the heck is wrong with allowing free
>citizens in a free country to choose the communications hobby
>mode that they want to learn first?
I'm sure you've heard the saying "You may live in a democracy, but
you don't work in one." The same concept applies to the Amateur
Radio Service, and any other activity in which participants are
required to be licensed in order to exercise certain privileges which
are not ordinarily available to them. I don't think it necessarily
follows that radio amateurs should be allowed to "choose" from a
menu of necessary skills in order to become licensed operators. I
believe that the current licensing standards are logical, reasonable,
and, since they are proven to be achievable by persons from all
walks of life, they are more than fair. Changing those requirements
merely to accommodate the entitlement culture doesn't appeal to
me at all.
73 de Larry, K3LT
Dave Heil
>
> Arnie W. Macy wrote:
> > Because someone likes and uses CW, does not make them a knuckle-dragger.
>
> What makes them a knuckle-dragger is when they worship CW so much
> they want to make it a requirement for everyone else. "Can't go
> to Ham Heaven without Morse code skill."
So the FCC are knuckle-draggers, eh? The administrations of almost
every other country issuing HF amateur licenses are knuckle-draggers? I
think I have this straight--they and anyone who supports a continued
morse testing element for HF access are wrong. You, a person who can't
W6RCecilA
> So the FCC are knuckle-draggers, eh? The administrations of almost
> every other country issuing HF amateur licenses are knuckle-draggers?
Yep, typical of bureaucracies the world over.
Dave Heil
>
> Dave Heil wrote:
> >
> > W6RCecilA wrote:
> > >
> > > Arnie W. Macy wrote:
> > > > Because someone likes and uses CW, does not make them a knuckle-dragger.
> > >
> > > What makes them a knuckle-dragger is when they worship CW so much
> > > they want to make it a requirement for everyone else. "Can't go
> > > to Ham Heaven without Morse code skill."
> >
> > think I have this straight--they and anyone who supports a continued
> > morse testing element for HF access are wrong. You, a person who can't
>
> are also not based on opinions.
Many countries? itching? I'll buy a statement that says several
countries are contemplating doing away with morse testing unless you can
come up with something in the way of proof for your comment. You
further add that "the reasons" (reasons for "itching" to "get the
formality off the books"?) are not based on opinions. What, then, are
they based upon?
Surely someone in a position of responsibility toward amateur radio
licensing in these mythical countries must have studied something and
then formulated an opinion. Do you disagree?
Dave Heil 5H3US, K8MN
Brian Kelly
wrote:
>You can have it. The last time I tried to work 10-meter phone, I got
>cussed out for not having a Ten-Ten number! I've been on 20, 30, 40, and
>15 meter CW ever since! Your posting is precisely the level of
>intelligence I expect to find on ANY phone band -- so why should I
>bother with it? Knock yourself right, flat out!
>
>73 de Larry, K3LT
>
. . . Looks like I NEED to try 10 phone again one of these days, might
be time to have some talking heads for lunch . .
>
Brian Kelly w3rv
Dick Carroll
>
> Arnie W. Macy wrote:
> > Because someone likes and uses CW, does not make them a knuckle-dragger.
>
> What makes them a knuckle-dragger is when they worship CW so much
> they want to make it a requirement for everyone else. "Can't go
> to Ham Heaven without Morse code skill."
And just making such a stupid statement also converts you
from genius to idiot.
Brian
> . . . Looks like I NEED to try 10 phone again one of these days, might
> be time to have some talking heads for lunch . .
>
> Brian Kelly w3rv
Just don't trash up the N/T+ part of the band - stay above 28.5 mhz if you
want to engage in radio combat.
Brian
> And just making such a stupid statement also converts you
> from genius to idiot.
Its so sad. Cecil can go from genius to idiot in the matter of a few moments it
took to type his message, and you have been working hard at it your whole life.
I'll bet he can reverse it just as quickly, too. It just ain't fair!
(Oh yeh, I removed the CB group you've been posting to Dick.)
Dave Heil
The "N/T+ part" of the band is that portion of the band where Novice and
Tech + Holders are *permitted* to operate. Looks like RV can operate
anywhere in the band he likes.
Dave 5H3US, K8MN
Brian
> Brian wrote:
> >
> > Brian Kelly wrote:
> >
> > > . . . Looks like I NEED to try 10 phone again one of these days, might
> > > be time to have some talking heads for lunch . .
> > >
> > > Brian Kelly w3rv
> >
> > Just don't trash up the N/T+ part of the band - stay above 28.5 mhz if you
> > want to engage in radio combat.
>
> The "N/T+ part" of the band is that portion of the band where Novice and
> Tech + Holders are *permitted* to operate. Looks like RV can operate
> anywhere in the band he likes.
>
> Dave 5H3US, K8MN
Not so. He has to operate within the rules, or he's not permitted there at all
- no matter how badly he needs to do radio combat. I'm just asking that he
behave himself. Is that too much to ask?
W1RFI
>And if the FCC ever came out with anything
>higher than the Amateur Extra class license, it would be up to me
>to meet the requirements for that license, or live with my present
>privileges. That's how these things work.
And if the FCC comes up with other changes to the licensing structure, does not
the same principle apply? Those that meet the requirements are given the
operating priveleges.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
>Changing those requirements
>merely to accommodate the entitlement culture doesn't appeal to
>me at all.
How about changing them to be in line with modern radio technology?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Brian
On a cold day in hell.
Brian
> On Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:22:19 -0600, Brian <bur...@icss.net> wrote:
>
> >> The "N/T+ part" of the band is that portion of the band where Novice and
> >> Tech + Holders are *permitted* to operate. Looks like RV can operate
> >> anywhere in the band he likes.
> >>
> >> Dave 5H3US, K8MN
> >
> >Not so. He has to operate within the rules, or he's not permitted there at all
> >- no matter how badly he needs to do radio combat. I'm just asking that he
> >behave himself. Is that too much to ask?
> >
> I NEED some weenie to get up my butt abt that "10-10" nonsense Larry
> mentioned. Whatever 10-10 is. I NEED him to tell me it's "his
> frequency" or a "10-10" frequency or something. Fear not, I identify
> frequently, I'm always legal . . . the rest depends on the weenie.
> >
> Brian Kelly w3rv
I've got a great idea. Why don't you and Roll make a sked on some 10-10 net
frequency?
LCC
>
> In article <19991120184426...@ng-ft1.aol.com>, w1...@aol.com
> (W1RFI) writes:
>
> >
> >>Changing those requirements
> >>merely to accommodate the entitlement culture doesn't appeal to
> >>me at all.
> >
> >How about changing them to be in line with modern radio technology?
> >
>
> so that this valuable mode continues to be available to future hams!
>
Watch out, future hams might shun CW or not wish to utilize it.
They might be even stronger in their opinions about its continued use as a requirement on HF.
Brian
> Brian:
>
> Don't look now, but the other Brian is an Extra! He can trash up
> any part of any band he chooses!
Larry, it's the Extras who seem to get a lot of attention from Riley, for doing
precisely what you suggest Brian can do. How sad. No wonder the rest of the
amateur community must look elsewhere for leadership.
Dave Heil
>
> Dave Heil wrote:
>
> > Brian wrote:
> > >
> > > Brian Kelly wrote:
> > >
> > > > . . . Looks like I NEED to try 10 phone again one of these days, might
> > > > be time to have some talking heads for lunch . .
> > > >
> > > > Brian Kelly w3rv
> > >
> > > Just don't trash up the N/T+ part of the band - stay above 28.5 mhz if you
> > > want to engage in radio combat.
> >
> > Tech + Holders are *permitted* to operate. Looks like RV can operate
> > anywhere in the band he likes.
> >
> > Dave 5H3US, K8MN
>
> Not so. He has to operate within the rules, or he's not permitted there at all
> - no matter how badly he needs to do radio combat. I'm just asking that he
> behave himself. Is that too much to ask?
Yeah, Brian, it is. All he has to do or all that I have to do is
operate under the regs--not meet some code of civility as defined by
you. You operate where you can. I'll operate where I want.
Brian Kelly
>> The "N/T+ part" of the band is that portion of the band where Novice and
>> Tech + Holders are *permitted* to operate. Looks like RV can operate
>> anywhere in the band he likes.
>>
>> Dave 5H3US, K8MN
>
>Not so. He has to operate within the rules, or he's not permitted there at all
>- no matter how badly he needs to do radio combat. I'm just asking that he
>behave himself. Is that too much to ask?
>
Larry Roll K3LT
>
>> . . . Looks like I NEED to try 10 phone again one of these days, might
>> be time to have some talking heads for lunch . .
>>
>> Brian Kelly w3rv
>
>Just don't trash up the N/T+ part of the band - stay above 28.5 mhz if you
>want to engage in radio combat.
Brian:
Don't look now, but the other Brian is an Extra! He can trash up
any part of any band he chooses! I'm assuming, of course, that
you believe his mere use of a ham radio band you'd be on constitutes
"trashing up!"
Larry Roll K3LT
(W1RFI) writes:
>
>>And if the FCC ever came out with anything
>>higher than the Amateur Extra class license, it would be up to me
>>to meet the requirements for that license, or live with my present
>>privileges. That's how these things work.
>
>And if the FCC comes up with other changes to the licensing structure, does
>not
>the same principle apply? Those that meet the requirements are given the
>operating priveleges.
Ed:
Of course. But if the requirements are lowered, instead of raised,
where is all the "progress" the NCTA is always whining about?
I got it!!! Eliminate code testing, and make the written tests for a
basic HF phone ticket equivalent to the final exams in all of the major
discipline courses for a BSEE degree! Then we'll have a licensing
structure which is relevant to all this advanced technology you and
Carl like to talk about! In fact, let's be honest and stop referring to
it as the Amateur Radio Service, and call it the RF Engineering
Internship and Experimenter's Service. Yeaaa! THAT's the "ticket!"
Larry Roll K3LT
>
>>Changing those requirements
>>merely to accommodate the entitlement culture doesn't appeal to
>>me at all.
>
>How about changing them to be in line with modern radio technology?
>
No problem here, Ed -- I'm all for it! As long as we keep code testing
so that this valuable mode continues to be available to future hams!
73 de Larry, K3LT
Larry Roll K3LT
>
>I've got a great idea. Why don't you and Roll make a sked on some 10-10 net
>frequency?
>
I'd be happy to oblige! (If I could only find my mic!) Then, when the
10-10 Net started, and the knuckle-draggers started QRM'ing RV and I
for using "their" frequency, we could sick Mr. Hollingsworth on them!
Dick Carroll
>
> Oh, Mrs. Burke, Brian just said you talk too much! (Brian -- if I were
> you, I'd be on the lookout for flying cookware!)
Don't you suppose she's just trying to get in a word
edgewise?
W1RFI
>I got it!!! Eliminate code testing, and make the written tests for a
>basic HF phone ticket equivalent to the final exams in all of the major
>discipline courses for a BSEE degree!
Do you really see everything as one extreme or the other, Larry? Replacing the
Morse code test with an exam equivalent to a BSEE would not be an even
exchange.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Arnie Macy
>Do you really see everything as one extreme or the other, Larry? Replacing
the
>Morse code test with an exam equivalent to a BSEE would not be an even
>exchange.
>
I don't know, Ed. Based on some of the posts we see here. There are people
who think CW *is* that hard. : - )
I do agree with your comment, however.
Regards,
Arnie -
KT4ST
Dave Hall
>
> Dave Hall wrote
> >if CW is obsolete...
> >then the only reason that hams still cling to it like
> >...is for purely aesthetic reasons.
>
> CW for aesthetic reasons? That may be a good word for it. I would have used
> the word *fun*. Hams like CW for much the same reason that equestrians like
> horses, even though there are more modern modes of transportation.
>
> The problem is that many people can't separate the issues of the *CW
> mode* and the *code test*. They attack CW because they don't like the code
> test.
>
> Try to think of it as the separation of church (the CW religion) and state
> (the FCC code test)...
"Fun" is only a subjective opinion, which is why I didn't use the term.
Aesthetic, seemed (to me) to be a better fit, as it describes something
that is appreciated more for is "artsy" appeal, than actual practical
application. I have no problem understanding the difference between CW
"the mode" and the CW testing requirement.
The biggest problem is that the people on the "pro" CW side see any
proposal for the reduction of the *code test*, as a signal that they
might lose the ability to use *the mode*, so they vehemently uphold and
adhere to the out-of-date requirements.
I would think that CW proponents would welcome further segregation of
the testing. If CW proficiency were to become optional, rather than
mandatory, then the people, who take the time and effort to learn and
use CW, will be the ones who will fit in best with the people who are
already there. Having something shoved down your throat does not foster
the best attitude, and many may develop an "anti CW" attitude, because
of all the pain they had to go through to learn something that they have
no use for. This could lead to deliberate interference, or lack of
respect for the users wishing to use CW.
People who like CW, and the nostalgia that it represents, should
continue to use it, and should always have a place to use it. But that
in itself, is no reason to continue to force everyone else, who are
trying to move toward the 21st century, to learn something that is as
archaic as the Titanic.
Dave
"Sandbagger"
Dave Hall
>
> W6RCecilA wrote:
> >
> > Arnie W. Macy wrote:
> > > Because someone likes and uses CW, does not make them a knuckle-dragger.
> >
> > What makes them a knuckle-dragger is when they worship CW so much
> > they want to make it a requirement for everyone else. "Can't go
> > to Ham Heaven without Morse code skill."
>
> every other country issuing HF amateur licenses are knuckle-draggers?
Actually, the FCC is in full agreement with reducing the code
requirement. It's the old fossils at the ARRL, and other "Keep CW at all
costs" groups that are fighting the trend.
>I think I have this straight--they and anyone who supports a continued
> morse testing element for HF access are wrong.
There is no modern reason to keep it as a requirement. Because YOU or
others choose to LIKE it, is no reason to expect that everyone else has
to like it too.
CW is a MODE, like SSB, AM, FM, SSTV, AMTOR, PACTOR, PACKET, FSTV, RTTY,
QPSK, etc, are modes. There are no special testing dedicated to any of
these modes, so why should CW be any different?
Maybe we should still require testing on the care and feeding of horses,
when we take our driver's test......
Dave
"Sandbagger"
Dwight Stewart
Dave Hall wrote:
>
> The biggest problem is that the people on the "pro" CW side see any
> proposal for the reduction of the *code test*, as a signal that they
> might lose the ability to use *the mode*, so they vehemently uphold and
> adhere to the out-of-date requirements.
Actually, I think the idea of reducing the code test requirement
induces a jealous reaction on the pro-CW side. If the requirement was
dropped, or even reduced, they would feel it is not fair - the new
people are getting something that I didn't.
From what I have seen, they are already jealous of the no-code techs
who get to use all those frequencies in the VHF+ bands, without taking
the code test (remember the code test was required, to use any ham
frequency, before the no-code license). So, from their perspective,
getting rid of the code test would only be adding insult to existing injury.
However, lets face it, the code test is going to be dropped
eventually. Ham radio is about the only radio service that still uses
CW on a regular basis, and it is certainly the only radio service that
is still tested for CW skill.
In the end, people will have to recognize that, whle CW was once a
necessary part of radio communications, it is simply not needed in a
modern world. Today, for military and commercial use, there are more
efficient modes that offer even more reliable communications. That fact
alone makes it rather difficult to continue to justify the need for
testing of that mode in the ham bands.
Dwight Stewart
Amateur Radio, Technician
F.C.C. License: W5NET
http://www.qsl.net/w5net
Dick Carroll
>
> The biggest problem is that the people on the "pro" CW side see any
> proposal for the reduction of the *code test*, as a signal that they
> might lose the ability to use *the mode*, so they vehemently uphold and
> adhere to the out-of-date requirements.
Well, Dave, if you actually knew what you were talking
about you might at least have a beginning of a point. But
sicne you clearly don't we just have to dump you into the
same category with Loose Lennie the Louse.
The proof will be found in comments to the FCC regarding
the NPRM.
>
> I would think that CW proponents would welcome further segregation of
> the testing. If CW proficiency were to become optional, rather than
> mandatory, then the people, who take the time and effort to learn and
> use CW, will be the ones who will fit in best with the people who are
> already there.
What is totally lost in all this noise is the fact that CW
supporters are ALSO digital mode supporters. How is that,
you say? Well, for one thing many CW operagtors are also
digital mode operagtors. And just wait until all the
anticode yakkers flood the voice segments. The very next "I
WANT" rant will be for expanded voice segments at the
expense of the digital/CW segments. No question about it.
When the fone bands are overloaded, there WILL be a movement
downward, and flushed with the success of having just killed
the code requirement, there'll be no holding them back.
If ham radio isn't dead it sure is seriously ill.
Having something shoved down your throat does not foster
> the best attitude, and many may develop an "anti CW" attitude, because
> of all the pain they had to go through to learn something that they have
> no use for.
Unhuh. Just as it alway was. The difference is that those
childish folks you mentioned will NEVER learn what
radiotelegraph as a mode actually is, they will only know
what they percieve as unlearned individuals. Of course,
today that's enough. Decision made.
And just who is it that is shoving ham radio down *anyone's*
throat these days? I think he should be prosecuted.
This could lead to deliberate interference, or lack of
> respect for the users wishing to use CW.
>
Ah, so. Tacit admission that codehaters jam active CW hams,
huh? No surprise, actually, and quite typical. I can't wait
until the codefree HF license invites all the rest of the
27mc heros on down to HF ham radio. THAT is when the ARS can
truly be declared as lifeless, and can be given a pauper's
burial.