A Radio forum. RadioBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » RadioBanter forum » rec.radio.amateur » Policy
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New Morse training tape



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 3rd 05, 04:29 AM
John Smith
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

b.b.:

They are not "sending code so poorly that a pimply-faced No-Code Tech with a
code reader..." can't read it, they are attempting to send so badly that a
computer running software coded by one both CW and computer savvy has set up--I
suspect they think themselves smarter than the computer... maybe... grin

Indeed, a very good programmer would inject "nuances" into the way the app
translated his keyboard code to morse, making it virtually impossible for them
to tell they were copying automaton generated code, at a very respectable
speed! grin

I would think it would be a game, an enjoyable one...

John

"b.b." wrote in message
ups.com...

John Smith wrote:
b.b.:

Uhhh, we "code tape wizards" and "computer taught b*st*rds" are "out there"
(more ways than one, I suppose), and if a code reader can't display it on
the
screen--we can probably live without those "words of wisdom."

Art Bell said, "CW is dead!" If Art Bell (even more trustworthy than Santa
and
the New York Times!) says it, Victoria, it is true!

John


I have no problem with folks wanting to use CW. It just ****es me off
when they make claims of intentionally sending code so poorly that a
pimply-faced No-Code Tech with a code reader can't listen in.



  #22  
Old August 3rd 05, 04:32 AM
John Smith
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

KXHB:

OMG. The perverts have exchanged their boxes of lollipops for HT's...

My gawd, those evil, evil men!

John

"KXHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"b.b." wrote

It just ****es me off when they make claims of
intentionally sending code so poorly that a
pimply-faced No-Code Tech with a code
reader can't listen in.



Give it up Willy Weeper. "They" (a single guy) who said that is long since
dead, but you keep writing jeremiads on a topic that no living soul remains
to support.

And why is it that you continue to hijack my satirical character, Billy
Beeper?

beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

(Apologies to Kurt Vonnegut)

To all external appearances, Farnsworth Corners, U.S.A., is bright, cheerful,
and happy. However, in dark corners of the city lurk Godless Nocoders who
seek to undermine the moral fabric of our mighty Nation.

In a dirty basement apartment, an underfed, seedy-looking old man wearing
small, round spectacles and threadbare clothes, types furiously at a musty
desk illumined only by a single, naked bulb. As the pages fly through his
typewriter, an evil plan gradually emerges: a treacherous treatise which
threatens the well-being of the upright citizens of Farnsworth Corners. The
work is completed, and the old man leans back thoughtfully and smiles as he
rubs the three-day stubble on his chin. The time has come for the Hammer of
Leonard to strike!

Some weeks later, in another part of town, little Billy Beeper walks home
from school. Suddenly he hears a voice right next to his ear.

"Psst! Hey, kid! Would you like to try my 2M HT? It's free!"

Billy's eyes open wide as he faces the stranger. An embroidered patch on the
mans soiled jumpsuit reads "Codefree Charlie". "Gosh, no! N2EY told me never
to touch a radio which didn't beep!"

"Aw, c'mon!" says the old man. "I only wanna be friends with you!"

"Well, I don't know," replies Billy. "I was told that FM was bad for you!"

"That's just what the grown-ups say to scare you!" says the drooling man.

"The truth is that they don't want you to try it 'cause it'll make you grow
up faster and be able to smoke cigarettes and drink liquor just like them!"

Billy is hesitant, but suddenly a tall form looms before them and grabs the
ruffian by the collar.

"Golly!" exclaims Billy. "It's Captain Code!"

Yes, Readers, it's Captain Code: faster than a Vibroplex Blue Racer, more
powerful than an Alpha three-holer, able to leap tall pileups in a single
bound.

"You should be ashamed of yourself, old man," says Captain Code to the
hoodlum. "There are far better ways to earn money than to hoodwink innocent
children into a life of codelessness. It's to the FCC for you!

"And as for you, young friend, take my advice and stay away from strangers,
and believe nothing that they say. It's tragic, but until Godless Nocodism is
abolished from the world, there will always be those who would like nothing
better than to hurt you ."

"Gee, thanks, Captain Code!" says Billy. "I promise that I'll always listen
to Mom and Dad, and I'll keep away from strangers with shacks on their belt!"





  #23  
Old August 3rd 05, 07:39 AM
Alun L. Palmer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in
ink.net:


"b.b." wrote in message
oups.com...

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"b.b." wrote in message
oups.com...

KHB wrote:
"b.b." wrote

Maybe Morse can go back to being an encoding scheme, and
Farnsworth can go back to being a teaching method.

Thus it is, thus it always has been.... I don't understand "go back
to"....

73, de Hans, K0HB


Morse had become merely a licensing hurdle, Farnsworth a testing
scheme. Now if anyone bothers to learn Morse, it will be to use it.

You know something? Your probably right....and actually that is a
good thing.

Dan/W4NTI


People may not always agree with my opinions, but that's OK with me.

There were plenty of Code Tape Extra's out there who never worked a dit
in their lives.

Of course there were/are. Lots of folks never cared a lick if they
actually operated CW or not. And to them it was a hurdle to do 13 or
20.

But to those select few that actually enjoyed the mode it became a real
pain hearing about how hard it was to learn, how useless, how
unnecessary, etc.

Now perhaps the debate will finally END. And those that like CW can
continue to enjoy it. And help those that want to learn it, learn it,
and also enjoy it. And use it and not have to put up with all the
whinning any longer.

Dan/W4NTI





That's a change of tune from you. When you're right, you're right!
  #24  
Old August 3rd 05, 08:41 PM
an old friend
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default


John Smith wrote:
b.b.:

They are not "sending code so poorly that a pimply-faced No-Code Tech with a
code reader..." can't read it, they are attempting to send so badly that a
computer running software coded by one both CW and computer savvy has set up--I
suspect they think themselves smarter than the computer... maybe... grin

Indeed, a very good programmer would inject "nuances" into the way the app
translated his keyboard code to morse, making it virtually impossible for them
to tell they were copying automaton generated code, at a very respectable
speed! grin


personaly I have never had anyone but those in the know believe I was
sending via machine ( I would do that back in the days 13 wpm was
needed for real access to HF, after all anyine that can follow my
offhand typing at 13wpm can manage to pass any test at that speed


I would think it would be a game, an enjoyable one...

John

"b.b." wrote in message
ups.com...

John Smith wrote:
b.b.:

Uhhh, we "code tape wizards" and "computer taught b*st*rds" are "out there"
(more ways than one, I suppose), and if a code reader can't display it on
the
screen--we can probably live without those "words of wisdom."

Art Bell said, "CW is dead!" If Art Bell (even more trustworthy than Santa
and
the New York Times!) says it, Victoria, it is true!

John


I have no problem with folks wanting to use CW. It just ****es me off
when they make claims of intentionally sending code so poorly that a
pimply-faced No-Code Tech with a code reader can't listen in.


  #25  
Old August 4th 05, 01:03 AM
b.b.
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default


K=D8HB wrote:
"b.b." wrote

It just ****es me off when they make claims of
intentionally sending code so poorly that a
pimply-faced No-Code Tech with a code
reader can't listen in.



Give it up Willy Weeper. "They" (a single guy)


And a whole bunch of hanger's on...

who said that is long since dead,


The actuarial tables offer no apology.

but you keep writing jeremiads on a topic that no living soul remains to
support.


If Dick were alive, a dozen amateurs of low intelligence would jump in
to support him.

And why is it that you continue to hijack my satirical character, Billy B=

eeper?

beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

(Apologies to Kurt Vonnegut)


Continue??? You were asked if you wanted him back, and I would gladly
return him to his rightful owner. You didn't reply.

Are you asking now? If so, do it plainly so that I do not mistake if
for just more Extra-class "stuff."

With the mostest kindest regards, Billy Beeper

To all external appearances, Farnsworth Corners, U.S.A., is bright, cheer=

ful,
and happy. However, in dark corners of the city lurk Godless Nocoders who=

seek
to undermine the moral fabric of our mighty Nation.

In a dirty basement apartment, an underfed, seedy-looking old man wearing=

small,
round spectacles and threadbare clothes, types furiously at a musty desk
illumined only by a single, naked bulb. As the pages fly through his type=

writer,
an evil plan gradually emerges: a treacherous treatise which threatens the
well-being of the upright citizens of Farnsworth Corners. The work is com=

pleted,
and the old man leans back thoughtfully and smiles as he rubs the three-d=

ay
stubble on his chin. The time has come for the Hammer of Leonard to strik=

e!

Some weeks later, in another part of town, little Billy Beeper walks home=

from
school. Suddenly he hears a voice right next to his ear.

"Psst! Hey, kid! Would you like to try my 2M HT? It's free!"

Billy's eyes open wide as he faces the stranger. An embroidered patch on =

the
mans soiled jumpsuit reads "Codefree Charlie". "Gosh, no! N2EY told me ne=

ver to
touch a radio which didn't beep!"

"Aw, c'mon!" says the old man. "I only wanna be friends with you!"

"Well, I don't know," replies Billy. "I was told that FM was bad for you!"

"That's just what the grown-ups say to scare you!" says the drooling man.

"The truth is that they don't want you to try it 'cause it'll make you gr=

ow up
faster and be able to smoke cigarettes and drink liquor just like them!"

Billy is hesitant, but suddenly a tall form looms before them and grabs t=

he
ruffian by the collar.

"Golly!" exclaims Billy. "It's Captain Code!"

Yes, Readers, it's Captain Code: faster than a Vibroplex Blue Racer, more
powerful than an Alpha three-holer, able to leap tall pileups in a single=

bound.

"You should be ashamed of yourself, old man," says Captain Code to the ho=

odlum.
"There are far better ways to earn money than to hoodwink innocent childr=

en into
a life of codelessness. It's to the FCC for you!

"And as for you, young friend, take my advice and stay away from stranger=

s, and
believe nothing that they say. It's tragic, but until Godless Nocodism is
abolished from the world, there will always be those who would like nothi=

ng
better than to hurt you ."

"Gee, thanks, Captain Code!" says Billy. "I promise that I'll always list=

en to
Mom and Dad, and I'll keep away from strangers with shacks on their belt!"


  #26  
Old August 4th 05, 06:23 AM
[email protected]
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From: "John Smith" on Tues 2 Aug 2005 20:29

b.b.:

They are not "sending code so poorly that a pimply-faced No-Code Tech with a
code reader..." can't read it, they are attempting to send so badly that a
computer running software coded by one both CW and computer savvy has set up--I
suspect they think themselves smarter than the computer... maybe... grin

Indeed, a very good programmer would inject "nuances" into the way the app
translated his keyboard code to morse, making it virtually impossible for them
to tell they were copying automaton generated code, at a very respectable
speed! grin

I would think it would be a game, an enjoyable one...


John, that discussion took place in here a few years ago, my
remarking on what I'd seen, lent my Icom HF receiver for an
air test, on an ADAPTIVE decoder for morse. It was written
by a professional programmer as an intellectual exercise for
his own benefit, just wondering if it could be done. The
ADAPTIVE part was in automatically adjusting to the differences
in weighting of dits and dahs, their combination resulting in
a word rate equivalent. The ADAPTIVE part took most of the
source code...the translation of morse characters to ASCII for
immediate display was a small, small part of the source, just
a small look-up table in effect. It was done on a medium-old
clock rate PC but would be a snap to work at a 2 GHz clock.

To reverse the process, to add weighting to dits and dahs, even
to having different weighting for different characters, is a
snap with a random number routine. That wasn't done, but is
viable without much alteration of the source.

The PCTA extras in here will have NONE of such things! They
will attempt to THRASH anyone in a monumental display of deus
ex machina worthy of the most devout Luddite. shrug

don dit


  #27  
Old August 4th 05, 06:51 AM
John Smith
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Len:

Yep, that is one way alright, and produces good results, there are others,
some better.

Adaptive learning by the program is the key, and the program must learn
what the senders' length of a di to a dah is, and the breath of the width
he is spanning of each the di and the dah.

The amateur abbreviations are in a table, and the dictionary from a spell
checker can be borrowed to check decoded morse words against which are not
abbreviations.

You are right, a high speed machine affords you time to do
abundant error checking--and here is where you gain close to 100% accuracy
from, final fall back is the ear and the mind, to correct any mistakes the
program cannot, yet, handle...

All words which do not match the table of abbreviations or the dictionary
have a copy of that word thrown into an error file, along with di's
represented by periods and dah's represented by underscores or hyphens, of
the word thought to be an error. This error file can be studied later and
the program "tweaked" to handle such errors in the future.

However, what interests me most is your knowledge on the subject, you most
certainly have a good grasp of the logic necessary to begin to put one
together.

Perhaps you have programmed and played with such yourself? Perhaps you
have a relative or friend in the field?

John

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:23:57 -0700, LenAnderson wrote:

From: "John Smith" on Tues 2 Aug 2005 20:29

b.b.:

They are not "sending code so poorly that a pimply-faced No-Code Tech with a
code reader..." can't read it, they are attempting to send so badly that a
computer running software coded by one both CW and computer savvy has set up--I
suspect they think themselves smarter than the computer... maybe... grin

Indeed, a very good programmer would inject "nuances" into the way the app
translated his keyboard code to morse, making it virtually impossible for them
to tell they were copying automaton generated code, at a very respectable
speed! grin

I would think it would be a game, an enjoyable one...


John, that discussion took place in here a few years ago, my
remarking on what I'd seen, lent my Icom HF receiver for an
air test, on an ADAPTIVE decoder for morse. It was written
by a professional programmer as an intellectual exercise for
his own benefit, just wondering if it could be done. The
ADAPTIVE part was in automatically adjusting to the differences
in weighting of dits and dahs, their combination resulting in
a word rate equivalent. The ADAPTIVE part took most of the
source code...the translation of morse characters to ASCII for
immediate display was a small, small part of the source, just
a small look-up table in effect. It was done on a medium-old
clock rate PC but would be a snap to work at a 2 GHz clock.

To reverse the process, to add weighting to dits and dahs, even
to having different weighting for different characters, is a
snap with a random number routine. That wasn't done, but is
viable without much alteration of the source.

The PCTA extras in here will have NONE of such things! They
will attempt to THRASH anyone in a monumental display of deus
ex machina worthy of the most devout Luddite. shrug

don dit


  #28  
Old August 4th 05, 12:41 PM
[email protected]
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Bert Craig wrote:
"K=D8HB" wrote in message
nk.net...

The 25WPM plateau seems related to sublimating copying to a "middle
conscious" level, where the characters flow at an almost sub-conscious
level from the ear to the fingertip without active thought about the
actual characters heard.

73, de Hans, K0HB


Sigh, I hope to get to this level eventually. I'm at the point where I'm
just starting to "hear" words like tnx, abt, the, fer, qsl, qsb, name, op,
rst, etc. rather than spelling them in my head.

Hans is talking about this sort of thing:

http://hometown.aol.com/wa3iyc/myhomepage/photo.html=20

73 de Jim, N2EY

  #29  
Old August 4th 05, 05:24 PM
[email protected]
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What you folks are describing is just a form of RTTY using Morse Code
as the
encoding method, rather than ASCII or Baudot or some other scheme.

Of course it can be done, and has been done. Why it would be done is
another
issue. It is certainly not a "better way".

Consider a bicycle. If another wheel is added, the rider doesn't need
to worry about falling over, so the skill required to ride it is
greatly reduced.
Add a small gasoline engine and a suitable transmission, and
pedaling becomes much easier. A simple cover will protect the rider
from rain
and other inclement weather.

Eventually you wind up with a small, three-wheeled automobile that
could win
the Tour de France. Except it's not a bicycle anymore, and its rider
isn't
a cyclist by any stretch of the imagination.

Or consider the piano. Pianos and similar keyboard instruments have
been around
for hundreds of years. It takes considerable skill and practice to play
them, and
reading sheet music is a skill of its own.

With modern computers and software, however, one can simply have a
machine that
scans in the sheet music and turns it into a "performance" - without
all those
lessons, practice, etc.

There are many such analogies. But they are lost on some people - those
who
Shaw described as "knowing the price of everything and the value of
nothing."



John Smith wrote:
Len:

Yep, that is one way alright, and produces good results, there are others,
some better.

Adaptive learning by the program is the key, and the program must learn
what the senders' length of a di to a dah is, and the breath of the width
he is spanning of each the di and the dah.

The amateur abbreviations are in a table, and the dictionary from a spell
checker can be borrowed to check decoded morse words against which are not
abbreviations.

You are right, a high speed machine affords you time to do
abundant error checking--and here is where you gain close to 100% accuracy
from, final fall back is the ear and the mind, to correct any mistakes the
program cannot, yet, handle...

All words which do not match the table of abbreviations or the dictionary
have a copy of that word thrown into an error file, along with di's
represented by periods and dah's represented by underscores or hyphens, of
the word thought to be an error. This error file can be studied later and
the program "tweaked" to handle such errors in the future.

However, what interests me most is your knowledge on the subject, you most
certainly have a good grasp of the logic necessary to begin to put one
together.

Perhaps you have programmed and played with such yourself? Perhaps you
have a relative or friend in the field?

John

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:23:57 -0700, LenAnderson wrote:

From: "John Smith" on Tues 2 Aug 2005 20:29

b.b.:

They are not "sending code so poorly that a pimply-faced No-Code Tech with a
code reader..." can't read it, they are attempting to send so badly that a
computer running software coded by one both CW and computer savvy has set up--I
suspect they think themselves smarter than the computer... maybe... grin

Indeed, a very good programmer would inject "nuances" into the way the app
translated his keyboard code to morse, making it virtually impossible for them
to tell they were copying automaton generated code, at a very respectable
speed! grin

I would think it would be a game, an enjoyable one...


John, that discussion took place in here a few years ago, my
remarking on what I'd seen, lent my Icom HF receiver for an
air test, on an ADAPTIVE decoder for morse. It was written
by a professional programmer as an intellectual exercise for
his own benefit, just wondering if it could be done. The
ADAPTIVE part was in automatically adjusting to the differences
in weighting of dits and dahs, their combination resulting in
a word rate equivalent. The ADAPTIVE part took most of the
source code...the translation of morse characters to ASCII for
immediate display was a small, small part of the source, just
a small look-up table in effect. It was done on a medium-old
clock rate PC but would be a snap to work at a 2 GHz clock.

To reverse the process, to add weighting to dits and dahs, even
to having different weighting for different characters, is a
snap with a random number routine. That wasn't done, but is
viable without much alteration of the source.

The PCTA extras in here will have NONE of such things! They
will attempt to THRASH anyone in a monumental display of deus
ex machina worthy of the most devout Luddite. shrug

don dit


  #30  
Old August 4th 05, 06:22 PM
an old friend
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote:
What you folks are describing is just a form of RTTY using Morse Code
as the
encoding method, rather than ASCII or Baudot or some other scheme.


indeed we are

Of course it can be done, and has been done. Why it would be done is
another
issue. It is certainly not a "better way".


that does depend on the goal, and the operator. Personaly I find the
idea of the manual morse and compter morse interacting the only
redeeming virtue of the mode (please I know you disagree but go along
for a minute) That someone could use the simple assembly of the QRP rig
to reach out to a station like mine reading fby machine and sending it
back the same way. It is one the few occasion I can realy see much use
in the mode during an emergency gives the user the low signal abilities
of RTTY or PSK 31 but allowing the station in the affected area to
despense with a PC

Thus it is 'better" in some ways, indeed I am a much better operator of
computer morse than manual and it would make my staion a bteer station
by your standards (more modes more abilities)

so where your beef?


it is not your cup of tea sure fine


Consider a bicycle. If another wheel is added, the rider doesn't need
to worry about falling over, so the skill required to ride it is
greatly reduced.
Add a small gasoline engine and a suitable transmission, and
pedaling becomes much easier. A simple cover will protect the rider
from rain
and other inclement weather.

Eventually you wind up with a small, three-wheeled automobile that
could win
the Tour de France. Except it's not a bicycle anymore, and its rider
isn't
a cyclist by any stretch of the imagination.

Or consider the piano. Pianos and similar keyboard instruments have
been around
for hundreds of years. It takes considerable skill and practice to play
them, and
reading sheet music is a skill of its own.

With modern computers and software, however, one can simply have a
machine that
scans in the sheet music and turns it into a "performance" - without
all those
lessons, practice, etc.


all depends on what you want, to listen or to play

There are many such analogies. But they are lost on some people - those
who
Shaw described as "knowing the price of everything and the value of
nothing."



John Smith wrote:
Len:

Yep, that is one way alright, and produces good results, there are others,
some better.

Adaptive learning by the program is the key, and the program must learn
what the senders' length of a di to a dah is, and the breath of the width
he is spanning of each the di and the dah.

The amateur abbreviations are in a table, and the dictionary from a spell
checker can be borrowed to check decoded morse words against which are not
abbreviations.

You are right, a high speed machine affords you time to do
abundant error checking--and here is where you gain close to 100% accuracy
from, final fall back is the ear and the mind, to correct any mistakes the
program cannot, yet, handle...

All words which do not match the table of abbreviations or the dictionary
have a copy of that word thrown into an error file, along with di's
represented by periods and dah's represented by underscores or hyphens, of
the word thought to be an error. This error file can be studied later and
the program "tweaked" to handle such errors in the future.

However, what interests me most is your knowledge on the subject, you most
certainly have a good grasp of the logic necessary to begin to put one
together.

Perhaps you have programmed and played with such yourself? Perhaps you
have a relative or friend in the field?

John

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:23:57 -0700, LenAnderson wrote:

From: "John Smith" on Tues 2 Aug 2005 20:29

b.b.:

They are not "sending code so poorly that a pimply-faced No-Code Tech with a
code reader..." can't read it, they are attempting to send so badly that a
computer running software coded by one both CW and computer savvy has set up--I
suspect they think themselves smarter than the computer... maybe... grin

Indeed, a very good programmer would inject "nuances" into the way the app
translated his keyboard code to morse, making it virtually impossible for them
to tell they were copying automaton generated code, at a very respectable
speed! grin

I would think it would be a game, an enjoyable one...

John, that discussion took place in here a few years ago, my
remarking on what I'd seen, lent my Icom HF receiver for an
air test, on an ADAPTIVE decoder for morse. It was written
by a professional programmer as an intellectual exercise for
his own benefit, just wondering if it could be done. The
ADAPTIVE part was in automatically adjusting to the differences
in weighting of dits and dahs, their combination resulting in
a word rate equivalent. The ADAPTIVE part took most of the
source code...the translation of morse characters to ASCII for
immediate display was a small, small part of the source, just
a small look-up table in effect. It was done on a medium-old
clock rate PC but would be a snap to work at a 2 GHz clock.

To reverse the process, to add weighting to dits and dahs, even
to having different weighting for different characters, is a
snap with a random number routine. That wasn't done, but is
viable without much alteration of the source.

The PCTA extras in here will have NONE of such things! They
will attempt to THRASH anyone in a monumental display of deus
ex machina worthy of the most devout Luddite. shrug

don dit


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Morse training tape KHB General 46 August 11th 05 01:07 PM
Morse Code: One Wonders... and Begins to Think ! [ -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . ] RHF Shortwave 0 January 5th 04 03:49 PM
Response to "21st Century" Part One (Code Test) N2EY Policy 6 December 2nd 03 04:45 AM
Some comments on the NCVEC petition D. Stussy Policy 13 August 5th 03 04:23 AM
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. Keith Policy 1 July 31st 03 03:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.