RadioBanter - View Single Post

May 16th 04, 05:17 PM

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(William) wrote in message . com...

Nope, like your pea-pod brother TAFKA Jim/N2EY saying, and I'm
paraphrasing,

" ~Morse Code exams are a disincentive to CW use.~ "

Brian,

You're not paraphrasing what I wrote. You're misquoting me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: N2EY )
Subject: My Idea For A New License Structure
View: Complete Thread (48 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Date: 2004-01-31 07:50:35 PST

In article ,

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

For implementation sometime AFTER the "code issue" is resolved:

For some folks, it will only be resolved when there is no code testing
at all.

(1) Amateur Basic.

Forty question test with access to 144mHz, 50Mhz, 28mHz, 21mHz,
18mHz, 7mHz and 1.8mHz.

Why no 80, 30, 20, or 12 meters? Why not allow 222 in hopes of
increasing
use of the band?

Same phone allocations as other licensees on HF bands.

You mean same as Extras have now?

Morse Code endorsement required for opera-
tion in lower 100kHz of any band.

Bad idea. Acts as a disincentive to use CW and digital modes, and as
an
incentive to use voice only!
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Jim, I paraphrased your statment. You stated, and the idea was, if
the CW exam is dropped for voice, and if retained for CW use, it would
act as a disincentive for CW to be used in the lower 100 KHz of any
band.

Is that correct?

When I pointed out that Morse Code exams have always been a
disincentive to amateur radio, he clammed up and won't respond.

I don't respond to most of your posts because they're not worth my
time to read.

You could have responded immediately to my direct post to your
statement about the CW exam being a disincentive.

I just don't have the time to read all the
back-and-forth between you and Steve.

Nor does Steve, but he makes an effort.

I came across this one by chance and am responding.

Or when he held up some OT amateurs who saved the day in WWII, but I
pointed out that we had no operating priveleges in WWII.

Another misquote.

I didn't quote nor did I paraphrase.

I posted a historic item about the use of Morse Code by our military
in WW2. Some of the operators were hams. No claim was made that they
were operating amateur radio stations. But some folks get all riled up
over *anything* positive being posted about Morse Code, even if it
happened over 60 years ago.

I don't have a problem with historical fact or even Morse Code use
today. I do have a problem with inaccurately holding up soldiers as
amateurs. And the flavor of the post was about contributions that
amateur radio makes, was it not?

Do you agree with Steve that, " Sorry Hans, MARS IS Amateur
Radio. "

btw - ever hear of WERS?

Is this the reciprocol of Steve's Law, where

"Sorry Hans, Amateur Radio IS MARS."

He clammed up and won't respond.

I'm responding now. You are misquoting what I wrote, probably because
you didn't understand it.

His silence is truly golden

Time is money.

Then be succinct, and do clear up any misunderstandings right away.