RadioBanter - View Single Post

May 17th 04, 05:24 PM

(William) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
In article ,
(William) writes:

(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.

No, you didn't. You isquoted it, in such a way that the meaning was
changed.

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.

That's correct. *IF* such changes were made *in the future*, the test
*would act* as a disincentive.

Which is quite a different thing from what you wrote:

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

*are* is present tense. *Would be* is future conditional tense. Your
misquote changes the meaning. So it's neither a quote nor a
paraphrase.

Is that correct?

See above. Now you can argue the details all you want but the fact
remains your misquote does not have the same meaning.

So a Morse Exam can only be a disincentive if it's in the future,

It can only be a disincentive to Morse Code *use* if it is required
for Morse Code use but not for other mode use.

That's what I wrote. Not:

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

which is what *you* wrote, and incorrectly said was a paraphrase of
what I wrote.

even
though many, many, many amateurs

How many?

have posted here that it has been a
disincentive in the past, and is currently a disincentive.

So what? They're entitled to their opinion, just as I am.

Or do you think that I am not entitled to express an opinion here?

And only you can say what is a disincentive in the amateur world, and
all other opinions are wrong?

Not at all. Just don't attribute an opinion to me that isn't what I
wrote.

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.

You could have quoted me accurately, but you didn't.

Then you could have corrected it a long, long time ago.

Your mistakes are not my responsibility.

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'm not Steve. Despite your calling me names and characterizing me as
his "pea-pod brother", I'm not him. Not even close.

So you really do read all of my posts, or at least make an effort.

Not at all.
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.

That's true! You misquoted.

It would have to be presented as a quote to do that.

You're still mistaken about it.

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.

Then why did you misquote me? Why all the fuss about the historical
item I posted?

I do have a problem with inaccurately holding up soldiers as
amateurs.

Where was that done?

Fact is, many WW1 and WW2-era radio operators were also amateurs. Many
were recruited specifically because they *were* radio amateurs. This
is well documented fact.

Silencing of the transmitters is also a well documented fact.

Irrelevant to the post about WAR.

And the flavor of the post was about contributions that
amateur radio makes, was it not?

Look it up. You obviously have more time for newsgrouping than I.

I think we put out about equal time,

You're mistaken. Again.

despite your claim that you don't read my posts.

I don't read most of them. Would you prefer that I read none of them?
OK, Done.

PLONK