RadioBanter - View Single Post

May 18th 04, 12:25 AM

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

Can a Morse Code Exam be a disincentive for other modes?

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.

But in the proposal quoted above, the Morse Code Exam is not a
disincentive for other modes.

If there were EVER a reason to have a Morse Code Exam, it would be to
ensure that a person operating (using) CW knew how to do so. The
above proposal does EXACTLY that. But you say it's a disincentive. I
say that's too bad.

even
though many, many, many amateurs

How many?

Don't know, I haven't kept count.

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?

You have before, and I saw no one stopping you.

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.

So the Morse Code Exam has never been a disincentive to any mode,
including CW, ever in the history of the amateur radio service?

This is fascinating. I've known several NO CODE Technicians that
learned Morse Code and operated CW on 2M without having ever taken a
Morse Code Exam at the time.

Your position has always been that it's imperative for all amateurs
pass a Morse Code Exam prior to having CW privs. Except when they
don't have to pass a Morse Code Exam for other priveleges. In that
case, the Morse Code Exam is a disincentive to CW use!!!

Holy Cow!!!

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 think I nailed it.

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.

So you just happened upon two (2) of my posts out of many hundreds
over the past several month. What are the odds?

You are one (1) lucky guy.

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.

Citation, please.

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.

Relevant. Whatever they were doing, it was NOT amateur radio.

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.

Of course. I think I nailed it. Again.

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

I don't read most of them.

Yet you manage to zing right into the doozies, somehow. You are one
(1) lucky guy.

Would you prefer that I read none of them?

If you're going to be snippy about it, yes.

OK, Done.

See? You didn't even wait for an answer.

PLONK

You've made a series of astounding and rediculous statements over the
past couple of months. If I weren't here to point them out, who
would? The PCTA lock-step marches on.

Best of Luck.