Thread
:
Canadian No Code Proposal Open For Comment
View Single Post
#
121
September 20th 04, 06:54 AM
Quitefine
Posts: n/a
In article ,
(William) writes:
(Quitefine) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(William) writes:
(Quitefine) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(William) writes:
(Quitefine) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:
By the way, since your Lordship doesn't understand it, I'm NOT
itching to get that mighty Nobel-quality amateur license...I'm
just
trying to argue for the elimination of the morse code test for
any
radio operator license.
Why?
If you have no interest in
becoming a radio amateur,
why do you attempt to
change the rules?
Every American should have an interest in increasing the number of
potential emergency radio operators.
A valid point.
However, Len does not
agree that amateur radio plays
any significant role in emergency
communications.
Must Len agree with everything?
No.
No???
What part of "no" did you
not understand?
NO!!!
Then what must Len agree with?
That depends on whether he
wants to be logically consistent.
Also depends on whether he
wants to be taken seriously.
However, logical consistency
requires that if someone is
going to {{{claim}}}} make the
emergency radio operator
argument, then they must also
agree that amateur radio plays
a significant role in emergency
communications.
Not everyone need make that argument.
We are talking about why Len
Anderson, who has never held
an amateur license and obviously
does not want to be a radio amateur,
is so interested in amateur license
requirements.
Need everyone with an amateur license perform emergency comms?
No.
Some only have a license so they can get cool personalized license
plates.
Is that why you hold an
amateur license?
Of course, we have noted that
logical consistency is not one of
Len's strong points.
But it is.
No, it is not. He is usually
quite illogical.
Yet logical consistency would demand that upright amateurs
disapprove of Steve Robeson/K4YZ/K4CAP's behavio[u]r.
Why?
He simply mirrors Len's
behaviour here. Your
behaviour, too. With one
important difference.
Steve does not name-call
or insult unless provoked.
Len does both without
provocation.
Is their behaviour wrong?
If so, then upright people
would disapprove of the
behaviour of all three.
But you don't.
Yes, we do. We disapprove
of the name-calling, insults,
etc.
Regardless of who is the author.
You accept Len's behaviour but
condemn Steve's.
Some people say that cellular
telephones have no significant role in emergency communications,
Those people are mistaken.
Well, well. If only Almostintimefine had chimed in six moths ago.
Of whom do you speak?
As it is, you've allowed the naysayers to think legitimate civilian
communication systems are to be shunned.
How?
yet
about every footage of hurricane action film depicted an official with
a cellular telephone.
Of course.
Of course.
Some people say that amateur radio
has no significant role in emergency
communications, because of cellilar
phones.
cellular.
They are mistaken, too.
Of course.
The valid point is that cellular phones
cannot
be absolutely relied upon for emergency
communications.
What can be absolutely relied upon for emergency communications?
Nothing is absolutely reliable.
You just never know when you
might need one,
If so, why have any tests at all?
Because we already have a radio service without tests which can be
used for emergency communications.
What radio service is that?
The services presently covered under Part 95.
What radio services are they?
How well does it function in emergencies?
Depends on how many trash mouths have emergency power, or how many
trash mouths in the unaffected area want to interfere in legitimate
emergency comms.
What are "trash mouths?"
How well has it functioned in the recent
hurricane emergencies?
and Morse Code just isn't needed to be an effective
emergency radio operator.
Morse Code has had a role
in some emergency communications
recently. These are well documented
by people who participated.
Do tell.
It is true.
Even today.
Citations?
We do not think you would
believe or accept any citations.
However, to claim that every
radio amateur must be tested on Morse
Code because there might someday be
a need to use it in an emergency is quite
a stretch of credibility.
An incredible stretch.
Most incredible, to be quite accurate.
An impossible stretch, 1991. Now let's discuss HF.
How is it impossible?
It is clear that Len's interest goes far
beyond
eliminating the Morse Code test.\
He wants to eliminate the morse code test.
And much more.
I'm the one who wants one license.
So does Len.
I don't recall him calling for any
particular license structure other than the elimination of a Morse
Code Exam for HF access.
He wants more than
the elimination of the Morse
Code test.
If you have information that contradicts what I've just posted I'd
like to see it.
Read his posts. Note how
he belittles almost everything
radio amateurs do. Note his
particular animosity to the
Morse Code itself, and any
radio amateurs who use it.
To quote a wise one:
"It is not the Morse, but the hatred"
I'm not familiar with that wise one. Who is it?
Blackguard Vox Deus
Ah, yes, Darkguard. I've heard him. He hails from the dark side.
"Darkguard" is not his name.
Do you not "have the guts" to
use his name?
He/she has demonstrated
wisdom here.
So has Jim but he is not revered.
Which "Jim"? Several have posted
here.
Repeatedly.
Repeatedly.
But he has gone over to the dark side also.
He condones K4YZ behavio[u]r.
Of whom do you speak?
Reply With Quote
