Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Indeed. You managed to cobble together a paragraph which doesn't
address my comments at all.

Tsk. One is REQUIRED to "address your comments," your
royalness? :-)

Not at all, your Foghorn Lenhorn-ness. You can type a paragraph about
regional variations in Swahili dialect in response to someone's input on
the possibilities for the introduction of errors in RTTY messages. It's
just that doing so will make you look rather simple-minded.

Tsk. Try to stay focussed. I wasn't "introducing Swahili dialect"
into anything. :-)

That's right, you introduced equally unrelated. Then again, you don't
have to address my comments ;-)

Can a morse radiotelegraph circuit introduce error or is it supposedly
free from error of any kind?

It isn't necessarily free of error, Len. Then again, I've not claimed
that it is.

Well, I certainly don't see things which aren't there. :-) :-)

Tsk. You are seeing things not there continually.

Which things are not there continually?

I made no remark about "introducing Swahili dialects." You did.

Your response was equally irrelevant.

No, I haven't forgotten any of those things. My experience in such
things is much more recent than your own and it is therefore fresher in
my memory. All of those things introduce a time lag.

Tsk. Are you saying that TTY "introduces a time lag" now?

We'll never know. You snip the relevant portions.

Are you also saying manual morse is instantaneous?

I don't think so.

More tsk. You should be out educating all the rest of the
radio services on the supposed efficacy of morse code and
manual on-off carrier keying.

I have no interest in educating the rest of the radio world in anything.
You may, if you like.

All the rest of those radio services that once used morse have
dropped it for communications purposes.

So? What is that supposed to mean for the service which uses it
commonly and regularly?

Then there are a number of radio services which never bothered
with any morse code when they began.

Did you have a point?

But, you will then "argue" that "this is amateur radio" as if it was
a haven, shrine, or religious temple for morse code and that all
amateurs MUST test for it...won't you? :-)

As pointed out quite a few times to you, thousands of radio amateurs use
morse daily despite what the "rest of the radio world" decides to do.

They surely do "affect" morse reception, but you were touting the
superiority of RTTY.

Incorrect. I was simply pointing out that morse code telegraphy
is the SLOWEST of all modes available to U.S. radio amateurs.

Incorrect. That isn't what you were doing. Since you don't use morse
and aren't a radio amateur, why do you worry about morse throughput?

But, you cannot keep on the subject and must always attack
the persons of those who disagree with you. Tsk.

You can't possibly realize how silly the above statement makes you look.

Those "home hobby ham stations" use RTTY too, Leonard.

You don't, do you? :-)

Why, yes, I do.

I'm quite
familiar with the use of FSK. It is still effected by noise and
multipath distortion.

...and on-off keyed carriers are NOT so affected? :-)

By noise? Sure. By multipath distortion? Not much at all.

So, if I've got this right, we save on paper but spend on equipment.
There's a dilemma. If my morse stuff is in memory on a keyer or PC, I
can resend it quickly and easily without resorting to any paper.

Tsk. "Spend on equipment?" What are you communicating with
on this newsgroup? Morse code into your telephone line? :-)

Tsk. So simple-minded you walked into that very visible trap
like a blind man trying to bluff.

Some "very visible trap"! I regularly use morse from my car. I don't
have a PC in my car.

The fact is that while FEC can be of some help, it is still subject to
errors. It isn't a robust system like packet or Sitor/Amtor.

...and, to you, of course, manual morse code is without error. :-)

I've not stated such.

Lacking a few received characters in morse? Why, just fill in the
blanks. Who will know? :-)

One thing for su You won't.

I don't have much in the way of negative criticism for non-morse
communication methods, Leonard. Fact is, I use most of 'em.

Of course you do...oh, yes, everything from facsimile to slow-
scan TV. :-)

That's right.

Fact is,
on/off keying cuts it quite well in the communications world of now.

By whom? Third- and fourth-world nations who don't have any
capital monies to invest? :-)

By radio amateurs across the globe, those with CASH and those without.

Face the facts. The rest of the radio world does NOT use morse
code for communications.

Why this concern about what the "rest of the radio world" is doing?
Hams aren't required to follow other services.

That hasn't changed just because you aren't proficient in its use.

TRY to stay focussed on the subject instead of (once more)
launching into personalities.

Tell you what: You settle on a subject and perhaps we can do that...if
you can't keep from launching into personalities.

TRY to understand that the rest of the radio communications
world does NOT use morse code for communications.

Try coming up with a valid explanation as to why I should concern myself
with that.

Despite the statement above, your diatribe doesn't read like someone who
supports use of morse code.

Tsk. You ARE seeing things that aren't there...

Incorrect. You've snipped them so they aren't there.

Did you confuse me with you there for a moment?

Never happen. I know me. I know you. You do NOT know me.

Interesting that you believe you can know me without my knowing you.
I've read your stuff for nearly a decade.


Past tense?

I'm using the Internet to send these messages. Whether that uses
radio or other means is not an issue.

We'll never know. Your snippage removes any context.

Except by your misdirection
and seeing things that aren't there.

I can't see them. You snipped 'em.

That's a load of manure, Leonard. That isn't the "only" at all. It is
any radio amateur who uses morse and supports continuation of morse
testing. I, for one, couldn't care less if you decide to "emulate" me
or not.

Irrelevant.

Very relevant.

NO one cares to "emulate" you. :-)

You aren't in a position to know that. :-)

What YOU write here isn't the case simply because YOU write it. Radio
amateurs worldwide are using morse code daily for real communications.
That you don't approve doesn't change that.

Again, irrelevant.

Very relevant. Why should radio amateurs follow the methods of
unrelated services?

At issue is the morse code TEST, not whether or not "Dave" or his ilk
"use morse."

The issue, according to you, is that other radio services don't use
morse.
Do try to stay focussed.

Note that USE has no real relation to the MORSE TEST.

I don't agree.

Or do you spend all your amateur radio time "taking tests?" :-)

I'll spend my amateur radio time doing what I choose. You spend your
amateur radio time....Oh, never mind.

There isn't any "higher morse rate" testing.

Isn't that awful...hi hi.

You seemed to think it an issue a couple of posts ago.

You aren't even involved.

Tsk...with role models like the archtypical PCTA extra, who would
want to be "involved" in amateur radio? :-)

Lots of folks want to and do. You haven't and won't.

It would really take an arrogant bully to
expect radio amateurs to swallow your view of how amateur radio should
be regulated.

Tsk. I feel that the USA should have the FCC regulate amateur radio,
all according to the Communications Act of 1934 plus the Congressional
law of 1996.

*Poof!* You've got your wish.


What do you know of the "fun" of amateur radio?

Tsk. What do you know of "fun" in ANYTHING? :-)

I know all about the fun in amateur radio. I know quite a bit about the
fun in usenet. Couldn't you come up with a meaningful answer?

Well, there you have it--the opinion of one never involved in amateur
radio; one whom it would seem finds that five word per minute exam an
insurmountable obstacle to his entry into amateur radio.

Tsk. Still seeing things that aren't there.

Not really. I just took a look at amateur radio. I didn't see you.

Still tossing out personal pejoratives instead of discussing the subjects.

THAT is the "fun" that appears in this amateur radio newsgroup. :-)

Why, Leonard, that is PRECISELY your mode of operation here on a regular
basis. I know. We're to do as you say, not as you do.

So you believe that all that goes on in HF amateur radio is the use of
morse? You don't seem to have any idea of what goes on.

Tsk. You don't have any idea of how to discuss things civilly.

Why, Leonard. That is precisely your mode of operation here.

Petition your government for redress of your numerous grievances.

I have. :-)

Don't get upset with me because the government hasn't seen things your
way.

You don't like that. TS for you. :-)

I wouldn't mind if you petitioned government for something each and
every day of the remainder of your life.

Different interests? What are your "interests" in amateur radio, Len?
What do YOU consider "vital" to ham radio enjoyment?

Freedom from the oppression of olde-tyme hammes insistent on
ruling over all others would be a good start... :-)

Oppression? Oooooooh! Are you a victim now?

Oh, tsk. That would eliminate you, wouldn't it? Can't have that.

No, you can't have that.

You have to stay here and effect ethnic cleansing of U.S. amateur
radio.

You aren't an ethnic group and you aren't in amateur radio.


You have to be in if you:

1. want to partake in those things "vital to ham radio enjoyment".

This was NOT a discussion about "partaking" in anything.

Why'dja snip the relevant portion, Leonard? I directly responded to
something written by you.

2. want to be seen as credible.

Lets "Dave" out...he is INcredible. :-)

Couldn't you come up with anything original?

The FCC regulates U.S. civil radio.

You aren't the FCC.

NEITHER ARE YOU. :-)

What's with the caps?

I'd have thought you'd have picked up on this one by now. Those people
are paid to regulate amateur radio. They are PROFESSIONALS.

YOU are not a professional regulator...just an amateur one.

That's incorrect. I don't regulate amateur radio.

That's be another incorrect response. I'm a participant.

Participants are more important than regulators.

Tell that to Congress. Have them change the Communications Act
of 1934. :-)

No changes are needed. No regulators are needed where there are no
participants.



You're an old thing and I'm not demanding to keep you.

Tsk. Again with the personal pejoratives. :-)

So...you are "young?" :-)

Everything is relative, Leonard. I'm just a kid when compared to you.

Are you going to STOP me?!? Oh, my. Tsk.

Why, no. You do that. Consider yourself stopped by inertia.

Tsk. You, repeat YOU, keep trying to stop me.

There, there, Leonard. I'll give back your study guides, repair your
practice oscillator and allow you access to the site where you can
download the appropriate forms.

Only your own failure to act keeps you from an amateur radio license.

Your technique (word used instead of other nasty ones) does NOT
work!

Oh? You mean you'll have that Extra "right out of the box" sometime in
the forseeable future?

Sunnuvagun!

It has been pointed out on numerous occasions that no one has prevented
you from spilling your guts.

Feel free to do your own seppuku. Nobody is stopping you... :-)

But you just can't force anyone to take
your stuff seriously.

You aren't "anyone."

You may not like it but, yes, I am someone.

You are the arrogant bully of the newsgroup,
even better than the gunnery nurse. :-)

Actually, I believe that title is rightfully yours. You've earned it.

You attempt to push others around quite frequently.

You often confuse me with yourself.

Tsk. You gods of radio seem to think you are inviolate. Nobody is
supposed to say ANYTHING nasty to you dieties. :-)

Oh, here we go again. One time I'm a god. The next, I'm no god.
Fact is, I'm a radio amateur. You are not.

It's tough being
arrogant about amateur radio when you aren't actually a licensed ham
though.

It's much much more arrogant when you ARE a licensed ham (either
FCC or FDA) and you keep on trying to push folks around, strip
citizens of their Rights such as the First Amendment. Tsk.

Funny that you mention the First Amendment as if your rights have
somehow been taken away. That view is as incorrect now as it was the
very first time you tried to sell it.

First Amendment. Refresh your memory with what it means.

It says that my right to free speech is equal to your own.

Tsk. It does NOT say your right is in any way stronger than mine.

Yeah? And?

Yet, throughout in here, that's what you keep on claiming.

Is it? You've written and written and written and written. I've not
attempted to prevent you from doing so at any time. I have often
ridiculed you and laughed at you. I intend to continue doing so.


It makes no
requirement for me to accept your views or to refrain from giving you
the raspberries.

YOU would NOT come even close to accepting a contrary idea
to what you hold... :-)

You have no way of knowing that. All that you can be certain of is that
I find your ideas on regulating amateur radio to be laughable. I find
you to be a peculiar oddity--a man obsessed with regulating that in
which he has no part.

You misread. I wrote that you have no experience in *amateur* radio.

According to "Dave," one can't have ANY "interest in radio" without
getting an amateur radio license! :-)

You've been corrected on this one a number of times. You persist in
writing the same thing. It is a lie.

Wasn't any qualifier to the word "radio" when "Dave" wrote it. :-)

Yes, there certainly was.

Heh heh heh heh. I'm a long-time veteran of computer-modem
communications with a survivor's thick virtual skin. :-)

Virtual skin? Is that like those "message knuckles" you wrote about
some time back?

LIke I've seen lots of computer-modem bullies in the last 20 years.
Most of those are gone. I'm still here... :-)

That doesn't fill us in on "virtual skin" or "message knuckles".

Well, you seem to have it on points over those who tired of your
nonsense and left, and over those whose respiration stopped. I'm
betting that I can outlast you.

Anything is possible... :-)

Any many things are likely. :-)

You are a god of radio. One of the Four Morsemen of this
Apocalypse.

You seem to have some trouble making up your mind on the issue. There
is an archived record on the subject.

You probably lose some folks as soon as you start your "jump through the
same hoops" schpiel.

Poor baby. Still can't get used to what others say of the morse
test, can you? :-)

Poor baby. You can't get used to the idea that you'll have to climb
that 5 wpm mountain in order to partake in HF amateur radio.

You aren't yet a newcomer and you'll not be able
to jump through my hoops. They no longer exist.

Incorrect.

Quite correct. I took a 20 wpm morse exam. It isn't possible for you
take it. I took and passed written exams for the Novice, General,
Advanced and Extra. It is no longer possible for you to do so. No
exams are given for two of those classes. Exams very different from
those taken by me are now being used to test for both the General and
Amateur Extra.

But, it is impossible to get you to admit to an error.

I'd first have to make one.

You are a god of radio and therefore inviolate.

No, I'm inwestvirginia.

I'm sure that it seems that way to a guy with an obvious inferiority
complex; a guy who sees demands in ordinary statements; a guy who views
the comments of those who don't agree with him as "arrogant",
"bullying", "imperious".

Now, now, don't get upset...the mirror you are looking into when
writing that has YOUR reflection! :-)

Can't be, Leonard. You're the guy who uses the terms "arrogant",
"bullying" and "imperious". You're the guy who sees simple statements
as DEMANDS. You're mistaken.

Now, watch it come to pass.

Tsk. "Dave" keeps on with the personal pejoratives and gets all
flustered when they aren't received well.

The only thing you could do to fluster me would be to swear that you
actually like them.


Try to play with your Orion some more. Seriously, not trivially.
Can't have a god of radio use equipment trivially. :-)

Irrelevant.


Dave K8MN