Kelly:

Attempt to kill the messenger... ancient philosophy there, but why doesn't
it surprise me the clueless always fall to it when out of legit arguments?

John

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 08:24:33 -0700, kelly wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

And I'm starting to think that some of them might be
duplicates anyhow.


Quitefine and Darkguard (nee Blackguard) indeed!

Whatta ya wanna bet that "Anon John" is not a licensed anything in
radio?

Doesn't matter - they have nothing practical to offer.

Well I dunno about that Mike, jeez, lookit all the leading-edge
"solutions" Sweetums has dumped in here over the years . . .

They're not about actually *doing* ham radio,
just arguing about it.

Too bad they cant do a better job.


Indeed

CW provides a 10dB path gain over SSB with a simple twist of the mode
selector knob. Can't wait to find out what the path gain of CW will be
vs. all the furiously hyped HF digital modes. None of which actually
exist 10-15 years later of course. Big surprise huh?

RX front ends: One can sink thousands upon thousands of bucks into
current-tech xcvrs which, by current standards, are the masters of
front-end performance. IC-7800, Orion, FT-9000, etc. IF and ONLY if the
atmospheric + QRN noise levels are below the RX noise floor. If not a
kid with a "hopeless" $200 old crapper xcvr in a quiet location will
spank the pants off any of the aforementioned big boxes.

If the kid has also learned how to use his ears to duck around strong
adjacent signals and how to copy thru his crummy RX noise floor he'll
have another pile of dB gain over the clueless who only have money,
mouths and keyboards in some combiation or another.

Beyond this comes the subject of "operator skills". Oh Good Lord I
forgot again: Discussions about operator skills have nothing to do with
technical or policy "matters".

. apologies . .

These are the realities of REAL ham radio.

Fuggem, let 'em eat cake and rant on.


Quite! - Mike KB3EIA -

w3rv