an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:

Nope I said I can't when restricted to just the use of my ear

Ear...fingers...flashing lights.

You're incapable. Period.

without using my PC No i can't

My point made. That's what I said in the first place.

No It is not what you said

You said I could not responf to Morse Code distres Signal

I can

No...YOU can't.

Your computer MAY, but only if YOU can recognize the distress in
the first place.

As I said...POINT MADE!

But I never have my radios without having at least one of my pc's, So I
can Alawys do morse Code if I need to

You carry a PC on your belt? In your car? Always?

In my car always, Not a PC on my Belt but my wireless PDA and I am
never far from my car.

You're never far from caring hands that can heal you of your
illnesses, either, Mark, but it seems you won't use those effectively
either!

Unless, of course, you're now changing your story and claiming you
CAN learn Morse?

nope No need to learn Morse in order to use morse

Even Jim adknowledges that

break
Regardless of the mehtodology, YOU won't learn...

Lie

Nope. Truth.

I can't learn it Tried for years, under the assitance of Experts, the
same same ones that you flame me for ever having seen

You WON'T do it.

I already have just not by a methodlogy that I am allowed to use for e
a Code test

You can't do it. Won't do it.

I can do and Have done it

Face facts

But WAIT! Just a handful of lines up you said YOU CAN'T...! ! !

Manual Morse Code just isn't that specail for modern PCs

It takes up a lot less memory than a spellchecker. Old TRS-80's
could do it with the software held on cassete tapes!

I have logged long ragcrews in Cw I was doing it to help other hams
pass there tests and so rather than typing at each other In Mirc or
other means we chatted over the air me all PC for encoding and decoding
him by ear and keyer toreply.

No...YOU didn't log "long ragchews"...Your PC did.

if you prefer

It's not what I prefer...

It's about you misepresenting the truth again.

And anyone that can follow my typing converted to Morse can pass a test
at the same speed

Except you.

What are you saying?

If I could follow my typed morse at any speed of Course I could pass a
test at the same speed. So my statement is prefectly accurate

No, it's not.

YOU can't pass a Morse Code exam at ANY speed...You said that in
THIS VERY POST!

Indeed I could also pass Morse Code test at any speed with my trusty pc
at my side

No...YOU could not pass a Morse Code test.

You refuse to acept facts

You refuse to use a spellchecker.

yes I do

That makes you a voluntary idiot.

no it makes me at worst stuborn

No.
yes

Nope.

It makes you a voluntary idiot.

nope

Yep.

You want me to spend time and energy on what you want?

Nope. I want to be able to read your thoughts without having to
interpret individual words.

I don't want you reading my thoughts at all.

Then why bomb the NG with ANY of it, Markie..?!?!

But I want you to work to read my stuff.

Then we've proven who the bully is here, Markie!

Thanks!

To make you think, if that is possible for you

Sure it is..

As a matter of fact I have pushed you to improve your spelling.

It's worked.

You want it given to you

Nope. I want it in the same English that everyone else uses here.

Go for it yourself you lazy bum

Not lazy.

You want my words then work for it, don't ask for it to be Given to you

You don't want to be called an idiot, a fool, or illiterate.

Yet you do those things that substantiate my claims.

Willing or not, I've pushed you to improve yourself. But you have
a long way to go.

You are a fool if you think you can bully me into doing your will

Not bullying, but you've already DONE it, Markie!

Nope

Yep!

As I stated in another thread...

as you lied in another thread

No, I haven't.

But anyone who's been following any of this can attest to the
improvement in your spelling over the last several weeks.

You claim an IQ of 248 and more-than-adequate financial and
material resources, but can't seem to fix simple problems without being
taken by the hand and guided step-by-step.

you claim to undersatnd emdcine without knowing that Leraning Disorders
are not simple problems

"understand" "medicine" "learning"

I know they're not. But they are also fixable.

That I've pushed you into doing it here already is proof of it.

That you deny it in the face of several weeks of evidence to the
contrary proves me right.

Intellegnce and Dyslexia are not incompatble. If you were educated you
would know that

"Intelligence"

I am educated. "Informed", too.

Neither lead me to believe you're as intelligent as you claim.

How do you know to record one signal over another that MIGHT be a
distress signal?

if I here SOS or anything like it ....DUH

"hear"

You're unlikely to recognize it under ANY circumstances.

Likely? Unlikely who know?

"I know"

If the Ship is out on Superior. I may well hear it and reconize it.

It could be in your back yard and you'd not know.

indeed how likely is it today athat A ship would Use Morse at all in
distress?

Does it matter? You'd not be able to process it in any case.

Now agreed I am not as likely to hear the signal, indeed even if you or
Dave were at my rig it would harder to read the CW signal since I don't
bother with specail Filters for CW etc. I would be looking through the
band in SSB sized slices et, so I am more likely to miss it, but IF I
hear it I will respond

"special"

No, Markie...If you're listening in "SSB sized slices", you are
MORE likely to hear a CW distress signal.

Really if you say so, that isn't what ohers are saying but..

"others"

Yes, I say so. Your likelyhood of initially hearing a distress
signal using a modern Amateur transceiver is far greater if you're
listening without filters.

Put your hands up to your eyes with the lateral aspect of the palm
by the outer orbits and the medial aspects at 180d to the canthus of
the eyes. You have almost complete field of vision.

Now rotate your hands to 90d from the axis of the canthus of the
eyes. Your field of vision is now markedly reduced.

The same happens with the use of filters in an SSB/CW radio.

I have done so many times

I bet you have.

thank you

That wasan't a gratuity, Markie.

but it should have been, and I was showing more manners than you

No, you weren't.

You were "assuming".

Indeed a FD station where I was doing so may even be in Your log

Not in my log it isn't.

maybe, maybe not, It would be a Club Call of course not KB9RQZ

And I still doubt I have ever worked ANY station wherein YOU were
working the CW station, computer or otherwise.

and you may be right, but you don't know, and for that matter nethier
do I

I AM right and yes I DO know.

GEE to bad they could not have lasted a bit longer at least I tired

"tried"

But not very hard.

Really?

More lies on Stevies part.

Nope. Evidence on Markie's part proves...

With the ARS luddite mentality on Morse Code, it takes a lot to
assemble and esp test a station using Computer Morse.

It doesn't take 5 minutes.

Plug the speaker into the sound card, turn the computer on and
load the software.

In any case it takes more time than it takes me to just copy the
signal and call the Coast Gurad or AFRCC.

and Should that Unlikely occasion arise I will do what I can

Which will be too little too late.

It won't matter HOW fast it's sent...If you can't do it, you can't
do it.

Liar

Nope. I could send it at 3 WPM and you'd still screw it up.

Nope but 5 wpm (a preset speed in the program would be better)

My ears don't need a "preset".

If I saw your call though I stop the operation at once

Scardiy-Cat!

We keep trying to get you to use an "external modem" in the form
of a spell checker and you cna't seem to master that. What's to make us
believe you'd be any more functional using a PC for Morse Code
purposes?

Well You know I will put out effort to save a life, I will not to
please a bully

If you managed to save a life, you would please a lot of people.

And if a bully shows up here, I am sure s/he'd be pleased too.

I know my limits...(SNIP)

Obviously not.

sure do

Obviously not.

Knowing one limits pushing them where desirable is part of living


(UNSNIP)...and I prepare for them.

Again, obviously not.

sure do

Obviously not.

just not in a Stevie approved manner

That's a list somewhere?

(UNSNIP)...I considered long and hard
the Claim of the Procoders about distress, and did something about it.
I aquired the tools to deal with the issue, maybe I (and my Pc) are not
as Good as you or Dave, maybe we are, but we are better than Many
stations that passed the Code test and forgot code the next day,
meaning I am good enough for the current bands

Are you?

sure are

More fit than any of the Code users that boast of lacking a Mike
altogether

Lacking a Mike?

I have a John, Paul, George and Ringo here...do they count?

The Last a point that the ITU and the FCC agree is correct

I wish I knew what that was supposed to mean.

Then of course you are stupid

No...I just can't figure out what that sentence was supposed to
say!

It means that the ITU and FCC agree there is no need for manual code
testing or manaul code use, while both reamin premitted

"permitted"

So far the FCC hasn't made that official.

But I could respond in seconds tell them someone was trying to decode
and tell em things to do in sending there signal that would help my PC
to copy

How can you send a message in response TO a message and tell them
you're trying to "decode" it when you don't even know why the original
message was sent...?!?!

I can send a message quote "to station apearing to sending SOS on this
Frequency DE KB9RQZ please repeat now nature of you emergency, please
be adivised that Sending slowy and evenly is required for this station
to receive decode and attempt to assit you over"

In which case you would have violated on of the principle
guidelines for aiding stations in distress....DO NOT TRANSMIT unless
you are immdeiately able to assist.

nothing imporper about the message

Sure it is.

You have encumbered the distressed operator with having to
accomodate YOUR inadequcies when he COULD be talking to someone who
could help him.

I am prepared at once to assisit

"assist"

Not unless the message was by voice.

Indeed since the program I have has memories for sending caned messages
that one I can send by hitting key f1

"canned"

Unless, of course, you meant you strike the mesaages with a stick
before you send them...?!?!

to say something is "canned" meaning prepared is a clearly understood
by any one using thier brain

But that's NOT what I was addressing.

I WAS addressing your improper use of the word "caned". To be
"caned" is to be punished by being struck across the back or buttocks
with a cane.

the word you refuse to say, the answer to the question of when you
worked those out of band hams did you know they were out of band or
not. Not were you responible to know or any other evasion.

Why, Mark, is that an "evasion"...?!?!

It remains the point. He wasn't required to know.

it was never the point

Sure it was.

Was he required to know the OTHER station's operating limits, and
WAS he, by his Tanzanian license, restricted from communicating with
them.

It's the WHOLE point!

it never was the point

The point was DID he know not wether he was required to

If he was NOT required to know there was STILL no violation since
his licensing authority didn't deem it important enough to address in
the first place THEY didn't deem it a violation!

wrong simply wrong

Nope. Simply nope.

If he knew they were out of band he was wrong

Where is the law or regulation that established his error?

that he was not required to know does not that fact

Where is the law or regualtion that establishes his error?

you dance and dance avoiding this question

In either case, he's "in the clear".

Dave had NO OBLIGATION to know who was in or out of the bands per
THIER administration's requiremments.

None under US law...None under Tanzanian law...None under
International law.

more evasion

It's not "evasion".

It's a matter or complying with laws and regulations.

A question even YOU said was moot!

it is evasion
since it has nothing to do with wether the operation was legal or not

It wasn't illegal, knucklehead! That's the WHOLE point! There
was NO standing regulation that addressed it in the first place!

indeed there is but it is matter of Law, you may not knowingly aid
another in the comission of a crime

WHAT CRIME?

No "crime" was perpetrated.

Dave had NO requirement to know if the French operators were "in
band" or not.

Even if they WERE "out of band", the point STILL remains that Dave
was NOT out of band.

There is NO international regulation that establishes even a HINT
of culpability for communication with stations that MAY be operating
beyond the scope of thier license!

Not a one!

Which means YOU haven't got a leg to stand on.

the longer you 2 dance around missing the point the better it gets

There's no "dancing".

YOU have acknowledged that Dave wasn't required to know the French
stations limits.

YOU have acknowledged that no one could be EXPECTED to know other
stations limits...

Nope never said that

Sure you did.

No I did not

you are lying again

Nope.

Said wasn't required

Sure you did.

Yes which is not the same as saying no one could be expected

NOW LOOK WHO'S DANCING!

nothing about expected

Sure you did.

where?


more of your embellishing my words again

Nope.

sure thing

Nope.

Here's YOUR words quoted VERBATIM.

yep and nothing in there about expectations

not a word

why do you lie so badly?

No lie.

The ENTIRE quote below is about what you could expect a licensee
to know or be responsible for.


QUOTE:

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: "an_old_friend" - Find messages by this
author
Date: 9 Aug 2005 10:02:17 -0700
Local: Tues, Aug 9 2005 11:02 am
Subject: An Even BETTER Question for Brain...
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

K4YZ wrote:
b.b. wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

Yes, Mark. I told "bb" that I've never seen a branch deep enough to swim
in (follow along here) and he said that I probably "layed down" in it
though there was no indication of any probability that I would do any
such thing. I asked him what my motivation would be for doing so. If
you need further help on this stuff, I'll be happy to attempt to explain
it to you.

Dave K8MN

A better question would be to ask what your motivation was to work out
of band Frenchmen on 6 meters.

An ever better yet question (and one that's already been addressed
to but unanswered BY Brain...) is where was Dave ever responsible for
knowing what the allowed band limits by ANY foreign Amateur were?

he never said any such thing

Can YOU swear, with ABSOLUTE certainty, that EVERY foreign Amateur
you ever "worked" was operating within his/her allowed scope of
licensure?

of course not

For that matter can you swear, with ABSOLUTE certainty, that EVERY
domestic station you've ever "worked" was operating within the scope of
his/her license?

of course not

Can YOU show where in Part 97 it requires an FCC licensee to be
knowledgable of OTHER administrations licensing criteria...?!?!

of course not

Just wondering, since YOU keep making an issue of it...

But if the hams is ggod and expeenced he is likely to have a pretty
good idea

UNQUOTE

Yet YOU keep trying tio insist that it somehow applies differently
in this case...

Not at all

Sure.

The above quote proves it exactly.

Which just makes YOU look (as if it were possible) even MORE
idiotitc.

no just shows you and dave are not answering the question put

Complete the sentence, Markie.

If Dave knew (by what ever means) they were out of band when he made
the contacts then he was wrong to do it

You STILL have NOT provided ONE LINE OF APPLICABLE LAW OR
REGULATION to substantiate this claim, Markie.

If dave only learned later they were out of band then he gets a ONE
time pass.

So until/unless Dave wants to answer questions about what did he know,
and when did he know it all of this is evasion

Still no evasion.

What we DO have is Mark C Morgan caught in his own whirlpool of
silliness.

Steve, K4YZ