Thread
:
NCVEC Position on Code
View Single Post
#
37
August 8th 03, 04:18 AM
Floyd Davidson
Posts: n/a
ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote:
Floyd Davidson writes:
Floyd:
Perhaps the difference here is that Carl is seeking "exalted" status,
Wrong. I've yet to see any indication that he seeks any such
status. He doesn't really need to because he's had it for
apparently a significant number of years, and seems a bit modest
about it to boot.
and I'm not. I have never, in seriousness, described myself as anything
other than an "average" radio amateur.
Yeah sure. Don't you even read the crap you post Larry. That
article was filled with it, an this article was filled with it.
Anyone who hasn't done what Larry Role has done, is a nobody who
is an inferior Ham, is less than qualified, and probably should
not even be allowed to operate a station.
Who do you think you're kidding. You've been parading yourself
as the yard stick with which to measure what public service is,
what a good cw operator is, how difficult cw is to learn, what
cw speed an Extra Class should attain, how people can and should
learn cw, (repeat all of the previous, but swap radio theory with
cw), (repeat all of the previous, but swap diversity with radio
theory), and probably two or three things I missed.
Chuck it Larry, you don't come close to Carl, and you are never
going to be Mr. Average Ham, or "The Stick We Measure By" no
matter how often you crow.
So the *only* way, in your demented opinion, to be a great Radio
Amateur, is to retain "Morse/CW" skills... No none code
licensee could ever be a good ham.
I have stated many times that it *is* possible for a "no-code" licensee
to be a good ham. However, the will be lacking the useful
communications skill of Morse/CW proficiency,
You've misspelt "useless", again.
Look, I *love* CW. But I'm not stupid enough to think it is
ever going to be useful for anything other than my personal
satisfaction.
I mean, whoop dee doooooo. Larry Roll and Floyd Davidson can
both listen to a repeater ID itself and know what the callsign
is! We can also tell what kind of gibberish they use in a movie
when they send code.
Boy, that is one really great "communications skill", ain't it!
We can also exchange information in the slowest possible way at
a time when actual communications is needed if we were dumb
enough. Instead, you and others practice for the day when you
in fact *don't* do that, and instead use a decent communications
media because if you don't someone will suffer. (I was once upon
a time *very* much involved in the communications aspects of
Emergency Medical Services delivery, and have somehow *never*
heard of any potential use for cw. If you need an explanation
of why that is, I'd be happy to enlighten you.)
and I do require then
to at least acknowledge this as a meaningful difference between
themselves and hams who do possess this skill.
So you admit using your own miniscule stature as the measuring
stick.
(Two minutes of empty space is provided here, while our readers
control their laughing and regain their composure after rolling
on the floor.)
(Note that the space was compressed using a modified Lempel-Ziv
coding, which Larry may or may not be familiar with. But that's
how we got 2 minutes squeezed into only 5 empty lines. :-)
No hobbiest who forgets Morse code 10 or 20 years after passing
the test could then be a better ham than you.
Why? Well, it seems to be that you still know Morse, so they
should too!
No, I have stated that they are missing (or not using) a valuable
communications skill -- a skill which confers practical communications
capability under conditions which render other modes unusable. This
is a proven, verifiable truth -- but only CW users know it to be so.
Damned man... I've been able to use cw for 40 some years. And
I've spent all of that engaged in the business of
communications. But not one time in 40 years did I *ever* need
that skill you claim is valuable.
And I know a few hundreds of others in the business, some of
whom could use code, some of whom could not, but none of us
ever did.
You don't suppose you could just plain be wrong do you????
And they *must* explore and adopt new modes!
The Radio Amateur's Code states: "A radio amateur is PROGRESSIVE…
with knowledge abreast of science, a well-built and efficient station and
operation above reproach." -- Paul M. Segal, W9EEA, 1928.
Well goodness, ain't that great. A ham should know about tubes as
well as spark gaps! Impressive.
What do you know about Vertubi encoders, or Reed-Soloman coding?
Can you explain what "cross-pol" interference means? Or would
you have any idea why mu-law PCM coding results in a signal to
noise ratio of 37 dB because of quantization distortion?
Or are you like Extra DICK and can't understand why 20 wpm cw
working fine on a receiver with a 200 Hz bandpass filter when
a PKS31 signal doesn't work is *not* proof that cw can get through
when PKS31 cannot?
Somehow, "progressive", or "up to date", or whatever it is you'd
like to call it, is *not* an objective measure. Whatever *you*
want to use as the stick for others is going to be nothing more
than an expression of the bias that Larry Roll brings to the
table.
The fact is, Carl can probably run circles around you in many many
areas, but I don't hear him claiming that *his* expertise should be
the measure of whether you or anyone else should have a ham ticket.
I only hear you and DICK and a few others doing that.
So they can't
stick with AM, or SSB, or Slow Scan, or RTTY, or NBFM, or AMSAT,
or whatever (even though they *must* continue with CW), but
instead have to jump to whatever is the latest and the greatest.
What part of the above excerpt from the Radio Amateur's Code
suggests that "sticking with one mode" is "progressive?" I don't see it
that way, and I'm sure that W9EEA wouldn't have, either.
I don't think you speak for W9EEA. Or anyone else for that
matter. I can't see anything at all wrong with someone sticking
with one mode for their entire lifetime. And in some cases,
that may be *extremely* progressive... if, for example, they
tend to move that particular mode itself forward.
Once again, you are just trying to use Larry "I'm the One and Only
True Measuring Stick" Roll in a roll where he won't bounce.
(BTW, what *is* the latest and greatest that everyone should be
doing? I'm collecting old brass triumph style straight keys and
toying with 30 year old tube radios, does that count???)
Pursuing the collection and use of old equipment is certainly a
popular pastime among radio amateurs, but if it is done to the
exclusion of advancing your communications capabilities to include
more modern, digital modes, then you are only serving to foster the
Oh, digital modes! Why would I do that for a hobby Larry? I've
done more with digital communications that you've ever imagined
to exist. If I want to relax, I'll play with keys and tubes!
impression the public has that radio amateurs are, in fact, outdated
and NON-progressive. Is this an image you want people outside the
ARS to have of us, particularly in light of present and future
challenges to our spectrum allocations?
That from a guy who probably hasn't got a clue what benefit
there is to multilevel digital encoding, has probably never
heard of a bandwidth limited Gaussian distribution, and who
probably couldn't even define what "digital" is in comparison to
"analog" and be expected to get it right.
The point, of course, is that you don't have the background to
be deciding what is or is not appropriate for others.
Their stations are truly up-to-date,
I can't even begin to define what "truly up-to-date" is. I know
some really great hams that just dearly love to use only old
tube type equipment.
And their "love" is both self-serving and likely to be detrimental
to the future of the ARS.
And your love of cw, to the point of demanding that *all*
Amateurs learn it, is somehow beneficial to the ARS????
You have never studied logic, have you? (It helps if you
actually want to use digital communications to have some
understanding of Boolean logic. But to post articles to Usenet,
you'd best learn a little deductive logic first.)
I had an email conversation with an old
Internet friend the other day, who just dearly loves to use and
work with old AM transmitters!
Too bad you didn't have that QSO on PSK-31, instead!
Oh, trust me, this old fart knows more about digital communications
that you and me put together multiplied by at least 2 and then some.
Not that *you* added anything significant to that total, but...
Was it you or someone else who posted a while back in one of
these groups that cw was an analog method? It probably wasn't
you, but your the kind of guy who would say that.
Maybe Len Anderson needs to step in and beat you with a sticker
for a day or two!
He can't, in your world, be a good Ham.
Probably not.
He's been licensed longer than I have, and was engineering the
stuff you think is "progressive" before you'd ever heard of it,
and since then has moved on to things you might learn something
about in the next decade or so as you catch up.
But you don't think he can be a good Ham...
Get a grip on yourself and take a reality check Larry!
I'm going to have to
tell him that after 50 years, he's not an OT, he's a waste in
the Book Of Larry "Measuring Stick for All Amateur Operators"
Roll.
And he has nobody to blame but himself. I consider myself to be a
qualified judge of what makes a good radio amateur. If your OT
And we see, Larry "Measuring Stick for all Hams" Roll isn't
actually nearly as up to date with technology as the people he
pretends that he can judge. What a hoot!
friend doesn't measure up, perhaps he should consider taking steps
to rectify the situation!
Good lord yes. I've been known to bounce a few ideas off him
over the years. He's a pretty good source of information and
technical understanding.
they have usually attained high places on the DXCC standings, routinely
Really? Even the ones who've never worked HF in their lives?
I'd bet that the majority of really great Hams since 1950 or so
have never even gotten a DXCC certificate, much less ever been
high up on the DXCC Honor Roll.
Well, I'll accept that, as long as they've made strides in VHF/UHF
modes such as EME, satellite operation, packet radio, APRS, etc.
Maybe Larry "Measuring Stick Himself" Roll like to DX?
Yes, I like to work DX.
And here we are again... Larry "The Stick" Roll, who says he
wouldn't do any such thing as be The Stick.
hold leadership positions within their clubs, and can be counted on to
provide
valuable input and personal support for all club activities.
Now, that I agree is most likely true.
Thank you very much!
One item out of many, kind doesn't look like anyone is going to
thank you, that's for sure.
They are the ones
who newcomers look to for the answers, while the so-called "professional"
hams simply cluster amongst themselves and look down their noses at the
proceedings of the rest of the club.
No Larry. It is those professionals who usually *are* the ones
people look to for answers and leadership.
Sure, in some cases, they are. Not in my personal experience, however.
That could explain why you're kinda backwards and not exactly
the sharpest tech or the slickest op around too, eh?
But yes, indeed, Carl does know a lot about radio!
And you don't.
No, I don't. I'll NEVER know enough about radio. But I'm willing to
learn!
When do you plan on starting?
That's one reason why he's a such a good role
model, a recognized leader, and a good Radio Amateur.
Correct. That's what makes a good radio amateur. A willingness to
learn.
73 de Larry, K3LT
And Larry is a twit.
Ah, name calling. That's what is usually brought out when the ability
to make a convincing argument dries up! Unfortunately for you, Floyd,
it also means that you lose this round!
Ah, I see... you can say others aren't up to snuff, but when it
is pointed out, line by line, through an entire message that
you are a twit, and at the end that is exactly the word used
to summarize what we've learned, poor Larry objects.
Sorry, but it sticks, you are *still* acting like a twit.
--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
Reply With Quote