"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...


And we all already knew that, didn't we? ALso we *hams* knew that we
didn't inten d nor want to get more channel capacity! What *we* want is
to complete the intended communication!



That's where your lack of acumen shows, Dick. Hams should
strive to communicate efficiently.


Well, well! If you truly believed that then you'd have gone on to
*really* learn the code
and used it long ago, instead of just complaining. After all, efficiency
means more than
anything Shannon came up with.

ROTFLMAO!

Inefficient use of our spectrum
promotes congestion in the popular bands. Inefficient use of our
spectrum will subject us to increased threats of spectrum grabs
by commercial interests.



By your measure, then, CW should be one of the most desirable modes in
existance!

REALLY ROTFLMAO NOW!!!

It's clear that you actually, really believe this crap you spout ... that's
pathetic. You actually, truly BELIEVE that OOK CW is efficient.

Sad ...

If you'd simply say, "It's fun and I like it and I hope it's with us forever
as a mode available to hams." I'd say "Right on!" ... however ...

Carl - wk3c