"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 13:48:10 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Bob Brock wrote:
On 4 Sep 2003 05:16:59 -0700, (Brian Kelly) wrote:


Bob Brock wrote in message
. ..



If CW is indeed effective and current, then it will propagate due to
its usefulness without regulatory requirement. Judging by how shrill
the proponents are, it appears that even they are afraid that it won't
show itself to be advantageous enough for people to learn on their
own.

On a related question, is it pro coders intention to boycott QSO's
with countries that have already dropped the code requirement for HF
work? Do you guys refuse to talk to Australians now?

That's shrill enough, congratulations.


I guess no answer at all was to be expected since it shows how invalid
the postion is.

How's this for an answer? NO!

Provide references where anyone has even proposed such an activity.

I can't understand why you would want to talk to someone from another
country who had possibly not passed your lid filter, but to each their
own incongruiteis I guess.

Show me where I said that anyone proposed it and I'll consider
documenting it. I'm not in the habit of trying to document things
that I never said and I won't start with you.


Real hams will talk to anyone who is duly licensed under the rules and
regulations of their own governing body. Now if someone proves himself a
lid in the course of QSO, naturally we will bow out but only if the person
has demonstrated that he actually is a lid. Besides it's seldom been
foreign operators who have been a problem. The problem is right here in
this country.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE