"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Carl:

I consider the use of the term "Morse myths" to be derogatory and
inflammatory. Thus, you have also failed to meet Mike's challenge.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Larry,

I don't recall Mike appointing your the judge and arbiter ...

Carl:

In that case, consider my services to have been donated out of my own
generosity.

I guess I got what I paid for :-)

"Morse Myths" is, as you well know by now, simply a term
that refers to all of the patently false, old wives' tales, such as
"Morse gets through when nothing else will.",

This one is true…

Bluntly - baloney ... there ARE modes that will get through at
s/n ratios where Morse would be totally undetectable, let alone
decodable ... ignore the facts if it preserves your fantasy world
where Morse is all-important (the "legend in your own mind"),
but the rest of the world will pass you by without your even
understanding why ...

"Morse is essential
for emergency communications.",

Who said that? Provide correctly attributed quote.

Read any number of absurd pro-code-testing comments
filed with the FCC ...

"Morse acts as a 'lid filter' to
keep us from being overrun by the "mongul hordes' of CBers
who are lurking in the wings waiting to take over the ham bands."
etc.

I've never said that whatsoever -- in fact, on many occasions, I've gone
out of my way to note that a lot of the problems on HF phone are being
caused by 20-WPM code tested Extras.

I didn't say that YOU necessarily said that ... though you HAVE refered
to the "knuckle-draggers" and other terms that fall into a similar category.

I reject your claim that the term "Morse Myths" is derogatory and
inflamatory.

Reject all you want, Carl, but the fact remains that it is. You have
taken
the low road, while claiming the opposite.

It is simply a term that refers in "shorthand" form to
a panoply of falacies that are often cited as "reasons why we MUST
keep Morse testing" ... none of which hold water and all of which
have been rejected by the FCC.

I have always presented well-reasoned, factual, and unemotional
arguments in support of code testing.

RTFLMAO!!!

Please don't hold me up to
the same light as those who may have transgressed in the manner
which you refer to above. Above all, please remember that by far,
the largest portion of the QRM in the code/no-code debate has been
from the NCTA side.

ROTFLMAO some more ...

Also remember that as one who has never
used the Morse/CW mode to an extent which would have allowed
you to gain useful proficiency in the mode, you are not qualified to
judge the value of this mode at all.

You are totally wrong on this assertion ... I know the code, had
"useful proficiency" (nearly 20 wpm at my peak), but haven't used
it in a long time ... I am certainly qualified to judge the value of the
mode (at least for my purposes, and also in more general terms).

I'm not sitting here trying to
argue technical topics with you, so don't you try to tell me that the
Morse/CW mode and testing aren't of value to the ARS. We are
not on each other's respective levels of expertise. Since I'm
more than willing to respect your technical expertise, don't presume
to challenge my qualifications to make judgments about CW and
code testing, because you don't know what your talking about.

Larry, I don't demean your "real ham-ness" because you are not
my equal on the technical plane, but you demean the "real ham-ness"
of anyone who is up to your "standards" of Morse prowess ...
I think you're arrogance and narrow-mindedness are showing again.

Carl - wk3c