On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 11:17:46 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

Rick wrote:
"Subjects such as CB, code, etc,"

Some insist CB is an "either-or" relationship with code.

Richard - cut it out. Did you miss the entire point of my posting?

Rick K2XT

(Richard Harrison) wrote in
:

Rick wrote:
"Subjects such as CB, code, etc,"

Some insist CB is an "either-or" relationship with code. The FCC has
assigned space for both. Amateur radio operators have imagined their
own problems.

The "Morse code forever" characters are nearly all retirees hanging on
to an obsolete mode now replaced by other digital modes and analog
communications. The U.S. military abandoned Morse long ago. It hangs on
in the imagination of some unreconstructed "coots".

I`d like my grandchildren to have fun with radio and not bother with
Morse. "You don`t make people learn how to ride a horse before they
drive a car".


Do you have a spare tire in your car in case you get a flat tire? Ham
radio without a CW requirement is like driving your car around without a
spare tire. Why do you people want to dumb everything down all the time.

Eliminating CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicate.

SC

Slow Code wrote:
(Richard Harrison) wrote in
:

Do you have a spare tire in your car in case you get a flat tire?
no but..
Ham
radio without a CW requirement is like driving your car around without a
spare tire.
in that case why do insist you only drive on the spare with most spare
tires that is dangerous
Why do you people want to dumb everything down all the time.

Eliminating CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicate.
who was eleimating CW use just testing

SC

" wrote in
oups.com:


Slow Code wrote:
(Richard Harrison) wrote in
:

Do you have a spare tire in your car in case you get a flat tire?
no but..
Ham
radio without a CW requirement is like driving your car around without
a spare tire.
in that case why do insist you only drive on the spare with most spare
tires that is dangerous
Why do you people want to dumb everything down all the time.

Eliminating CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicate.
who was eleimating CW use just testing

SC


Mark,

You don't know what ham radio is about. I think if you just sit back and
read the threads, instead of screwing them up with your insane babble, you
might learn something. Of course, that depends on whether or not you
really want to learn something.

SC

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:24:59 GMT, (Rick) wrote:

I am sure you all have been experiencing the recent onslaught of off
topic postings in the antenna newsgroup. Subjects such as CB, code,
etc. Character assinations, childish BS. What follows is an idea I
have to combat this foolishness. I am dead serious about this. If
you are interested in participating, read on.

It happens when someone initiates a posting and "cross posts" it to
multiple newsgroups including rec.radio.amateur.antenna. They do this
because they think they reach a wider audience, instead of confining
their subject to the appropriate newsgroup (such as, possibly,
rec.radio.amateur.policy). They really aren't too smart and they
don't have any manners or or appreciation of netiquette at all. Then
what happens is someone sees their posting and decides to add their 2
cents worth, and they just use the default list of newsgroups which
was included in the original posting, and voila! their reply also goes
to 6 different newsgroups.

I have an idea to rid us of this littering. Take an off topic
posting, do a reply to it, be sure to edit your posting so that it
DOES NOT appear in the antenna newsgroup. This is vital. In your
reply posting just post a simple one line message, something like "I
agree" or "yeah, right on Dude." Do it as many times as your energy
lasts. (It would not hurt to edit your reply email to some bogus
address so you do not get flames).

Now, when someone in another newsgroup sees the offending thread, they
will begin reading it, and see dozens of useless messages (all those
"I agree, Dude" messages). Remember, these replies are not showing up
in the antenna newsgroup.

Is the cluttering other newsgroup(s) with dozens of spurious replies a
solution? Or just adding to the problem?

bob
k5qwg


After someone has read 50 of them they will
get the message. If they choose to do a reply, remember they are not
smart enough to know better, their reply will only go to the
newsgroups which you have left in place.

Ok? Agree? Pick the next crap, off topic posting you see and fire
away, along with me.

Rick K2XT

Bob Miller wrote:

Is the cluttering other newsgroup(s) with dozens of spurious replies a
solution? Or just adding to the problem?



What might be a solution? These folk know their way around filters.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

In addition to the problems others have pointed out, following this
advice would result in our spamming other newsgroups. The folks at most
of the other newsgroups are just as annoyed and not to blame as we are,
yet we'd be adding to their QRN. How would you like it if the folks on
one of those newsgroups were to do the same thing you propose? I'll add
that the mental- and maturity-challenged people making these postings
thrive on attention of any kind, and even meaningless responses confirm
that their postings are attracting the attention they crave.

I don't have a solution for it, any more than I have a solution for
spam. I've developed ways to deal with over 200 spams a day, and if this
gets too much out of hand, I'll find some way to deal with it too. A
Thunderbird add-in allowing plonking all cross-posted messages or ones
cross-posted to certain other groups probably wouldn't be too difficult,
and would provide relief for Thunderbird users at least.

In the meantime, it comes with the territory, like mosquitoes in the
woods and roaches in cheap hotels. It's sad that people can reach
physical adulthood without advancing beyond that level of maturity, but
it's a fact of life. And we've got to keep working around it and not let
their inanity push out the people wanting to talk about antennas. But I
don't agree with this suggestion as a way to fight it.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Rick wrote:
I am sure you all have been experiencing the recent onslaught of off
topic postings in the antenna newsgroup. Subjects such as CB, code,
etc. Character assinations, childish BS. What follows is an idea I
have to combat this foolishness. I am dead serious about this. If
you are interested in participating, read on.
. . .