It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:58:57 -0500, john wrote:

Slow Code you are pathetic. I think everyone on here is starting to
realize it. You are the jammer on the local repeater and you get on hf
and jam people because you cant have your way with the code

And you know this how? Apparently, you are psychic (or maybe
psychotic).

requirements. Face it nobody in the world cares what you think about
it. You make zero dirrerence in this world. Too chicken to post your
call because if you did you know what would happen. You have ruined

Er, "John," I don't recall you ever posting your call anywhere. I
guess it's because if you did, you know what would happen (and only
*you* know, because you haven't told the rest of us about what would
happen). Why don't you go first? Pot, kettle, black and all that
stuff.

Actually, don't bother. You're probably a no-code tech at best or
else don't have a license at all, which would explain your anger with
other hams who have higher class licenses. Undoubtedly, we make you
feel inferior, and you can't stand the pain of it all.

Oh well; at least you did temporarily learn how to bottom post. Keep
on reading news.answers, and keep your chin up. Keep telling yourself
"I'm NOT inferior."

SC

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 

I was licenced in 1967 at the age of 11. Went through incentive
licensing and all that then got my 20wpm extra at age 16 so dont
preach or talk down ro me. Is it Slow Code or No Balls I get that
mixed up?


On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:59:07 +0000 (UTC), (Slow Code)
wrote:


On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:58:57 -0500, john wrote:

Slow Code you are pathetic. I think everyone on here is starting to
realize it. You are the jammer on the local repeater and you get on hf
and jam people because you cant have your way with the code

And you know this how? Apparently, you are psychic (or maybe
psychotic).

requirements. Face it nobody in the world cares what you think about
it. You make zero dirrerence in this world. Too chicken to post your
call because if you did you know what would happen. You have ruined

Er, "John," I don't recall you ever posting your call anywhere. I
guess it's because if you did, you know what would happen (and only
*you* know, because you haven't told the rest of us about what would
happen). Why don't you go first? Pot, kettle, black and all that
stuff.

Actually, don't bother. You're probably a no-code tech at best or
else don't have a license at all, which would explain your anger with
other hams who have higher class licenses. Undoubtedly, we make you
feel inferior, and you can't stand the pain of it all.

Oh well; at least you did temporarily learn how to bottom post. Keep
on reading news.answers, and keep your chin up. Keep telling yourself
"I'm NOT inferior."

SC

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:00:50 -0400, "Gerry"
wrote:

world. I am not sure the FCC should be requiring it while not testing for
the various digital modes or message handling - seems inconsistent

It's consistent with dropping requirements all around. Broadcast
stations no longer need licensed personnel on duty (that's been the
case for a few decades now), you can repair two-way radios without
being licensed and you can operate on the ham bands without having to
really pass any test.

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 

wrote:
till you can explain what value knowing the name has you can begin to
convince me that you went a through a test as realavant as mine

The licensing hierarchy (and the morse code debate) isn't about value, it's
about status. It's about having a chip on your shoulder that says "I'm better
than you".

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 

john wrote in
:

I was licenced in 1967 at the age of 11. Went through incentive
licensing and all that then got my 20wpm extra at age 16 so dont
preach or talk down ro me. Is it Slow Code or No Balls I get that
mixed up?


Why are you so concerned about my balls? Are you gay?

Stay away from me you pervert!

SC

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 

Diamond Dave wrote:
Good for you! It's not often that someone would come right out and admit that a
radop that can copy high speed CW is better than himself, but you did.
Congrats!

could I have the honor of knowing your call sign?

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:44:43 -0500, Richard Harrison wrote:

Slow Code wrote:
"Not no more."

Morse Code is yet another language, dead as Latin,

latin isnt dead fool!


and known by fewer
people than most modern languages. English, written or spoken, is
understood by many more people than Morse.

Dismount when your horse has been shot from under you.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 

Slow Code wrote:
If an amateur had to relay a through a country and the amateurs didn't
know each other language they still could have passed it by CW and the
message could have been delivered to someone that could read it. Not no
more.

What can be passed by CW that cannot be passed by voice???

Adhere to the ICAO's phonetic alphabet, and there need be no
bi-lingualism nor a CW requirement.

When things start failing communication wise worldwide, amateur radio
might be all there is to relay messages, and the ITU just removed one of
the legs of a three leg stool.

Dear Slow, air traffic controllers don't use Morris Code, and they
communicate with foreign speakers JUST FINE!

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 

wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
If an amateur had to relay a through a country and the amateurs didn't
know each other language they still could have passed it by CW and the
message could have been delivered to someone that could read it. Not no
more.

What can be passed by CW that cannot be passed by voice???
any traffic to be passed by many OT station can only be passed by CW
since they rfuse to use that new fangled device the microphone even to
save lives

Adhere to the ICAO's phonetic alphabet, and there need be no
bi-lingualism nor a CW requirement.

When things start failing communication wise worldwide, amateur radio
might be all there is to relay messages, and the ITU just removed one of
the legs of a three leg stool.

Dear Slow, air traffic controllers don't use Morris Code, and they
communicate with foreign speakers JUST FINE!

but SC can't speak to anybody on air and he neds code testing to allow
him more person to berate