Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 11th 06, 01:44 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.swap
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,113
Default It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.

(Slow Code) wrote in
ink.net:


On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 07:37:52 -0500, john wrote:

Jerry, I am a 20 wpm extra and I used to agree with some of the things
Slow Code was saying BUT, after all the BS he has created on the
newsgroups I am starting to change my opinion. His constant bullcrap
on here makes me sick. Its ok to state your opinion and move on but he
has a real problem. I mean posting every day in rec.radio.swap for
Christ sake. For someone so worried about people doing the right thing
he is the worst example.


Well, at least I educated you about top posting, and you are almost
doing things the correct way now. I suppose that I should begin
teaching you and others about TRIMMING your followups in order to make
your posts easier to read. It's all there in the news.answers FAQs
too, but lots of people haven't read the material.

The full content of all previous posts doesn't need to be quoted,
because people have threaded newsreaders and can go back to read
earlier posts without your help. Also, you'll save on that precious
downloading time of which some of you spoke. People like Len Anderson
and Dave Heil really need to learn how to TRIM their followups if they
want anyone to read them.

I'll be checking back from time to time to see how you are doing. It
looks to me like you're progressing well. There's definitely hope for
you, so keep your chin up.



ROFL!

Harassing people that top post. When you're finished here, see if you can
do something about Markie's spelling.

Tnx, 73

de Slow Code
  #2   Report Post  
Old October 10th 06, 09:13 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 997
Default 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.
  #3   Report Post  
Old October 10th 06, 11:37 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 12
Default 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".
  #4   Report Post  
Old October 28th 06, 03:35 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
JDB JDB is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2006
Posts: 11
Default It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.

This code argument really gets old. I passed the General 13WPM code. Bidg
deal. Yeah, I like to use CW, but do I think people need to be tested on
CW? Heck NO! Let's end this antiquated test. It's a modern era. If you
want to learn it -fine, but don't push your old and outdated beliefs on
anyone else.

JDB

wrote:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:37:42 -0500, Glen Overby
wrote:

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".

well the procoders like to rpetend it is about value
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


  #5   Report Post  
Old October 10th 06, 04:44 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 588
Default It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.

Slow Code wrote:
"Not no more."

Morse Code is yet another language, dead as Latin, 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



  #6   Report Post  
Old October 14th 06, 05:03 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2006
Posts: 1
Default 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

  #7   Report Post  
Old October 15th 06, 04:55 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 303
Default It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.



latin isnt dead fool!


Of course Latin is dead!
  #8   Report Post  
Old October 15th 06, 12:01 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,554
Default 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!

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Electromagnetic Radiation N9OGL Policy 32 March 1st 06 02:42 PM
ARRL 20 july, FCC Proposes to Drop Morse Code Requirement for All License Classes Thierry Antenna 0 July 28th 05 08:37 AM
FCC: Broadband Power Line Systems Paul Policy 0 January 10th 05 05:41 PM
Eliminate the CW requirement for General & Extra, BUT THEN... Bill Wright Policy 12 December 9th 03 03:20 AM
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. Keith Policy 1 July 31st 03 03:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017