wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message

So who do you think "Slow Code" is? Coslo? Miccolis? Roll? Deignan?
Dan, Dan the CB Radio Man?

Haven't a clue on Slow Code. The style doesn't sound like Coslo or
Miccolis.

Obviously it's someone who's been here awhile.

Don't really know the style of the other fellows writing.

Troll was the racist poster ("My favorite black on the bus...," and
"Welfare mothers of Color with their hands out...").

Deignan was the vanity callsign collector and the original "RF
Commando." He called me a liar when I said he had collected 12
callsigns, but I was wrong - one of the callsigns actually belonged to
his wife at the same address. So I guess I was a liar after all. I
should have known that he had a Ham Wife that collected vanity
callsigns, too.

Deignan's buddy in Hawaii loaned him his PO Box number so he could scam
some Hawaiin calls, meanwhile, the Hawaiin PO Box owner was scamming a
Guam callsign. Never been to Guam and could have operated /KH2 like I
did for two years. I guess a Hawaiin Call Stroke Guam Call is a pretty
cool thing...

Anyway, these are the guys who pass judgement on me because I am too
fat, lazy, and stupid to buy into the whole Morse Exam stuff at 5, and
then 13, and then 20 WPM.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

That's the beauty of anon postings, they don't have to follow their own
"style."

I began posting as hot-ham when I gave up Billy Beeper at Hans request.
I'd prefer to not post with my name and/or call as I used to, as I
seem to get lots and lots of spam when I do.

Meanwhile, Robesin has posted my name, call and address much more than
I have.

That's so swell of him.

I guess when Mark posts Robesin's address and phone number, it's just
tit for tat. No?

And when Roger Wiseman posts Mark's home address, phone number, etc., is
that just more "tit for tat"? Sorry, Billy, but I prefer to think of that as
maliciousness.

I don't particularly care for either one's tactics and stay out of that
mess.
no you supported him and hiss efort for the past few years by your
silence


Mark, you really DO crap on posts as SC says. Now this innocent woman
is"guilty" of supporting Steve through her silence? You truly are an idiot,
Mark. The fact that she has killfiled your and Steve's posts never entered
your convoluted mind, did it? In your twisted mind she is guilty if she
does, guilty if she doesn't.
No wonder you are so disliked by all in this group....




See my comment above. If I saw some one being threatened with violence and
it were within my power to do something about it, I would.
I was and am threatened with VIOLENCE on a regular basis and people
not in your killfile you say nothing you lift not the finger smallest
finger of your hand

How about if I raise a finger, Mark? Will my middle one do? Digital Salute!
The fact that you post ad-nauseum and call others "liers" never entered into
YOUR equation, did it?

then why do you employ it?

Why do you persist in continually butting in where you are clearly not
wanted?

www.marksspamblog.blogspot.com

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 02:11:43 GMT, "U-Know-Who"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 18:28:15 -0400, "Dee Flint"
wrote:


wrote in message
legroups.com...

wrote:
On 28 Oct 2006 14:01:31 -0700, wrote:


I mean Dee equates being able to do Morse Code (which she flasely
claims based on the lies she was taught is somehow related to basis
of
Radio Maxwells equations to data that wtries to keep someone from
hurting themselves, shows poor thinking process

Dee's doing the best she can with her self-imposed handicaps.


Well if you understood that garbled mess of a sentence, then my hat is
off
to you. Perhaps you should get a job as his interpreter.
obviously moirse fails to improve your abilitesi as an all round
comicator

Mork, you should make that last...um, sentence your sig.
why Tom?

Because it demonstrates just how pathetic your communication skills are.

How about if I raise a finger, Mark? Will my middle one do? Digital Salute!

Why do you persist in continually butting in where you are clearly not
wanted?

this a publice NG you certainly have no computction about "butting in
where you are not wanted"
...........
You didn't answer the question, Markie.

Why?

You didn't answer the question, Markie.
when you learn to quote properly I consider your questions and you
need to pove you are a real person with a name

I do not answer question to Persons unknown

/
You already did. And I do not "need to pove" anything to the likes of YOU,
Mark. You are, for the most part, an inconsequential flea, one that I toy
with at will.
Tell you what, Mark. When you learn to use a spell check program I'll use my
real name. Better yet. When you learn 5wpm and upgrade, I'll meet you on 17M
some afternoon and you can then learn my name AND callsign.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 00:48:53 -0500, "A. G. Bell" anon@anon wrote:


/
You already did.
learn to quote


....
Learn to spell.

--
"obviously moirse fails to improve your abilitesi as an all round comicator"

obviously moirse fails to improve your abilitesi as an all round
comicator

Mork, you should make that last...um, sentence your sig.
why Tom?

Because it demonstrates just how pathetic your communication skills are.
...........

Mark doesn't communicate. He obfuscates, argues, and butts in where he is
clearly not wanted.


--
"obviously moirse fails to improve your abilitesi as an all round comicator"

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


[snip]


Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations
equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW
Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total
the scores...

I think you get the point.


Can't tell what your point is. Those experienced with code and using
only
their ears and brain will beat CWGet in any contest you care to name.

I didn't say, "those experienced..." I said all presently licensed USA
amateur radio operators...

Those who learn code will beat those who try to make CWGet do a job
(contesting) for which it is ill-suited.

And you keep changing the parameters of the challenge.

Are you saying that of those amateurs that learned the code, that they
are all still highly proficient in it? I think most learned the code
as a licensing hurdle, and never looked back.

Then there are the majority of hams who have no-code licenses...

It
doesn't do the job when there are a multitude of operators calling at the
same time. Also CWGet cannot copy the average manually keyed Morse code.
So whatever your point is, you didn't prove anything.

Even you have claimed to be a user of CWGet.

So what? When I'm in a contest, I use the best computer ever developed (the
human brain). When the person on the other end is sending manually keyed
code, again I use the good old brain. That I sometimes use CWGet is no
particular endorsement of it. It's a tool that I use when I'm tired and
still want to operate code. However unless the signal is of good quality
and volume, it ends up being necessary to go back to the good old human
brain. My decision then is to either put in the extra effort to focus or
just call it a night and go to bed.

OK.

I do NOT and never have believed in the arguments about "keeping out
the
riffraff", maintaining tradition, or the "I had to so you should to".

The "dumbing down" argument is just an extension of the "keeping out
the riff-raff" argument.

I've never mentioned the "dumbing down" argument. My point is that there
is
a body of basic knowledge that all should know. The difficulty arises in
determining what that basic knowledge should be. Generally, the
experienced
people should be the ones to define what constitutes basic knowledge.
The
beginners are too inexperienced to do so.

You couldn't be more wrong. The FCC should get to define what "basic
knowledge" is, and those that do the defining don't have a clue what
Morse Code is. But they've been buffaloed into believing that it tis
something magical.

Yes the FCC has the task of defining what that should be. However there is
NOTHING that prohibits them from consulting with people who have operating
experience.

They don't even have a definition of what Morse Code is within the
rules of the last service required to have a Morse Code exam. I think
that tells the story.

It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know
don't
use
any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set.
I've
used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been
licensed.
I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used
smith
charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I
can
choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory
end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it..

Please do not insult me by stereotyping like that.

You do not have a Ham Husband?

You are choosing to be obtuse.

I tell David Heil/K8MN that allatime.

Yes I have a Ham Husband but no he does not
take care of Ohm's law or Theory for me.

OK.

I happen to be a degreed
engineer (B.S. in Aerospace Engineering) with 20 years of applied
experience
in engineering (aerospace, nuclear, mechanical and automotive fields).

I can't help but think that all engineers, aerospace or civil or
otherwise, had to learn Ohm's Law as part of "thier" professional
certification. If I am wrong, then shame on the state of American
Engineerism, and shame on America. No wonder we're overrun with
engineers from India, Pakistan, China and Russia.

Mechanical engineers don't have a need for Ohm's law. They go hire the
electrical engineers. Aerospace engineering is a branch of mechanical
engineering (we don't get to drop the lesser terms in the equations since
they have a significant impact for our field). Again we go hire the
electrical engineers. Same with civil and structural engineers. On the
other hand electrical engineers generally do not study basic pressure vessal
theory but go hire the mechanical engineers for that.

You're talking about the working world.

Were you able to hire out your studies in college?

Were you able to hire out your PE exams?

Learning Oh,'s Law for a hobby is one thing, but a professional
engineer........

Again it depends on the field. We all studied common areas such as calculus
and fast fourier transforms but items unique to a field generally were not
taught across the board. We didn't study Ohms law and the electrical
engineers didn't study cantilever beam theory.

OK.

Should I happen to run into a need to use Ohms law and so on, I am
perfectly
capable of doing so. In addition, I was the one who taught the class for
our club members who wished to upgrade to Extra, a class which my husband
attended so that he could upgrade from General to Extra.

You have ASSumed and made a donkey of yourself.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Be kind enough to show where. Merely claiming to be an engineer
without a use for Ohm's Law or Radio Theory is not enough.

You assumed that I needed help from my OM on theory, etc. That is the area
to which I referred.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

So you do use ohm's law and theory, you just don't think it belongs in
amateur licensing?

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

The ONLY separate pass-fail TEST is for manual telegraphy.

Wow! I guess CW is more valued than ALL OF THE OTHER MODES COMBINED!

Not so. However, all the digital and image modes are merely a matter of
connecting the radio to the computer and running the appropriate software.

Then why do the military service have technical schools to do somehting
so very simple?

Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?

Once I decided to try the digital thing, I made the interface and was up and
running in an hour. After a couple of months, it became rather boring.

Do you suppose that there are licensed amateurs that find CW boring?

On
the other hand, code needs to be learned before it can be tried. Many
people will give up learning before they've had a chance to try it if there
is not a test for it.

Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.

Slow Code wrote:

I expect you'll say the same thing about the written exam in ten years too.

SC

Not me. Jim/N2EY is the one who trotted out that strawman. I guess if
he can't have amateur radio the way he wants it, he'll make sure it
becomes a non-technical hobby.