|
Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
The code hating losers were too stupid and lazy to learn and use CW,
they're also probably going to be too stupid and lazy to solve TVI and interference problems with their neigbhors. There will be more amateur to amateur and amateur to non-amateur conflicts. Hams will look bad and the FCC will regulate the service more because of all the retards we let have HF privledges. CQ Breaker, CQ Breaker. Welcome to CB everybody. |
Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
On Feb 22, 5:16 pm, Retard Invasion wrote:
The code hating losers were too stupid and lazy to learn and use CW, they're also probably going to be too stupid and lazy to solve TVI and interference problems with their neigbhors. There will be more amateur to amateur and amateur to non-amateur conflicts. Hams will look bad and the FCC will regulate the service more because of all the retards we let have HF privledges. CQ Breaker, CQ Breaker. Welcome to CB everybody. And your point is ???? |
Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
"Lefty" wrote in message oups.com... On Feb 22, 5:16 pm, Retard Invasion wrote: The code hating losers were too stupid and lazy to learn and use CW, they're also probably going to be too stupid and lazy to solve TVI and interference problems with their neigbhors. There will be more amateur to amateur and amateur to non-amateur conflicts. Hams will look bad and the FCC will regulate the service more because of all the retards we let have HF privledges. CQ Breaker, CQ Breaker. Welcome to CB everybody. And your point is ???? I think it would have been sufficient to punctuate your sentence with just 3 question marks. Four question marks seems a bit excessive, agree??? |
Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
On Feb 23, 9:32 pm, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
I think it would have been sufficient to punctuate your sentence with just 3 question marks. Four question marks seems a bit excessive, agree??? Nah. The number of question marks is immaterial and avoids the contentious and intolerant (rant?) of the OP. Such comments very divisive to the the Amateur Radio hobby; IMHO. Might one not think such an intolerant (possibly also an elitist?) attitude by a serving (already licensed) radio amateur does not augur well for the future of the hobby. Not sure as a newcomer I'd want to join a group with members who have that 'unkind' attitude! Previously noticing some other intolerant (even vituperative) comments would not be surprised they may tend to give outsiders a view of an outdated, closed knit clan/society. Old codgers still using spark transmitters and coherer receivers, pounding away in their dimly lit shacks late at night and boasting about how many countries they have contacted for 500 milliseconds per contact; and please QSL. QSLs via the Internet these days I presume? Total four (4) question marks; used one at a time! Rather than portray Amateur Radio as open, welcoming to younger newcomers and new modes of communication/trends. No wonder the hobby is, in the opinion of some, dying? |
Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
QSLs via the Internet these days I presume? Total four (4) question marks; used one at a time! Rather than portray Amateur Radio as open, welcoming to younger newcomers and new modes of communication/trends. No wonder the hobby is, in the opinion of some, dying? The hobby is alive and well, though offshooting into private little cliques here and there. Paul W. Schleck is a bit delusional what with his new, exclusionary new newsgroup, but like all fads, this one, too, will pass. Paul's new moderated group, I predict, will see a modicum of new users at the outset, but after, say, 60 days his moderated group will wither on the vine and become history. His new moderated group was doomed for failure well before it reached fruition. I wonder if BlowGut Paul will send his "welcome" messages to the new users of his self-serving moderated group? He, Paul, has a knack for being an insufferable blowhard. Come to think of it, he is not too far removed from the gasseous emissions of Lennie, the California Cryaby who still has issues with old zoning matters. Oops! Tsk! Tsk!. Did I poke politically incorrect fun at a poor, disgruntled oldster whose colostomy bag runneth over? |
Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 03:38:18 -0500, "Len Slanderson" flatusr@socal
wrote: QSLs via the Internet these days I presume? Total four (4) question marks; used one at a time! Rather than portray Amateur Radio as open, welcoming to younger newcomers and new modes of communication/trends. No wonder the hobby is, in the opinion of some, dying? The hobby is alive and well, though offshooting into private little cliques here and there. Paul W. Schleck is a bit delusional what with his new, exclusionary new newsgroup, but like all fads, this one, too, will pass. Paul's new moderated group, I predict, will see a modicum of new users at the outset, but after, say, 60 days his moderated group will wither on the vine and become history. Only because this is not YOUR moderated group? P.Z. |
Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
terry wrote:
On Feb 23, 9:32 pm, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote: I think it would have been sufficient to punctuate your sentence with just 3 question marks. Four question marks seems a bit excessive, agree??? Nah. The number of question marks is immaterial and avoids the contentious and intolerant (rant?) of the OP. Such comments very divisive to the the Amateur Radio hobby; IMHO. Might one not think such an intolerant (possibly also an elitist?) attitude by a serving (already licensed) radio amateur does not augur well for the future of the hobby. Not sure as a newcomer I'd want to join a group with members who have that 'unkind' attitude! Previously noticing some other intolerant (even vituperative) comments would not be surprised they may tend to give outsiders a view of an outdated, closed knit clan/society. Old codgers still using spark transmitters and coherer receivers, pounding away in their dimly lit shacks late at night and boasting about how many countries they have contacted for 500 milliseconds per contact; and please QSL. QSLs via the Internet these days I presume? Total four (4) question marks; used one at a time! Rather than portray Amateur Radio as open, welcoming to younger newcomers and new modes of communication/trends. No wonder the hobby is, in the opinion of some, dying? RIGHT, don't be an "elitist." Be a moron like the rest of the no-coders so you will fit in. |
Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:56:46 -0500, NoMoreSpam
wrote: RIGHT, don't be an "elitist." Be a moron like the rest of the no-coders so you will fit in. Why no-coders are "morons"?... A.L. |
Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
"terry" wrote in message ps.com... Old codgers still using spark transmitters and coherer receivers, pounding away in their dimly lit shacks late at night and boasting about how many countries they have contacted for 500 milliseconds per contact; and please QSL. Can you imagine that? People could communicate around the world simply by constructing a simple transmitter salvaged from a Model T ignition coil and a receiver contructed of metal filings in a glass tube between antenna and ground and a battery powered relay. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. |
Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
On Feb 24, 6:29 pm, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
"terry" wrote in message ps.com... Old codgers still using spark transmitters and coherer receivers, pounding away in their dimly lit shacks late at night and boasting about how many countries they have contacted for 500 milliseconds per contact; and please QSL. Can you imagine that? People could communicate around the world simply by constructing a simple transmitter salvaged from a Model T ignition coil and a receiver contructed of metal filings in a glass tube between antenna and ground and a battery powered relay. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. Yes, with the most basic materials; little more than a battery and some wire, in an emergency or primitive conditions you can communicate via wireless. But you must have one more thing; gotta have code |
Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
NoMoreSpam wrote:
terry wrote: On Feb 23, 9:32 pm, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote: I think it would have been sufficient to punctuate your sentence with just 3 question marks. Four question marks seems a bit excessive, agree??? Nah. The number of question marks is immaterial and avoids the contentious and intolerant (rant?) of the OP. Such comments very divisive to the the Amateur Radio hobby; IMHO. Might one not think such an intolerant (possibly also an elitist?) attitude by a serving (already licensed) radio amateur does not augur well for the future of the hobby. Not sure as a newcomer I'd want to join a group with members who have that 'unkind' attitude! Previously noticing some other intolerant (even vituperative) comments would not be surprised they may tend to give outsiders a view of an outdated, closed knit clan/society. Old codgers still using spark transmitters and coherer receivers, pounding away in their dimly lit shacks late at night and boasting about how many countries they have contacted for 500 milliseconds per contact; and please QSL. QSLs via the Internet these days I presume? Total four (4) question marks; used one at a time! Rather than portray Amateur Radio as open, welcoming to younger newcomers and new modes of communication/trends. No wonder the hobby is, in the opinion of some, dying? RIGHT, don't be an "elitist." Be a moron like the rest of the no-coders so you will fit in. As far as a moron you should best look at yourself. You would fit the bill of an uneducated piece of trash. |
Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
On Feb 25, 7:35 am, Billy Smith wrote:
NoMoreSpam wrote: terry wrote: On Feb 23, 9:32 pm, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote: I think it would have been sufficient to punctuate your sentence with just 3 question marks. Four question marks seems a bit excessive, agree??? Nah. The number of question marks is immaterial and avoids the contentious and intolerant (rant?) of the OP. Such comments very divisive to the the Amateur Radio hobby; IMHO. Might one not think such an intolerant (possibly also an elitist?) attitude by a serving (already licensed) radio amateur does not augur well for the future of the hobby. Not sure as a newcomer I'd want to join a group with members who have that 'unkind' attitude! Previously noticing some other intolerant (even vituperative) comments would not be surprised they may tend to give outsiders a view of an outdated, closed knit clan/society. Old codgers still using spark transmitters and coherer receivers, pounding away in their dimly lit shacks late at night and boasting about how many countries they have contacted for 500 milliseconds per contact; and please QSL. QSLs via the Internet these days I presume? Total four (4) question marks; used one at a time! Rather than portray Amateur Radio as open, welcoming to younger newcomers and new modes of communication/trends. No wonder the hobby is, in the opinion of some, dying? RIGHT, don't be an "elitist." Be a moron like the rest of the no-coders so you will fit in. As far as a moron you should best look at yourself. You would fit the bill of an uneducated piece of trash.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I`ve been a Ham since 1975 and seen this kind of talk before. You 2 are the ones destroying Ham Radio. Yes ham radio is alive but not well. The numbers are dropping and the age of us Hams are getting older. Soon if we don`t attract younger people in it will be a dying hobby. Code is important yes but not totally necessary. There are other ways of encouraging young people to become hams. Code can be part of it as well as the computer end. Why not be like the Boy Scouts have HAm Radio clubs in schools from grades 1 and up and in churches or the YMCA/YWCA with volunteers. Rather than bash each others heads and stoop so low as calling each other names why not put your heads together and think of positive ways to bring new people into the fold ! |
Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
ORALFIXATION6996 wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:35 am, Billy Smith wrote: NoMoreSpam wrote: terry wrote: On Feb 23, 9:32 pm, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote: I think it would have been sufficient to punctuate your sentence with just 3 question marks. Four question marks seems a bit excessive, agree??? Nah. The number of question marks is immaterial and avoids the contentious and intolerant (rant?) of the OP. Such comments very divisive to the the Amateur Radio hobby; IMHO. Might one not think such an intolerant (possibly also an elitist?) attitude by a serving (already licensed) radio amateur does not augur well for the future of the hobby. Not sure as a newcomer I'd want to join a group with members who have that 'unkind' attitude! Previously noticing some other intolerant (even vituperative) comments would not be surprised they may tend to give outsiders a view of an outdated, closed knit clan/society. Old codgers still using spark transmitters and coherer receivers, pounding away in their dimly lit shacks late at night and boasting about how many countries they have contacted for 500 milliseconds per contact; and please QSL. QSLs via the Internet these days I presume? Total four (4) question marks; used one at a time! Rather than portray Amateur Radio as open, welcoming to younger newcomers and new modes of communication/trends. No wonder the hobby is, in the opinion of some, dying? RIGHT, don't be an "elitist." Be a moron like the rest of the no-coders so you will fit in. As far as a moron you should best look at yourself. You would fit the bill of an uneducated piece of trash.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I`ve been a Ham since 1975 and seen this kind of talk before. You 2 are the ones destroying Ham Radio. Yes ham radio is alive but not well. The numbers are dropping and the age of us Hams are getting older. Soon if we don`t attract younger people in it will be a dying hobby. Code is important yes but not totally necessary. There are other ways of encouraging young people to become hams. Code can be part of it as well as the computer end. Why not be like the Boy Scouts have HAm Radio clubs in schools from grades 1 and up and in churches or the YMCA/YWCA with volunteers. Rather than bash each others heads and stoop so low as calling each other names why not put your heads together and think of positive ways to bring new people into the fold ! I hesitate to put an oar in because I'm one of the brand new Hams. We managed to get two dozen people to a one weekend tech class that were mostly drawn from the membership of Community Emergency Response Teams. I think that the service can be alive and well if it continues to adapt itself to public need rather than to individual preferences no matter how strong. Having said that I will now admit that I was somewhat disappointed by the ease with which I passed the exam. I had a novice license back around 1973. At that time you had to pass the general theory to get a technician class license. Obviously that is no longer true. Now at the risk of being dangerously on topic let me ask the question I came here to ask in a new thread. -- Tom Horne, KB3OPR |
Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
"Thomas Horne" wrote:
I hesitate to put an oar in because I'm one of the brand new Hams. Congrats and welcome back! I think that the service can be alive and well if it continues to adapt itself to public need rather than to individual preferences no matter how strong. Personally, I think the service needs to stop focusing on raw numbers of licensed hams, and instead on the *quality* of those hams licensed. I would rather have 5 hams licensed who are interested in antenna theory, emergency communications, etc., rather than 10 hams who are interested in using ham radio as a cheap cell phone. Having said that I will now admit that I was somewhat disappointed by the ease with which I passed the exam. I had a novice license back around 1973. At that time you had to pass the general theory to get a technician class license. Obviously that is no longer true. The current structure of the theory examinations is a joke. They really do nothing to ensure the applicant has a through knowledge of the topical material. For example, you could have failed each and every question on rules and regulations, and yet still obtained your license, simply because you know math well. This is not, IMO, a good thing. We are, however, unlikely to see this change for the positive, and highly likely to see the theory examinations weakened further as we move to a "simply mail in your 605, no exam needed" ham radio of the future. 73 kh6hz |
Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
KH6HZ wrote:
... Personally, I think the service needs to stop focusing on raw numbers of licensed hams, and instead on the *quality* of those hams licensed. I would rather have 5 hams licensed who are interested in antenna theory, emergency communications, etc., rather than 10 hams who are interested in using ham radio as a cheap cell phone. Give me quantity. Antenna "theory" has not changed in 50 years, it is a given--a "known" in its present state. We need mind to come up with new ideas, apply newly discovered physics and give us something new to work with. The current structure of the theory examinations is a joke. They really do nothing to ensure the applicant has a through knowledge of the topical material. For example, you could have failed each and every question on rules and regulations, and yet still obtained your license, simply because you know math well. This is not, IMO, a good thing. We are, however, unlikely to see this change for the positive, and highly likely to see the theory examinations weakened further as we move to a "simply mail in your 605, no exam needed" ham radio of the future. 73 kh6hz What do they need to know to grab their rig, coax and antenna off ebay and begin in the amateur bands, oh yeah, and know band limits and modes. JS -- http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com |
Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
Several things come to mind he
Quantity vs quality we hear a lot about. The former is good for publishers and equipment manufacturers and the latter is good for interesting QSO's. Someone mentioned the importance of ham radio as a service to the community. What makes ham radio so special that it has to be a service to anyone other than those who enjoy it? All such justifications are pure nonsense these days. It is also frequently said that ham radio is an "old man's hobby". So what! There are plenty of hobbies for children. I for one enjoy getting away from teeny boppers. I get a great deal of pleasure out of talking to people my age and exchanging experiences and how we got here. I have nothing in common with children. I would be delighted to elmer them but competing with computers, cell phones, drugs and teenage girls is beyond the call of duty. I welcome them into the community but to go trolling for them is a waste of energy. People complain about the crowded bands, QRM, rude behavior and yet whine about declining numbers. Won't it be nice what all that open space on 75 is filled with CB level hams? JACK K9ACT since 1955 p.s. check out the POW for what "old men" can do :) -- PHOTO OF THE WEEK: http://schmidling.com/pow.htm |
Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
Hallo you ll'
Again a nice discussion and a lot of aspects CWing or not or another information code From historical point of vieuw CW is the oldest and in my opinion the reliablest and CW was a boarder between HF and VHF caused by brain damage i can concentrate on the recieving dittery dah dit of the morsecode and so became the morsecode a boarder betweem different kinds of radioamateurs practice cw was a license the use unmanageable power practice cw became the roots of the QRPers CWers became a elitegroup of amateurs however they did nt understand the basic goal after cw proof they rapidly forgot the code and have boasting on DX and when they met an antenneaproblem they let solve their problem by the techinical VHFers SO be a "better " amateur however what is better contacting or understanding 55 and 73 de ruud PA0RAB "Stefan Wolfe" schreef in bericht ... "terry" wrote in message ps.com... Old codgers still using spark transmitters and coherer receivers, pounding away in their dimly lit shacks late at night and boasting about how many countries they have contacted for 500 milliseconds per contact; and please QSL. Can you imagine that? People could communicate around the world simply by constructing a simple transmitter salvaged from a Model T ignition coil and a receiver contructed of metal filings in a glass tube between antenna and ground and a battery powered relay. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. |
just another stalking thread
On Mar 5, 6:21�am, "R.A Abrahams" wrote:
Hallo you ll' Again a nice discussion *and a lot of aspects CWing or not *or another information code From historical point of vieuw *CW is the oldest and in my opinion the reliablest and CW was a boarder *between HF and VHF caused by brain damage i can concentrate *on the recieving dittery dah dit of the morsecode *and so became the morsecode a boarder betweem *different kinds of radioamateurs practice cw was a license the use unmanageable power practice cw *became the roots of the QRPers CWers became a elitegroup of amateurs however they did nt understand the basic goal after cw proof they rapidly forgot the code and have *boasting on DX and *when they met an antenneaproblem they let solve their problem by the techinical VHFers SO be a "better " amateur *however what is better contacting or understanding 55 and 73 de ruud PA0RAB "Stefan Wolfe" schreef in om... "terry" wrote in message ups.com... Old codgers still using spark transmitters and coherer receivers, pounding away in their dimly lit shacks late at night and boasting about how many countries they have contacted for 500 milliseconds per contact; and please QSL. Can you imagine that? People could communicate around the world simply by constructing a simple transmitter salvaged from a Model T ignition coil and a receiver contructed of metal filings in a glass tube between antenna and ground and a battery powered relay. Amazing. Absolutely amazing.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - just another stalking thread http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
... _ .._. .._ _ _ .._ _ _ _ ._ ._. _ _._ .._ . . ._.
On Mar 8, 2:24 pm, "an old friend" wrote:
On Mar 5, 6:21?am, "R.A Abrahams" wrote: Hallo you ll' Again a nice discussion ?and a lot of aspects CWing or not ?or another information code From historical point of vieuw ?CW is the oldest and in my opinion the reliablest and CW was a boarder ?between HF and VHF caused by brain damage i can concentrate ?on the recieving dittery dah dit of the morsecode ?and so became the morsecode a boarder betweem ?different kinds of radioamateurs practice cw was a license the use unmanageable power practice cw ?became the roots of the QRPers CWers became a elitegroup of amateurs however they did nt understand the basic goal after cw proof they rapidly forgot the code and have ?boasting on DX and ?when they met an antenneaproblem they let solve their problem by the techinical VHFers SO be a "better " amateur ?however what is better contacting or understanding 55 and 73 de ruud PA0RAB "Stefan Wolfe" schreef in om... "terry" wrote in message ups.com... Old codgers still using spark transmitters and coherer receivers, pounding away in their dimly lit shacks late at night and boasting about how many countries they have contacted for 500 milliseconds per contact; and please QSL. Can you imagine that? People could communicate around the world simply by constructing a simple transmitter salvaged from a Model T ignition coil and a receiver contructed of metal filings in a glass tube between antenna and ground and a battery powered relay. Amazing. Absolutely amazing.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - just another stalking thread .... _ .._. .._ |
... _ .._. .._ _ _ .._ _ _ _ ._ ._. _ _._ .._ . . ._.
On 9 Mar 2007 05:26:08 -0800, Andy the Perv Timberlake Secwet Woger wrote:
Subject: ... _ .._. .._ _ _ .._ _ _ _ ._ ._. _ _._ .._ . . ._. STFU MUT MARQUEER? Vass is "MUT," mein dumkoff? |
Just another Morgasm
wrote in message ... On 10 Mar 2007 13:30:18 -0800, "Andy the Perv Timberlake" wrote: On Mar 10, 1:18 pm, wrote: On 9 Mar 2007 05:26:08 -0800, "Andy the Perv Timberlake" wrote: just another stalking By you, Marqueer impossible to be stlaking you woger I would have to threaten you and you would have to be afraid as a result of that threat You clearly have your head up your ass, Mark. You are a moral and mental pig. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com