"S C" wrote in message ...

Finally, I would be grateful if anyone could provide me with smoe advice
in
relation to CW. E.g. Methods available to improve the transmission and
understanding CW messages.

This depends on operator sending and receiving ability. But also important
is quality of transmitted note, absence of clicks, slow speed if signals are
weak, repetition of important information if signals are weak, use of IF and
audio bandpass and notch filters.

73, Peter

Airy R. Bean wrote:
I am not mocking anybody - your comment says more
about you, perhaps, than it does about me?

"Hans Summers" wrote in message
...
Have your own
interest and enjoy the hobby, without needing to mock others who enjoy it
in
their own way.

Welcome to my killfile. You, unlike Hans, have nothing to say, and you
insist on saying it over and over at extreme length. I can think of
nothing, including amateur radio, Usenet, and the human race, to which
you are an ornament, and anything to which you are compared will be
insulted.

--
Mike Andrews

Tired old sysadmin

If there really are people such as you claim, and you have
not just invented them for the purpose of this discussion, then why
haven't
they got a higher grade of licence?

I don't think you read my posting properly. I already told you, "every M3 I
have met is on his way to the full license. Several have got theirs since I
first knew them". Just one example immediately springs to mind without me
even having to look up callsigns in my log: Ken M3NPD now M0RZZ.

I can imagine why many people wanting a full license might want to get an
intermediate license first, so they could get on air whilst working for the
full license. Seems to me to be quite a sensible approach. Others might
become M3 because the full license seems daunting. When they get on air
perhaps they'd be enthused enough to upgrade their license.

You would seem to be describing a CBers-Masquerading-As-
-Radio-Hams and not actually _REAL_ Radio Hams.

This comment shows you're not really thinking logically about all this, even
if it is your genuinely held opinion. By your statement you're saying a full
license holder can still be a Masquerading CB'er, because he isn't very
involved technically. Conversely you would then have to concede that a
technically able M3 was a real ham not a CB'er, regardless of his license
class. I think you need to decide whether your sweeping generalisations are
to define criteria based on license class, or on technical ability.

I am not mocking anybody - your comment says more
about you, perhaps, than it does about me?

Belittle would have perhaps been a better word. You are attempting to
belittle others more worthy of the amatuer license than you are, and in the
process you are demonstrating considerable expertise in self-belittlement...

73

Hans

CB'er Masquerading as Radio Ham, a.k.a. G0UPL (who has never owned or
operated a commercial rig, and in gradually making my way higher in
frequency from my start on 80m, is still some 17MHz short of the CB band...)

Your Childish Broadcast (CB) below serves to classify you.

Ham Radio has traditions of gentlemanly conduct, traditions
which are sadly lost on you.

"Mike Andrews" wrote in message
...
Welcome to my killfile. You, unlike Hans, have nothing to say, and you
insist on saying it over and over at extreme length. I can think of
nothing, including amateur radio, Usenet, and the human race, to which
you are an ornament, and anything to which you are compared will be
insulted.

But the M3 licence is no more a stepping stone to _REAL_ Ham
Radio than are other pursuits such as Needleworking and football
supporting.

"Hans Summers" wrote in message
...
If there really are people such as you claim, and you have
not just invented them for the purpose of this discussion, then why
haven't
they got a higher grade of licence?
I don't think you read my posting properly. I already told you, "every M3
I
have met is on his way to the full license. Several have got theirs since
I
first knew them". Just one example immediately springs to mind without me
even having to look up callsigns in my log: Ken M3NPD now M0RZZ.
I can imagine why many people wanting a full license might want to get an
intermediate license first, so they could get on air whilst working for
the
full license. Seems to me to be quite a sensible approach. Others might
become M3 because the full license seems daunting. When they get on air
perhaps they'd be enthused enough to upgrade their license.

If you want to be thought of as a CBer, then make personal
comments as you do below.

I do not have to, and neither do I, concede what you suggest. The
M3/CB Fools' Licence is judged by the entry standard, which
is no technical standard whatsoever. The few examples that
you _CLAIM_ do not change the essence of the M3/CB Licensee
class which is a Mongolian horde of non-technical turnip-brains,
who are the death of _REAL_ Ham Radio.

I am not making any sweeping generalisations, I am quoting facts.

Indeed, if you wish to be respected as a debating respondent, then
you would do well to avoid the rather silly and childish asides
that you are increasingly using, childish asides that are usually the
mark of a failing debater.

"Hans Summers" wrote in message
...
You would seem to be describing a CBers-Masquerading-As-
-Radio-Hams and not actually _REAL_ Radio Hams.

This comment shows you're not really thinking logically about all this,
even
if it is your genuinely held opinion. By your statement you're saying a
full
license holder can still be a Masquerading CB'er, because he isn't very
involved technically. Conversely you would then have to concede that a
technically able M3 was a real ham not a CB'er, regardless of his license
class. I think you need to decide whether your sweeping generalisations
are
to define criteria based on license class, or on technical ability.

I am neither mocking nor belittling - your comment says more
about you, perhaps, than it does about me?

Once again you are resorting to a rather silly and childish line
in personal remarks, remarks which would tend to classify you as a CBer,
because Ham Radio has traditions of gentlemanly conduct which
are sadly lost on you. Because of your emotive and immature stance
it is unlikely that anyone reading this NG would mistake you
for a Radio Ham.

It is not a question of belittlement nor of mocking, merely one
of taxonomy.

I welcome and encourage everybody, irrespective of their background
to become technically interested and thus become suitable candidates
for _REAL_ Ham Radio. Those that do not become technically
motivated simply are not _REAL_ Radio Hams. They are something
else, probably CBers. Those whose pursuit is football supporting and
nothing else are clearly not Radio Hams, but it not a matter of mocking
nor is a matter of belittling to classify them as non-Hams.

"Hans Summers" wrote in message
...
I am not mocking anybody - your comment says more
about you, perhaps, than it does about me?
Belittle would have perhaps been a better word. You are attempting to
belittle others more worthy of the amatuer license than you are, and in
the
process you are demonstrating considerable expertise in
self-belittlement...

I do humbly apologise, I am clearly in desperate need of a good period of
solitary monastic study alone with my Oxford dictionary. I appear to have
completely misunderstood the meaning of such words as mocking, belittling or
taxonomy.

Any M3'ers listening... please be advised that:

You are all CB Fools
You are a Mongolian horde of non-technical turnip-brains
You are the death of real ham radio
You are comparable to needleworkers and football supporters

Gareth G4SDW, in the best traditions of gentlemanly amateur radio conduct,
has spoken. Of course, he is not mocking you, nor belittling you. How could
you ever think such a thing? On the contrary, he is welcoming and
encouraging you enthusiastic newcomers into the world of amateur radio.

73

Hans G0UPL

Childish failed debater, emotive and immature CB'er masquerading as radio
ham.
a.k.a. G0UPL.
Pass the morse key





"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
If you want to be thought of as a CBer, then make personal
comments as you do below.

I do not have to, and neither do I, concede what you suggest. The
M3/CB Fools' Licence is judged by the entry standard, which
is no technical standard whatsoever. The few examples that
you _CLAIM_ do not change the essence of the M3/CB Licensee
class which is a Mongolian horde of non-technical turnip-brains,
who are the death of _REAL_ Ham Radio.

I am not making any sweeping generalisations, I am quoting facts.

Indeed, if you wish to be respected as a debating respondent, then
you would do well to avoid the rather silly and childish asides
that you are increasingly using, childish asides that are usually the
mark of a failing debater.

"Hans Summers" wrote in message
...
You would seem to be describing a CBers-Masquerading-As-
-Radio-Hams and not actually _REAL_ Radio Hams.

This comment shows you're not really thinking logically about all this,
even
if it is your genuinely held opinion. By your statement you're saying a
full
license holder can still be a Masquerading CB'er, because he isn't very
involved technically. Conversely you would then have to concede that a
technically able M3 was a real ham not a CB'er, regardless of his
license
class. I think you need to decide whether your sweeping generalisations
are
to define criteria based on license class, or on technical ability.

Ham Radio has traditions of gentlemanly conduct,
traditions which are sadly lost on you.

The CB using 4 be 4 countryside path damaging foolish mates, you associate
with too I shouldn't wonder

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:49:40 +0100, "Hans Summers"
wrote:


I do humbly apologise, I am clearly in desperate need of a good period of
solitary monastic study alone with my Oxford dictionary. I appear to have
completely misunderstood the meaning of such words as mocking, belittling or
taxonomy.
Hans, thankyou for clarifying the situation so succinctly. I just knew
I must have got the wrong end of the stick over Gareths posts, both
here and on uk.radio.amateur :-)

Mike W, G8NXD aka M3MSM qthr