It's amazing what people will say to try to justify dumbing down Amateur Radio.
 

Cecil Moore wrote in
m:

Slow Code wrote:
It's funny, and most telling. The no-code hams have everything over 30
MHz, but it's the code hams that are the one's moving ham radio forward
and doing anything technical wise.

If that's true, it's certainly a change from half a
century ago when we HF hams observed the VHF/UHF
hams revolutionizing amateur radio with their
technical expertise.


And half a century ago those VHF/UHF hams had passed a code test. They
weren't no-coders, they were motivated and did what it took. Today's
no-codes aren't motivated and don't want to make an effort, therefore
they're probably not going to be motivated to move things forward either.

SC

It's amazing what people will say to try to justify dumbing down Amateur Radio.
 

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:11:42 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly:

Cecil Moore wrote in
om:

Slow Code wrote:
It's funny, and most telling. The no-code hams have everything over 30
MHz, but it's the code hams that are the one's moving ham radio forward
and doing anything technical wise.

If that's true, it's certainly a change from half a
century ago when we HF hams observed the VHF/UHF
hams revolutionizing amateur radio with their
technical expertise.


And half a century ago those VHF/UHF hams had passed a code test. They
weren't no-coders, they were motivated and did what it took. Today's
no-codes aren't motivated and don't want to make an effort, therefore
they're probably not going to be motivated to move things forward either.

Your defamation is well noted. Democracy just sucks, doesn't it?

It's amazing what people will say to try to justify dumbing downAmateur Radio.
 

Slow Code wrote:
And half a century ago those VHF/UHF hams had passed a code test. They
weren't no-coders, they were motivated and did what it took. Today's
no-codes aren't motivated and don't want to make an effort, therefore
they're probably not going to be motivated to move things forward either.

Actually, the Technician License was offered with
reduced code requirements for hams who were more
interested in technical experimentation than in
ragchewing.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

It's amazing what people will say to try to justify dumbing down Amateur Radio.
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
It's funny, and most telling. The no-code hams have everything over 30
MHz, but it's the code hams that are the one's moving ham radio forward
and doing anything technical wise.

If that's true, it's certainly a change from half a
century ago when we HF hams observed the VHF/UHF
hams revolutionizing amateur radio with their
technical expertise.

Uhhhhhhhh...Cecil...??!?!

Did you actually make that up, or just quote someone else who is
equally ill informed?

Most of the people who were "moving forward" half a century ago
were ALSO folks who were active on and well known in HF circles...

Unless, of course, you're now going to take Lennie's spin and tell
us that any / everything reported in QST, CQ, etc, was only
"self-serviing rhetoric"...?!?!

Try again.

Steve, K4YZ

It's amazing what people will say to try to justify dumbing down Amateur Radio.
 

It's amazing what people will say to try to justify dumbing down Amateur Radio.
 

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 01:08:42 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly:

wrote in
oups.com:


Cecil Moore wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
It's funny, and most telling. The no-code hams have everything over
30 MHz, but it's the code hams that are the one's moving ham radio
forward and doing anything technical wise.

If that's true, it's certainly a change from half a
century ago when we HF hams observed the VHF/UHF
hams revolutionizing amateur radio with their
technical expertise.

Uhhhhhhhh...Cecil...??!?!

Did you actually make that up, or just quote someone else who is
equally ill informed?

Most of the people who were "moving forward" half a century ago
were ALSO folks who were active on and well known in HF circles...

Unless, of course, you're now going to take Lennie's spin and tell
us that any / everything reported in QST, CQ, etc, was only
"self-serviing rhetoric"...?!?!

Try again.

Steve, K4YZ


Anyone that puts out an argument to keep the code requirement gets teased
by Cecil. He loves to throw out some goof-ball counter reply to try to
be-little the original argument.

Pot, meet kettle.
--

(Jim, single dad to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)

"What, Me Worry?" A. E. Newman

Please note: All unsolicited e-mail sent to me may, at
my discretion, be posted in this newsgroup verbatim.

It's amazing what people will say to try to justify dumbing down Amateur Radio.
 

Slow Code wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:


Anyone that puts out an argument to keep the code requirement gets teased
by Cecil. He loves to throw out some goof-ball counter reply to try to
be-little the original argument.
if you want to stop ham radio being dumbed down you need to turn in
your license and BAN the use of CW which has made mindless wrecks of
people like yourself I presonal don't advocate that course of action
but it is the way stop the dumbing down of radio

SC

It's amazing what people will say to try to justify dumbing down Amateur Radio.
 

Opus- wrote in
:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 01:08:42 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly:

wrote in
roups.com:


Cecil Moore wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
It's funny, and most telling. The no-code hams have everything
over 30 MHz, but it's the code hams that are the one's moving ham
radio forward and doing anything technical wise.

If that's true, it's certainly a change from half a
century ago when we HF hams observed the VHF/UHF
hams revolutionizing amateur radio with their
technical expertise.

Uhhhhhhhh...Cecil...??!?!

Did you actually make that up, or just quote someone else who is
equally ill informed?

Most of the people who were "moving forward" half a century ago
were ALSO folks who were active on and well known in HF circles...

Unless, of course, you're now going to take Lennie's spin and tell
us that any / everything reported in QST, CQ, etc, was only
"self-serviing rhetoric"...?!?!

Try again.

Steve, K4YZ


Anyone that puts out an argument to keep the code requirement gets
teased by Cecil. He loves to throw out some goof-ball counter reply to
try to be-little the original argument.

Pot, meet kettle.


No. All my arguments are good sound arguments.


SC

It's amazing what people will say to try to justify dumbing down Amateur Radio.
 

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:44:42 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly:

Opus- wrote in
:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 01:08:42 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly:

wrote in
groups.com:


Cecil Moore wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
It's funny, and most telling. The no-code hams have everything
over 30 MHz, but it's the code hams that are the one's moving ham
radio forward and doing anything technical wise.

If that's true, it's certainly a change from half a
century ago when we HF hams observed the VHF/UHF
hams revolutionizing amateur radio with their
technical expertise.

Uhhhhhhhh...Cecil...??!?!

Did you actually make that up, or just quote someone else who is
equally ill informed?

Most of the people who were "moving forward" half a century ago
were ALSO folks who were active on and well known in HF circles...

Unless, of course, you're now going to take Lennie's spin and tell
us that any / everything reported in QST, CQ, etc, was only
"self-serviing rhetoric"...?!?!

Try again.

Steve, K4YZ


Anyone that puts out an argument to keep the code requirement gets
teased by Cecil. He loves to throw out some goof-ball counter reply to
try to be-little the original argument.

Pot, meet kettle.


No. All my arguments are good sound arguments.

Oh PuhlEEEZE!!! Spelling Canada with a "K" is a good sound argument?
Calling me a "lazy ass" is a good sound argument? Claiming I get a
handout is a good sound argument?

You have NEVER put out ANY kind of argument at all!!! Why don't you
try to cite some source that back up any of your "good sound
arguments".

Free hint: Hurling insults and innuendo does NOT a "good sound
argument" make.

Hope this helps.
--

(Jim, single dad to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)

"What, Me Worry?" A. E. Newman

Please note: All unsolicited e-mail sent to me may, at
my discretion, be posted in this newsgroup verbatim.

It's amazing what people will say to try to justify dumbing down Amateur Radio.
 

Opus- wrote in
:

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:44:42 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly:

Opus- wrote in
m:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 01:08:42 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly:

wrote in
egroups.com:


Cecil Moore wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
It's funny, and most telling. The no-code hams have everything
over 30 MHz, but it's the code hams that are the one's moving ham
radio forward and doing anything technical wise.

If that's true, it's certainly a change from half a
century ago when we HF hams observed the VHF/UHF
hams revolutionizing amateur radio with their
technical expertise.

Uhhhhhhhh...Cecil...??!?!

Did you actually make that up, or just quote someone else who is
equally ill informed?

Most of the people who were "moving forward" half a century ago
were ALSO folks who were active on and well known in HF circles...

Unless, of course, you're now going to take Lennie's spin and
tell
us that any / everything reported in QST, CQ, etc, was only
"self-serviing rhetoric"...?!?!

Try again.

Steve, K4YZ


Anyone that puts out an argument to keep the code requirement gets
teased by Cecil. He loves to throw out some goof-ball counter reply to
try to be-little the original argument.

Pot, meet kettle.


No. All my arguments are good sound arguments.

Oh PuhlEEEZE!!! Spelling Canada with a "K" is a good sound argument?
Calling me a "lazy ass" is a good sound argument? Claiming I get a
handout is a good sound argument?

You have NEVER put out ANY kind of argument at all!!! Why don't you
try to cite some source that back up any of your "good sound
arguments".

Free hint: Hurling insults and innuendo does NOT a "good sound
argument" make.

Hope this helps.



I'm sorry Opus, but I refuse to lie. You did get a hand-out, and you're
Lazy because you refuse to learn CW to 20wpm, and too lazy to to use it.
You don't want to be a good capable communicator in every way. That's just
how it is. I'm sorry if the truth seems like an insult. You're right
about one thing, I spelled Kanada wrong, I meant to type KKKanaduh. Eh.

SC