Opus- wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:27 -0400, jawod spake
thusly:

Who the **** are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed,
arrogant PRICK! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up
and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING
to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain
what makes a person an "asset to the service"?

Jeez,
Chill out, eh?

Sorry, but I get upset with people who make statements that are easily
taken as personal insults.

"Stuff happens."

BTW, this "Jawod" signed a message on rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
as "AB8O." I found a blank on that call sign at QRZ.


Yes it's obsolete. Yes, it's fun.

I found it to be cold and impersonal.

I agree. Manual radiotelegraphy has NONE of the body language
or tone of voice or much of anything that is normal in everyday
person-to-person contacts. Using this monotonic form of
very early radio allows any user to be anything they want with
no real references to anything but the ability to send telegraphy.


Should it be used to qualify? Let the FCC decide (soon).

Here in Canada, they already have. I believe the FCC will soon.

If it is eliminated, will that change the "Service"? Maybe.

Probably not.

Heh heh...if the test is eliminated the expressed outrage,
anguish, and horror will be a horrendous wail never to be
silenced until the last code key is pried from cold, dead
fingers! :-)


Will CW disappear? Probably not.
Historically, it defined ham radio, so it has a special place in the
hearts of very many hams. It's natural that they sort of cling to it.

Let them cling, they are free to do so.

I'd say "clog" as in cholesterol clogging those "hearts."

"Jawod" uses "many" AS IF it were quantitative. Not so much
in the USA now. The US Technician class licensees now
number about 49% of all, twice as large a number as the
General class. I doubt they want to hear such facts.


Will CW's elimination be the end of ham radio? Of course not.
Ham radio will cease when all the hams die off. New hams are needed,
with or without code.

I totally agree.

In the USA the number of newcomers is not able to keep pace
with the expirations of licensees. That trend has been evident
for more than a year. [see www.hamdata.com] The majority of
new licensees are Technician class. Novice class, the
supposed traditional "beginner" license has been expiring at a
steady rate for years before the US changes in 2000.


My personal hope is that a significant minority of these new hams will
take up CW and learn to enjoy this mode. It truly is a fun mode. I
hope people will WANT to learn it.

I always found it to be boring.

"Jawod" and other morsemen think that all will "like" what they
like. They really don't understand what other citizens want.


Compulsory things are seldom welcome,,,some are necessary. Is CW a good
requirement for ham radio? I guess it has probably outlived its day.

A requirement related to other digital modes would make a good
replacement. True?

I completely agree. If you want to filter out the less serious, then
use a relevant method. Here in Canada, in order to get a no-code
licence, you must get at least 80% on the technical. And technical
prowess will always be important regardless of the mode of
communication.

That sounds fair. In general I've approved what Industry Canada
does on communications regulations...a bit more than what the
FCC does for US civil radio services.

wrote:
Opus- wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:27 -0400, jawod spake
thusly:

Who the #### are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed,
arrogant #####! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up
and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING
to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain
what makes a person an "asset to the service"?

Jeez,
Chill out, eh?

Sorry, but I get upset with people who make statements that are easily
taken as personal insults.

"Stuff happens."

BTW, this "Jawod" signed a message on rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
as "AB8O." I found a blank on that call sign at QRZ.

What a coincidence...I used QRZ's database search engine and found
a blank when I entered "Leonard H. Anderson".

Funny, eh...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:

Opus- wrote:

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:27 -0400, jawod spake
thusly:


Who the #### are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed,
arrogant #####! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up
and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING
to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain
what makes a person an "asset to the service"?


Jeez,
Chill out, eh?

Sorry, but I get upset with people who make statements that are easily
taken as personal insults.

"Stuff happens."

BTW, this "Jawod" signed a message on rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
as "AB8O." I found a blank on that call sign at QRZ.


What a coincidence...I used QRZ's database search engine and found
a blank when I entered "Leonard H. Anderson".

Funny, eh...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ


I am not "Leonard H. Anderson"

jawod wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:

BTW, this "Jawod" signed a message on rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
as "AB8O." I found a blank on that call sign at QRZ.

What a coincidence...I used QRZ's database search engine and found
a blank when I entered "Leonard H. Anderson".

Funny, eh...?!?!

I am not "Leonard H. Anderson"

I know you're not.

I was jabbing Lennie in the ribs about supposedly not finding
someone (you?) under a certain call when HE'S not in there either.
Never has been.

Sorry for the confusion.

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
jawod wrote:

K4YZ wrote:

wrote:


BTW, this "Jawod" signed a message on rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
as "AB8O." I found a blank on that call sign at QRZ.

What a coincidence...I used QRZ's database search engine and found
a blank when I entered "Leonard H. Anderson".

Funny, eh...?!?!

I am not "Leonard H. Anderson"


I know you're not.

I was jabbing Lennie in the ribs about supposedly not finding
someone (you?) under a certain call when HE'S not in there either.
Never has been.

Sorry for the confusion.

Steve, K4YZ

I'm not in hiding.

No worries.

73,

John
AB8O

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
Opus- wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:27 -0400, jawod spake
thusly:

Who the #### are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed,
arrogant #####! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up
and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING
to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain
what makes a person an "asset to the service"?

Jeez,
Chill out, eh?

Sorry, but I get upset with people who make statements that are easily
taken as personal insults.

"Stuff happens."

BTW, this "Jawod" signed a message on rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
as "AB8O." I found a blank on that call sign at QRZ.

What a coincidence...I used QRZ's database search engine and found
a blank when I entered "Leonard H. Anderson".

Funny, eh...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

Funny? No.

Stupid? Yes.

I guess the only excercise you ever get is your exercise in futility.
Even Len will tell you that he's not a ham, but you knew that already.

From: on Sat, Sep 23 2006 1:51 pm

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
Opus- wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:27 -0400, jawod spake


What a coincidence...I used QRZ's database search engine and found
a blank when I entered "Leonard H. Anderson".

Funny, eh...?!?!

Funny? No.

Stupid? Yes.

I guess the only excercise you ever get is your exercise in futility.
Even Len will tell you that he's not a ham, but you knew that already.

The USMC imposter feels compelled to vent hate against
all who disbelieve him. shrug Never mind that he has
NEVER made available ANY third-party proof of his alleged
18-year USMC career. He feels that everyone "must"
believe his words and never mind any proof.

Back in 1998-1999 on FCC 98-143 ("Reconstruction NPRM)
there DID exist a licensed radio amateur named Leonard
H. Anderson...but his mailing address was in Montana,
not California where I've been since 1956.

When I checked QRZ under AB8O, the bio page was there but
all response data had been deleted. Why I have no idea.
One will have to ask John (AB8O, "Jawod") about that.

Out of curiosity last year ( two years ago?) I did a
Search for my name. It is somewhat common, surname
certainly, given name slightly. Interesting results:

A USMC Major (a real one) with the Navy's Blue Angels
was named Leonard Anderson. :-) Think about that:
USMC, a real commissioned officer, and good enough to
fly as part of the Blue Angels! Kind of beats this
"CAP Captain" posing in a used poopy suit with snot on
his moustache. Poor CAP man is only single-engine
rated yet loved to say he was "pilot in command!" :-)

There was a black actor in an entertainment registry
named Leonard Anderson. Buff, hunky guy maybe 30.
There was a white music teacher named Leonard Anderson,
maybe coming up on 50, not a "hunk" but appreciated by
his school and community.

A quick name search at QRZ this morning turns up three
licensed US radio amateurs named Leonard Anderson, but
none of them have the same middle initial.

Now all that is really irrelevant except to members
of the morseketeers in here, namely Heil. In order not
to offend his apparent sensibilities, one MUST have a
valid amateur radio license in order to talk about
obtaining an amateur radio license! That is to avoid
"telling him what to do!" :-)

NB: NO ONE can tell Heil what to do. He tells all
others what to do. :-)

This is all so hilarious! :-)

wrote:

Now all that is really irrelevant except to members
of the morseketeers in here, namely Heil. In order not
to offend his apparent sensibilities, one MUST have a
valid amateur radio license in order to talk about
obtaining an amateur radio license! That is to avoid
"telling him what to do!" :-)

You don't have an amateur radio license. I have taken no action in
attempting to prevent you from posting here. I have taken no action to
preclude your comments to the FCC. Therefore, your statement is false.
I am not bound to accept your often outrageous statements without
responding. Ridiculing you or laughing at you is not forbidden. Deal
with it.

NB: NO ONE can tell Heil what to do.

You certainly may not tell me what to do. You have no power over me at
all. Deal with it.

He tells all
others what to do. :-)

That, like the balance of your statement above, is an untruth.

This is all so hilarious! :-)

It certainly is, especially when you think that others are laughing
*with* you.

wrote:
On 22 Sep 2006 20:46:15 -0700, "
wrote:


Opus- wrote:

If it is eliminated, will that change the "Service"? Maybe.

Probably not.

Heh heh...if the test is eliminated the expressed outrage,
anguish, and horror will be a horrendous wail never to be
silenced until the last code key is pried from cold, dead
fingers! :-)

well I am hopeing some of them will be silenced chlucting at their
hearts when they read the R&O

Careful, Mark, we can't say such things due to "threats" against
the pro-coders. :-) They are muy touchy about threats against
Them.


That sounds fair. In general I've approved what Industry Canada
does on communications regulations...a bit more than what the
FCC does for US civil radio services.

indeed if they had been willing say 10 years ago to go along with what
Canada has now (which was proposed by members of NCI) this would be
over long since

Well, Mark, it is like this: Some of those who have the cool
HOBBY of amateur radio think they are "servicemen" in the
"service of their country" for having that hobby. We can't say
nasty to them because that is not "nice." They rank
themselves as equivalent to soldiers, sailors, and airmen.

They want the ILLUSION that they are doing great and
meritorious SERVICE. Especially the morseketeers. That is
important to them. The illusion, that is. Screw the reality
part of it, that doesn't apply to them (they think).

Never mind that US amateur radio licensee numbers are holding
static with a slight downturn over the past three years. Oldsters
are signing off permanently and newcomers are going in through
the no-code-test Technician class. Most of the latter are STAYING
no-code. [General Of The Amateurs Miccolis says otherwise but
then he loves cooking the stats to suit his own taste]

As time goes on with the code test gone, the amateur bands
WILL change. But, it will be slow since humans are living longer
now. Human attrition will, nonetheless, happen. Oldsters don't
want to think about that but it is inevitable to all of us. The
oldsters want to preserve the illusion that they are still "young,"
believing in the old, antiquated ways they were impressed with.
Why some even believe they are a "service to the country" by
having that hobby.

There's no argument with those ancient morseketeers, certainly
no "discussion." To them, all must be preserved. [read
mummified] Ptui.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Opus- wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:27 -0400, jawod spake
thusly:

Who the **** are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed,
arrogant PRICK! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up
and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING
to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain
what makes a person an "asset to the service"?

Jeez,
Chill out, eh?

Sorry, but I get upset with people who make statements that are easily
taken as personal insults.

"Stuff happens."

BTW, this "Jawod" signed a message on rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
as "AB8O." I found a blank on that call sign at QRZ.


Yes it's obsolete. Yes, it's fun.

I found it to be cold and impersonal.

I agree. Manual radiotelegraphy has NONE of the body language
or tone of voice or much of anything that is normal in everyday
person-to-person contacts. Using this monotonic form of
very early radio allows any user to be anything they want with
no real references to anything but the ability to send telegraphy.


Should it be used to qualify? Let the FCC decide (soon).

Here in Canada, they already have. I believe the FCC will soon.

If it is eliminated, will that change the "Service"? Maybe.

Probably not.

Heh heh...if the test is eliminated the expressed outrage,
anguish, and horror will be a horrendous wail never to be
silenced until the last code key is pried from cold, dead
fingers! :-)


Will CW disappear? Probably not.
Historically, it defined ham radio, so it has a special place in the
hearts of very many hams. It's natural that they sort of cling to it.

Let them cling, they are free to do so.

I'd say "clog" as in cholesterol clogging those "hearts."

"Jawod" uses "many" AS IF it were quantitative. Not so much
in the USA now. The US Technician class licensees now
number about 49% of all, twice as large a number as the
General class. I doubt they want to hear such facts.


Will CW's elimination be the end of ham radio? Of course not.
Ham radio will cease when all the hams die off. New hams are needed,
with or without code.

I totally agree.

In the USA the number of newcomers is not able to keep pace
with the expirations of licensees. That trend has been evident
for more than a year. [see www.hamdata.com] The majority of
new licensees are Technician class. Novice class, the
supposed traditional "beginner" license has been expiring at a
steady rate for years before the US changes in 2000.


My personal hope is that a significant minority of these new hams will
take up CW and learn to enjoy this mode. It truly is a fun mode. I
hope people will WANT to learn it.

I always found it to be boring.

"Jawod" and other morsemen think that all will "like" what they
like. They really don't understand what other citizens want.


Compulsory things are seldom welcome,,,some are necessary. Is CW a good
requirement for ham radio? I guess it has probably outlived its day.

A requirement related to other digital modes would make a good
replacement. True?

I completely agree. If you want to filter out the less serious, then
use a relevant method. Here in Canada, in order to get a no-code
licence, you must get at least 80% on the technical. And technical
prowess will always be important regardless of the mode of
communication.

That sounds fair. In general I've approved what Industry Canada
does on communications regulations...a bit more than what the
FCC does for US civil radio services.




Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner.
Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor
the licence expires.