From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:


Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

So what? Amateurs choose the mode they want to use. What is wrong with
choosing Morse Code and HF operation?

Now, now, Jimmie, you are assigning some "blame" on a plain
and simple factual statement: "Amateur radio is the ONLY
[US] radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for
communications purposes."

What I wrote is a plain and simple fact.

You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple
fact. Your problem, not mine.

Some may say the Morse Code *test* is outmoded. But you are saying the
*use* of Morse Code is outmoded!

Yes, in every other radio service except amateur.

You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple
fact. Your problem, not mine.


FM broadcasting is the only radio service that uses stereo multiplex FM
- is it outmoded?

There is NO SUCH THING as "stereo multiplex FM" mode.

FM broadcasting is NOT the "only radio service" using stereophonic
audio modulation. Stereophonic audio modulation is NOT required
by FM band broadcasters. Those broadcasters MAY use stereophonic
audio OR they may use monophonic audio plus a SUBCARRIER separate
audio channel OR they may use stereophonic audio PLUS the
subcarrier audio. The term "multiplex" applies to SEPARATE
information sources, not stereophonic audio. All of that is
very much in use today.

DTV (Digital TeleVision) broadcasting carries QUADRAPHONIC audio
(optional, may be monophonic or stereophonic) with or without
extra separate audio subchannels, with or without audio text
("Teletext") accompanying the video. That is very much in use
today and for the foreseeable future of American TV broadcasting.

Some AM broadcasters are still using the Motorola C-QUAM system
for stereophonic broadcasting where each stereo "channel" takes
one of the two DSB sidebands. While that system works well,
the AM broadcasting listener market has NOT received it well
enough to warrant more than a few broadcasters adopting it or
any similar AM stereophonic system. It appears to be on the
way out due to listener non-acceptance.

"Shortwave" broadcasting is still "testing" Radio Mondial
system which is capable of stereophonic audio transmission.
Technically the system works very well. The increased cost
of receivers and the general downturn in world interest in
"shortwave" broadcasting might result in a future
discontinuance. Note: What was once "shortwave" radio
broadcasting is increasingly shifting over to satellite
relay and VoIP dissemination rather than maintaining the
HF transmitters; program content remains the same.

The International Civil Airways VOR (Very high frequency
Omnidirectional radio Range) system ground stations ALWAYS
broadcast with a subcarrier (9.96 KHz) that is FMed with
the reference magnetic azimuth bearing phase. The RF
output is amplitude modulated with 30% AM so that any
receiver can determine its magnetic bearing to the ground
station by comparing the demodulated reference phase with
the main AM phase. Relatively simple receiver demod that
was devised in vacuum tube architecture times. In use
since 1955 worldwide, no foreseeable discontinuance in the
future despite wider use of GPS.

Multi-channel (many "multis") using FM was once the choice
of trans-continental microwave radio relay, the linkage
across the USA that made national TV and 'dial-anywhere'
long distance telephony possible. It has been largely
replaced by optical fiber relay using digital multiplexing
of voice and TV channels using digital modulation of laser
light. The longest (to date) fiber-optic relay is the
long, long like between London and Tokyo through the
Mediterranean Sea past Saudi Arabia, India, around
southeast Asia, past the Phillippines. Most of it under
water. Optical "pumping" with a second optical wave-
length is used for amplification to avoid electronic
repeater amplifiers. Such optical pumping (amplification)
is not possible with microwave RF radio relay.

There are many different other examples of "FM"-like
modulations at work daily in HF and on up into the micro-
waves. The most common is the various adaptations of the
common dial-up modem using combinatorial amplitude and
phase modulation of an audio carrier wave. Those are the
"TORs" (Teleprinter Over Radio) used for data
communications in maritime service; voice is done via SSB
and may be simultaneous with the data. This is on-going
in use and for the foreseeable future.

The FIRST HF Single Sideband circuits (since the beginning
of the 1930s) used combinatorial modulations. The 12 KHz
bandwidth was composed of four 3 KHz wide separate one-way
channels. Each 3 KHz (voice bandwidth) channel could carry
up to 6 frequency-shift-modulated teleprinter channels.
The common arrangement worldwide (by both commercial and
government users) was to use two 3 KHz channels solely
for voice/telephony and the remaining two for 8 to 12 TTY
circuits (number dependent on the redundancy required to
overcome selective fading). While those "commercial" SSB
circuits were numerous from the 40s on into the 70s, their
number has dwindled due to better throughput and reliability
from satellite radio relay services.

Was there anything else technical about communications
and/or broadcasting that you wanted to erroneously state?

" wrote in
ups.com:

From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:


Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

So what? Amateurs choose the mode they want to use. What is wrong with
choosing Morse Code and HF operation?

Now, now, Jimmie, you are assigning some "blame" on a plain
and simple factual statement: "Amateur radio is the ONLY
[US] radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for
communications purposes."

What I wrote is a plain and simple fact.

You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple
fact. Your problem, not mine.

Some may say the Morse Code *test* is outmoded. But you are saying the
*use* of Morse Code is outmoded!

Yes, in every other radio service except amateur.

You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple
fact. Your problem, not mine.


FM broadcasting is the only radio service that uses stereo multiplex FM
- is it outmoded?

There is NO SUCH THING as "stereo multiplex FM" mode.

FM broadcasting is NOT the "only radio service" using stereophonic
audio modulation. Stereophonic audio modulation is NOT required
by FM band broadcasters. Those broadcasters MAY use stereophonic
audio OR they may use monophonic audio plus a SUBCARRIER separate
audio channel OR they may use stereophonic audio PLUS the
subcarrier audio. The term "multiplex" applies to SEPARATE
information sources, not stereophonic audio. All of that is
very much in use today.

DTV (Digital TeleVision) broadcasting carries QUADRAPHONIC audio
(optional, may be monophonic or stereophonic) with or without
extra separate audio subchannels, with or without audio text
("Teletext") accompanying the video. That is very much in use
today and for the foreseeable future of American TV broadcasting.

Some AM broadcasters are still using the Motorola C-QUAM system
for stereophonic broadcasting where each stereo "channel" takes
one of the two DSB sidebands. While that system works well,
the AM broadcasting listener market has NOT received it well
enough to warrant more than a few broadcasters adopting it or
any similar AM stereophonic system. It appears to be on the
way out due to listener non-acceptance.

"Shortwave" broadcasting is still "testing" Radio Mondial
system which is capable of stereophonic audio transmission.
Technically the system works very well. The increased cost
of receivers and the general downturn in world interest in
"shortwave" broadcasting might result in a future
discontinuance. Note: What was once "shortwave" radio
broadcasting is increasingly shifting over to satellite
relay and VoIP dissemination rather than maintaining the
HF transmitters; program content remains the same.

The International Civil Airways VOR (Very high frequency
Omnidirectional radio Range) system ground stations ALWAYS
broadcast with a subcarrier (9.96 KHz) that is FMed with
the reference magnetic azimuth bearing phase. The RF
output is amplitude modulated with 30% AM so that any
receiver can determine its magnetic bearing to the ground
station by comparing the demodulated reference phase with
the main AM phase. Relatively simple receiver demod that
was devised in vacuum tube architecture times. In use
since 1955 worldwide, no foreseeable discontinuance in the
future despite wider use of GPS.

Multi-channel (many "multis") using FM was once the choice
of trans-continental microwave radio relay, the linkage
across the USA that made national TV and 'dial-anywhere'
long distance telephony possible. It has been largely
replaced by optical fiber relay using digital multiplexing
of voice and TV channels using digital modulation of laser
light. The longest (to date) fiber-optic relay is the
long, long like between London and Tokyo through the
Mediterranean Sea past Saudi Arabia, India, around
southeast Asia, past the Phillippines. Most of it under
water. Optical "pumping" with a second optical wave-
length is used for amplification to avoid electronic
repeater amplifiers. Such optical pumping (amplification)
is not possible with microwave RF radio relay.

There are many different other examples of "FM"-like
modulations at work daily in HF and on up into the micro-
waves. The most common is the various adaptations of the
common dial-up modem using combinatorial amplitude and
phase modulation of an audio carrier wave. Those are the
"TORs" (Teleprinter Over Radio) used for data
communications in maritime service; voice is done via SSB
and may be simultaneous with the data. This is on-going
in use and for the foreseeable future.

The FIRST HF Single Sideband circuits (since the beginning
of the 1930s) used combinatorial modulations. The 12 KHz
bandwidth was composed of four 3 KHz wide separate one-way
channels. Each 3 KHz (voice bandwidth) channel could carry
up to 6 frequency-shift-modulated teleprinter channels.
The common arrangement worldwide (by both commercial and
government users) was to use two 3 KHz channels solely
for voice/telephony and the remaining two for 8 to 12 TTY
circuits (number dependent on the redundancy required to
overcome selective fading). While those "commercial" SSB
circuits were numerous from the 40s on into the 70s, their
number has dwindled due to better throughput and reliability
from satellite radio relay services.

Was there anything else technical about communications
and/or broadcasting that you wanted to erroneously state?



Whewww. That was a gassy one.

SC

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:11:28 GMT, Blow Code spake
thusly:

Whewww. That was a gassy one.

We don't need to hear about your sex life.

You seem pretty knowledgeable so I need some assistance at
understanding something.

What I can't understand is the the incredibly childish attitude of
some of the pro-coders here. For me, the confusion stems from having
known several old timer hams while growing up. I looked up to them.
They were older gentlemen that had some fascinating knowledge and
great stories to tell about their ham radio hobby. This was back in
the 60's and early 70's so they are all gone now.

I am sure now that they are spinning in their graves, after the spew
puked up by some of the pro-coders.

Not all of them, to be fair, but a few loud ones stand out.

I still can't figure out how a statement about how CW is just beeps[
as opposed to voice on the same hardware] became transmuted into a
requirement that I should hate usenet.
That kind of blatant mis-direction seems to be quite common.

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words. Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited? Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote. Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

Why do some of them feel that insulting my daughter will make their
point valid? Are their points so weak that they resort to vulgar
insults instead of engaging in debate? I usually don't killfile people
but I have made a few exceptions lately.

Now, there will be some spew directed towards my post. They can go
ahead and prove that turning ham into CB will most certainly be a
great improvement to the ARS. I NEVER knew anybody on CB that was as
rude and vulgar as some of the pro-coders here. I can have a nasty
mouth too, at times, but it's always in response to stupidity that is
obviously not to be taken seriously.

And, ironically, *I* am the one told to grow up. That's just too
funny.

Opus- wrote:

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though. It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Jim, N2EY

On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:

Opus- wrote:

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.

One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another
operators "hand" back when I watched him operate. I am not sure how
much more a person can get out of code.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though. It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Fair enough.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

Well, I did say "usually". But wouldn't simpler equipment limit you to
code only?

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

Some very valid points here.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back
when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and
recognize where it was broadcast from.

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad.

I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government
handouts in the 44 years I have been around.

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner.

My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup.
He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between
them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full
length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were
bolted together. I was self-supporting.

Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:
Opus- wrote:

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.

One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another
operators "hand" back when I watched him operate.

Yup. Little things about an op's sending can make it as recognizable as
a familiar voice.

btw, the term "fist" is used in the same context as "hand" was used by
that op.

I am not sure how
much more a person can get out of code.

The words, of course. How they are sent can tell a lot, too. It takes a
bit of experience to recognize all the subtleties of Morse Code.

The main point is that skilled Morse Code operators can convey more
than 'just the words'.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though.

I think that is your main point.

It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Fair enough.

Exactly.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

Well, I did say "usually".

Of course.

But wouldn't simpler equipment limit you to code only?

That depends on the exact situation. The important point is that once
you have Morse Code skills, using code-only equipment isn't really a
limitation in most cases.

Simplicity of equipment can be very important in some situations. For
example, if someone wants to actually build their HF Amateur Radio
equipment, it's much simpler and easier to build a Morse Code station
than an equivalent-performance voice station. In portable operations,
the power requirement, size and weight of a Morse Code station can be
less than that of the equivalent voice station.

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile.

All sorts of things:

A) You can communicate without talking or typing. (In a world where a
lot of us spend a lot of time on the telephone and computer, being able
to communicate another way can be a real treat!)

B) The exercise of a skill is fun. Consider the person who learns how
to play a musical instrument: do you think making music (performing) is
the same experience as listening to recorded music?

C) Once you have the skills, communicating with Morse Code can be as
easy - or even easier - than using voice.

D) You can use Morse Code in situations where voice could not be used.
For example, suppose you are in a small house, apartment, RV, tent,
etc., and you want to operate without disturbing others (who might be
sleeping, talking, etc.). Of course you can put on headphones so they
don't hear the received signals, but in order to transmit, you have to
talk. Even if you keep your voice down, it can bother others. How many
times have you heard people complain about folks using cell phones in
public? But with Morse Code and a good pair of cans, you can operate
and make less noise than someone typing on a keyboard.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

Some very valid points here.

None of which mean that there *must* be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license. I happen to think such a test is a good idea,
but that's just my opinion.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back
when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and
recognize where it was broadcast from.

Exactly! The very fact that it takes some skill is part of the fun and
attraction.

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Here's one mo

5) The amount of "bad behavior" problems resulting in FCC enforcement
actions is much less from radio amateurs using Morse Code. Just look at
the FCC enforcement letters that address violations of deliberate
interference, obscenity, exceeding license privileges, and other "bad
behavior" problems. Almost all of them are for violations committed
using voice modes, not Morse Code. The difference is much greater than
would be expected from the relative popularity of the modes.

This doesn't mean all voice ops are problems or all Morse Code ops are
saints! All it means is that there's a lot less enforcement problems
from hams actually using Morse Code.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad.

Agreed! There's too much of that type of attitude on *both* sides of
the debate.

I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government
handouts in the 44 years I have been around.

How does one define "handout"?

For example, is public education of children a government handout? Yes,
many parents with kids in public school pay school taxes, but in most
districts those taxes paid by parents do not cover all of the costs of
the public schools. And the level of taxation does not depend on how
many children the parents have in school. Is public school a government
handout to people with lots of kids?

Or how about tax deductions? Are they a form of government handout? If
you have a mortgage or home equity loan, the interest is deductible. If
you rent, you don't get that deduction. Is that a government handout to
homeowners?

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get a clear idea of what
is a handout and what isn't.

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner.

My pleasure. Thanks for reading.

My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup.
He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between
them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full
length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were
bolted together. I was self-supporting.

Cool! I recently saw a similar setup used for a repeater antenna in a
wooded area. It blended in much better than metal tower.

--

The question of whether there should be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license really boils down to this: Does such a test do
more good than harm? The answer is always an opinion, not a fact.

Jim, N2EY

wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, wrote:

Opus- wrote:

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.

bull####

That's the kind of answer that proves you're an uneducated dolt,
Morkie.

As if we NEEDED more "proof" ! ! !

Steve, K4YZ

From: Opus- on Wed, Oct 4 2006 6:58 pm

You seem pretty knowledgeable so I need some assistance at
understanding something.

Jim, that statement is bound to ignite more flame war
stuff in here, heh heh heh heh...

What I can't understand is the the incredibly childish attitude of
some of the pro-coders here.

Part of that is the Nature of the Beast, the computer-
modem mode of communications. The 'Beast' got 'steroids'
with the ability to send 'anonymous' messages (they
think...traceability is possible but only through
systems administrators' access to the 'Net). When that
happened the early male adolescent behavior surfaced
with all its immaturity.

Having participated in computer-modem communications
locally and networked since December 1984, I've seen
quite a bit of that. It is clinically, also morbidly
fascinating to me. Since most of my early experiences
were on local BBSs there was the opportunity to meet
socially with those participants, get real clues to
the person instead of just seeing their words on a
screen. In most their words echoed their up-close
personnae. In perhaps a quarter of them their
fantasies and imaginations ruled their screen words,
their public, social interaction being nowhere near
that and they were relatively subdued, few having
'remarkable' lives. It could be said that their
computer-modem personnae represented their
imaginations given a pseudo-life, something to
fantasize about to relieve their everyday lives'
frustrations.

With the ability to be anonymous (through some 'Net
servers) those imaginations and frustrations can be
let out full force. The 'anonymous' ones become
aggressive, 'in-your-face' types, no longer mindful
of normal social, in-person behavior rules. This is
aided by the relative isolation of time and distance
of messaging. The aggressive ones need have no fear
of physical confrontation as a result of their words,
they can act 'tough' or abusive or insulting in
safety. Ergo, many found emotional 'relief' in the
filthy venting we've all seen in just this newsgroup.

It's a not-nice condition in some humans to have
their (usually suppressed) anger, frustration,
bigotry so close to the surface but it does exist
in them. It can turn to rage and action in rare
cases, thus the stories of violence that show up in
the news. Humans aren't perfect by a long shot.
Civilization requires a greater suppression of that
internal rage, anger, frustration for the common
good but some think internally that they are 'better'
than the common folk. Hence we get the overtones of
'superiority' through sub-groups in which their
capabilities are exaggerated in those groups' self-
righteous descriptions of themselves.

That isn't confined to amateur radio. It exists
all along the human experience.


For me, the confusion stems from having
known several old timer hams while growing up. I looked up to them.

Understandable from the viewpoint of younger people. I
think we've all had such experiences...mine were scarce
in regards to amateur radio in my hometown but there
were lots with other life experiences that were fun to
listen to and to respect.

They were older gentlemen that had some fascinating knowledge and
great stories to tell about their ham radio hobby. This was back in
the 60's and early 70's so they are all gone now.

Being of a younger age, my growing-up days 'old
timers' were rather focussed on the experience of
World War II. "Radio" per se was seldom mentioned
as a part of that.

What is most interesting (to me) is finding out later
that some of them were exaggerating what they said
and a few were downright liars! :-)

If one survives long enough to become the same age
as those 'old timers' (in a relative chronological
way that is), it is easier to see where they are
coming from! Much easier...! :-)

I am sure now that they are spinning in their graves, after the spew
puked up by some of the pro-coders.

Well, if the afterlife allows such observation of
mortals, I'm of the opinion that those old 'old-timers'
are having a good time and laughing at the mortals'
shenanigans!

Not all of them, to be fair, but a few loud ones stand out.

The loud ones stand out because they MUST stand out
and make everyone pay attention to them. Their EGO
demands it. They want to RULE, to control, to judge,
to be in-charge. In here those are confined to the
pro-coders or who USE their tested morsemanship
(however long ago that happened, if it ever did)
to show "how good" they are.

I still can't figure out how a statement about how CW is just beeps[
as opposed to voice on the same hardware] became transmuted into a
requirement that I should hate usenet.

Not surprising to me. Those fixated on their alleged
superiority dispense with logic, go emotional, and
become one with the rabble, the filth-spewers. They
are NOT interested in anything but making themselves
look good to themselves on their own screens. They
have little recognition that the same 'message' they
sent is read by anyone else but the recipient...when
it may be read by thousands of others who never reply.

That kind of blatant mis-direction seems to be quite common.

I agree. Such misdirection is common on just about
every newsgroup, has precedence in the BBSs, even on
the old ARPANET just before it morphed into USENET.
Lacking the validity of anything but their own
experiences, they toss logic out the window and
consentrate on 'conquering' the message thread.

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

You know that, I know that, and hundreds of thousands
of other humans know that. That's the reason that
all other radio services except amateur radio have
dispensed with on-off keying radiotelegraphy for
communications purposes. At least in the USA; I
don't have enough information about Canada's use of
communications modes to verify that.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Logic in such an argument is NOT desired by pro-coders.
They are fixated on the medium, not the message. They
got their rank-status-privileges mainly through their
morsemanship and their egos demand that Their desires
should be those of all.

Part of that fixation on radiotelegraphy in the USA is
a result of the tremendous amount of ham-oriented
publications of the ARRL. The ARRL emphasizes radio-
telegraphy as the ne-plus-ultra of amateur radio skills.
Since the ARRL has a virtual monopoly on amateur radio
publications here, has had that for at least seven
decades, they can and have managed to condition the
thinking of American amateur radio licensees in favor
of radiotelegraphy.

Those who've been conditioned will not understand that
they've been imprinted but insist it like some
'natural order of things.' Further, they tend to out-
rage and the very idea that they've been brainwashed!
Such outrage takes on a religious fervor at times.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote. Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

Few can. In here I'd say that NONE can.

Your 'opponent' wasn't trying to argue logically. Klein
was obviously using emotion as an 'argument,' frustrated
at not being able to 'triumph' in a message exchange.

Why do some of them feel that insulting my daughter will make their
point valid?

It is an emotional ATTACK ploy. It is common in nearly
all newsgroups. Those that do these sort of things can
get away with it, unworried about any direct physical
confrontation that might ensue.

Are their points so weak that they resort to vulgar
insults instead of engaging in debate?

Yes.

Now, there will be some spew directed towards my post.

Of course...and to this reply. One can 'take that to the
bank.' :-)


They can go
ahead and prove that turning ham into CB will most certainly be a
great improvement to the ARS.

Well, the expressed bigotry against CB by hams is a very
old thing going back to 1958 when the FCC created "Class
C and D" CB service on an 11 meter frequency band de-
allocated from amateur radio use down here. Having to
work both with and for some old-time hams, I heard mostly
howls of outrage and indignation that the FCC 'dared' to
take away 'their' band and 'give' it to 'civilians.'
Worse yet, NO TEST, not the slightest requirement to
demonstrate morsemanship in order to use an HF band! :-)

I NEVER knew anybody on CB that was as
rude and vulgar as some of the pro-coders here.

I have to agree with you. The vast majority of CB use
down here is on highways, mostly by truckers but a large
number of RV-driving vacationers are there, too. At
worst, some trucker might go into a long tale of some-
thing (that only a few consider funny) but I have yet
to hear outright personal insults on CB. I quit
using CB mobile in late 1999 after selling my '82
Camaro but a twice-a-year fire-up of CB at home doesn't
indicate anything different; this residence in southern
California is only a half mile from our Interstate 5,
a major highway north-south near the Pacific coast. Our
cell phone now works so well on major highways that we
don't have any consideration of installing any other
radio in our present car.


And, ironically, *I* am the one told to grow up. That's just too
funny.

Well, that's how it goes. :-) Expect more of that
kind of comment. I dare say it will occur under
'moderation' as well.

When a pro-coder says "grow up," they really mean "think
like I think, appreciate only what I like, etc." They
use that little throw-away line in lieu of a personal
insult, a button-pushing phrase to get their 'opponent'
angry. Sometimes it works, but most of the time it is
just their stupid way of attempting retaliation.

wrote:
From: Opus- on Wed, Oct 4 2006 6:58 pm

You seem pretty knowledgeable so I need some assistance at
understanding something.

Jim, that statement is bound to ignite more flame war
stuff in here, heh heh heh heh...
maybe not maybe they will avoid the flame bait this once since you
saidf they would flame on
And, ironically, *I* am the one told to grow up. That's just too
funny.

Well, that's how it goes. :-) Expect more of that
kind of comment. I dare say it will occur under
'moderation' as well.

When a pro-coder says "grow up," they really mean "think
like I think, appreciate only what I like, etc." They
use that little throw-away line in lieu of a personal
insult, a button-pushing phrase to get their 'opponent'
angry. Sometimes it works, but most of the time it is
just their stupid way of attempting retaliation.
that line storkies suddenly of a memory of a movie omen 3 the final
conflict where thron is talking about his his role as president of some
youth concil something like "....we tell them to grow meaning wiat till
you have grown old then you will think like we do"