(Slow Code) wrote in
ink.net:


On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 07:37:52 -0500, john wrote:

Jerry, I am a 20 wpm extra and I used to agree with some of the things
Slow Code was saying BUT, after all the BS he has created on the
newsgroups I am starting to change my opinion. His constant bullcrap
on here makes me sick. Its ok to state your opinion and move on but he
has a real problem. I mean posting every day in rec.radio.swap for
Christ sake. For someone so worried about people doing the right thing
he is the worst example.

Well, at least I educated you about top posting, and you are almost
doing things the correct way now. I suppose that I should begin
teaching you and others about TRIMMING your followups in order to make
your posts easier to read. It's all there in the news.answers FAQs
too, but lots of people haven't read the material.

The full content of all previous posts doesn't need to be quoted,
because people have threaded newsreaders and can go back to read
earlier posts without your help. Also, you'll save on that precious
downloading time of which some of you spoke. People like Len Anderson
and Dave Heil really need to learn how to TRIM their followups if they
want anyone to read them.

I'll be checking back from time to time to see how you are doing. It
looks to me like you're progressing well. There's definitely hope for
you, so keep your chin up.


ROFL!

Harassing people that top post. When you're finished here, see if you can
do something about Markie's spelling.

Tnx, 73

de Slow Code

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:00:50 -0400, "Gerry"
wrote:

world. I am not sure the FCC should be requiring it while not testing for
the various digital modes or message handling - seems inconsistent

It's consistent with dropping requirements all around. Broadcast
stations no longer need licensed personnel on duty (that's been the
case for a few decades now), you can repair two-way radios without
being licensed and you can operate on the ham bands without having to
really pass any test.

wrote:
till you can explain what value knowing the name has you can begin to
convince me that you went a through a test as realavant as mine

The licensing hierarchy (and the morse code debate) isn't about value, it's
about status. It's about having a chip on your shoulder that says "I'm better
than you".

This code argument really gets old. I passed the General 13WPM code. Bidg
deal. Yeah, I like to use CW, but do I think people need to be tested on
CW? Heck NO! Let's end this antiquated test. It's a modern era. If you
want to learn it -fine, but don't push your old and outdated beliefs on
anyone else.

JDB

wrote:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:37:42 -0500, Glen Overby
wrote:

wrote:
till you can explain what value knowing the name has you can begin to
convince me that you went a through a test as realavant as mine

The licensing hierarchy (and the morse code debate) isn't about value,
it's
about status. It's about having a chip on your shoulder that says "I'm
better than you".
well the procoders like to rpetend it is about value
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

Yep, it was a mistake.

But it's over and done - more than 3 years ago.

What could be done to change it back? The time to stop the change is
long gone.

Slow Code wrote:
If an amateur had to relay a through a country and the amateurs didn't
know each other language they still could have passed it by CW and the
message could have been delivered to someone that could read it. Not no
more.

What can be passed by CW that cannot be passed by voice???

Adhere to the ICAO's phonetic alphabet, and there need be no
bi-lingualism nor a CW requirement.

When things start failing communication wise worldwide, amateur radio
might be all there is to relay messages, and the ITU just removed one of
the legs of a three leg stool.

Dear Slow, air traffic controllers don't use Morris Code, and they
communicate with foreign speakers JUST FINE!

wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
If an amateur had to relay a through a country and the amateurs didn't
know each other language they still could have passed it by CW and the
message could have been delivered to someone that could read it. Not no
more.

What can be passed by CW that cannot be passed by voice???
any traffic to be passed by many OT station can only be passed by CW
since they rfuse to use that new fangled device the microphone even to
save lives

Adhere to the ICAO's phonetic alphabet, and there need be no
bi-lingualism nor a CW requirement.

When things start failing communication wise worldwide, amateur radio
might be all there is to relay messages, and the ITU just removed one of
the legs of a three leg stool.

Dear Slow, air traffic controllers don't use Morris Code, and they
communicate with foreign speakers JUST FINE!

but SC can't speak to anybody on air and he neds code testing to allow
him more person to berate

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
If an amateur had to relay a through a country and the amateurs didn't
know each other language they still could have passed it by CW and the
message could have been delivered to someone that could read it. Not no
more.

What can be passed by CW that cannot be passed by voice???
any traffic to be passed by many OT station can only be passed by CW
since they rfuse to use that new fangled device the microphone even to
save lives

Adhere to the ICAO's phonetic alphabet, and there need be no
bi-lingualism nor a CW requirement.

When things start failing communication wise worldwide, amateur radio
might be all there is to relay messages, and the ITU just removed one of
the legs of a three leg stool.

Dear Slow, air traffic controllers don't use Morris Code, and they
communicate with foreign speakers JUST FINE!

but SC can't speak to anybody on air and he neds code testing to allow
him more person to berate

He's just another grumpy old ham.

From: on Sat, Oct 14 2006 4:01 pm


Slow Code wrote:
If an amateur had to relay a through a country and the amateurs didn't
know each other language they still could have passed it by CW and the
message could have been delivered to someone that could read it. Not no
more.

What can be passed by CW that cannot be passed by voice???

Adhere to the ICAO's phonetic alphabet, and there need be no
bi-lingualism nor a CW requirement.

Since 1955 for international civil aviation. It's taken
from the NATO approved phonetic alphabet which came out
earlier the same year. I remember it well since I had to
learn the "new" phonetic alphabet in a hurry while in the
Army then. :-)

When things start failing communication wise worldwide, amateur radio
might be all there is to relay messages, and the ITU just removed one of
the legs of a three leg stool.

Dear Slow, air traffic controllers don't use Morris Code, and they
communicate with foreign speakers JUST FINE!

Ever since 1955 the worldwide common language for civil
aviation communications on airways has been English
spoken as well as (now) data. That includes pilots as
well as controllers, even in and over their native
country; a non-English speaking country MAY use their
native language but the civil airways can have many
nations' aircraft in it.

Blowcode is just another troll who has his head up his
ass in regards to radio communications. That head just
hasn't been aware of what happened in radio for a half
century.

The ITU didn't "just remove" anything. The ITU-R made
the code test for an amateur license with below-30-MHz
privileges OPTIONAL to each administration. In 2003.
THREE years ago, not "just now." :-)

wrote:
From: on Sat, Oct 14 2006 4:01 pm


Slow Code wrote:
If an amateur had to relay a through a country and the amateurs didn't
know each other language they still could have passed it by CW and the
message could have been delivered to someone that could read it. Not no
more.

What can be passed by CW that cannot be passed by voice???

Adhere to the ICAO's phonetic alphabet, and there need be no
bi-lingualism nor a CW requirement.

Since 1955 for international civil aviation. It's taken
from the NATO approved phonetic alphabet which came out
earlier the same year. I remember it well since I had to
learn the "new" phonetic alphabet in a hurry while in the
Army then. :-)

It took me about 20 minutes during a mid-shift to learn it.

When things start failing communication wise worldwide, amateur radio
might be all there is to relay messages, and the ITU just removed one of
the legs of a three leg stool.

Dear Slow, air traffic controllers don't use Morris Code, and they
communicate with foreign speakers JUST FINE!

Ever since 1955 the worldwide common language for civil
aviation communications on airways has been English
spoken as well as (now) data. That includes pilots as
well as controllers, even in and over their native
country; a non-English speaking country MAY use their
native language but the civil airways can have many
nations' aircraft in it.

Blowcode is just another troll who has his head up his
ass in regards to radio communications. That head just
hasn't been aware of what happened in radio for a half
century.

With his head up his own ass, he wouldn't need to eat his own excrement
off of another man's genitals. Maybe Robesin can give us hit ake on
that.

The ITU didn't "just remove" anything. The ITU-R made
the code test for an amateur license with below-30-MHz
privileges OPTIONAL to each administration. In 2003.
THREE years ago, not "just now." :-)

Slow is, well, slow.