Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#161
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#163
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
says... wrote in oups.com: Slow Code wrote: wrote in The late Dick Carrol/W0EX prided himself on being able to send code so poorly that even a computer code reader couldn't copy him. This was in order to prevent unworthy No-Code Technicians from eavesdropping on him. BTW, all the other Pro-Code Extras were good with it, coming up with cool, old-timey sounding excuses for such bad behavoir. "Banana Boat Swing" and "unique fist" were heard. A ham needn't try to produce CW that meets the Morse Code specification for dots, dashes, inter-dot/dash spacing, inter-character spacing, and inter-word spacing. He was pro-code but he wasn't trollish like me or WA8ULX were. At least you admit you're nothing but a troll. A useless low life peice of nothing troll. I believe in CW, but I'm not as Ruthless as I sound. Yes you are. You hate everyone who isn't like you. You are the biggest bigot around. I love to toss out things and then listen to everyone gasp. You love to try and **** off the world and you do a good job. ROFL. Don't you mean rolling on the floor drunk in your own filth!! I know, I know, it's sadistic... Yup, I've heard you're into that know. but it's fun, and maybe some will see and figure out the point of it. Theres no point to what you do and if you think there is you are truely ready for the sanitarium. SC |
#164
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#165
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#166
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "Chris" wrote in message Already tried it. And dismissed it. esp dimissing the abilty of the human operator of the machine to fill in the problems and correct the process As I said while it is the best that is available, it is still far below the capabilities of a human operator. Correction. ...a few human operators. indeed the PC alone far exceeds the abilties of many licensed ham operators but hat doesn't count I've tried it under a wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good signal to function. Dee, N8UZE Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary of Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through). Unrelated to my comments. You would like to think that, but without efforts from folks like Carl, Bill, Len, hans, myself and others, you would still be repeating such myths, and would never make statements such as "Not all CW signals are good." You can thank us, but that's probably not very likely. No one has said all CW signals are good. And they aren't. If they were always good, CWGet would always work, which it doesn't. The ones who tout the software solution are those who wish that it would always work. And those who dismiss the software solution think all amateur operators are superb morsemen. In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has its advantages and disadvantages. If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode. The extremists on each side don't want to hear that. Dee, N8UZE Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk. well it is a thankless job Dees coming around in her own way, but the brainwashing that she's undergone is strong. Perhaps in another decade... if there's still an amateur radio. If only she had been able to think spontaneously and resist, the brainwashing wouldn't have been so well received. You are mistaken. I've always been one to think spontaneously. Since I have personally experienced conditions where it had to be CW or turn off the radio, I advocate all hams knowing code at a basic level. To insure that they do learn it at a basic level, testing at some point in the licensing is appropriate. Before entering these news I'd never heard much discussion either way on code. My opinions on its usefulness and desireability were formed based entirely on actual operating experience. I was surprised to learn that there was a big discussion on it in the amateur community. Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total the scores... I think you get the point. What point? Try thinking about it just a wee little bit. I did. It's not clear. Spell it out for us, please. I'll spell it out for you, Jim. Thank you, Brian! Any time. Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free license. You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less than half. 40% is more like it. 49.5% according to your very own postings. You are mistaken, Brian. No, I'm not. The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested). The FCC did away with the Technician Plus class of license. They are all Technicians now. The Technician license has no requirement for a code exam. Should a Technician wish to use what were once Technician Plus priveleges, they're on their own to show eligibility. In addition, many hams whose licenses say "Technician" are code tested and have some HF privileges. These include: - all Tech Pluses who have renewed since April 15, 2000 - all Novices who have upgraded to Technician - all Technicians who have passed Element 1, but not the written exam for General Welp, that's something we'll just have to live with. It's also the reason I upgraded to General. btw, no US amateur radio license is "code-free". All of them can use Morse Code. And they can all use CWGet. Probably most of the coded licensees never looked back when they learned the code to get past a licensing hurdle, don't use code, and couldn't if their lives depended on it. That's not a given at all. I would expect you to say something like that. Remember the ARRL survey that was debated so much here? The one where as a member, I did not receive a ballot? The one that Mike Deignan characterized as "substantive?" Yes, I recall the survey. Looked as if it had been developed by a bunch of dems hoping to influence the outcome of an election. You mean like this: http://www.rawstory.com/showoutartic...s/15869924.htm btw, next Tuesday I get to choose between Curt Weldon and Joe Sestak. Which do you think I should vote for? Who did you vote for last time? It showed that less than 40% of those hams who were asked never used Morse Code. And it included licensees from all license classes, not just those who had passed code tests. Add to that those who rarely used code. Why? Even if someone rarely uses it, that means they still remember it and can use it at some level. It means they don't like it and they have to struggle through it. It means they are perfect candidates for CWGet. Sure there are those who learned just enough to pass the Morse Code test and then never used it - just as there are those who just enough to pass the *written* tests and then never used it Heck, your buddy Len couldn't even get the length of a 73 MHz quarter-wave whip antenna right, and he's a "PROFESSIONAL"! And you couldn't even get the distance to the moon, You are mistaken. Right. You've repeatedly claimed that I mis-stated the distance from Earth to the moon on rrap. Show us where I did that - if you can. I don't think you can, because it did not happen. If I did it, show us. Otherwise you're just making things up. You're making that up. and you're a "professional." I've never claimed to be a professional astronomer. What? Only astronomers get to calculate path loss in space? Len claims to be a "PROFESSIONAL in radio-electronics" (whatever that is) but he messes up on the length of an antenna for a radio service he has claimed to use. How can you be sure? So put all USA licensed amateurs in fron of a station equipped with a morse code key and with CWGet and total their scores. I presume you mean "contest scores" Why? Why not? They're operating in a CW Contest. Why wouldn't you total their scores? What's the point? The same point that you and W3RV are making when you kick around SSB vs CW in your field day and other scores. Why is it that comparing scores is only something that you can do? Who is going to set up and pay for all those stations? What sort of stations would they be - HF, VHF, UHF? What sort of antennas, rigs, computers? Think about it. I did. That's why I'm asking the question. Do you think the taxpayers should subsidize amateur radio stations? Who sets up your field day station? Who pays for it? The Morsemen Who are they? There used to be four of them... can bandy about the CQ WW and Field Day CW vs SSB contest scores all they want without having to standardize station equipment. I bring up a scenario and NOW station equipment must be standardized. Who said anything about standardizing station equipment? Not me. Yes, you. You! I simply want to know where all those stations are supposed to come from. Where do stations come from now? There's some bias in your approach. None at all. Hi, hi, hi! You're just making that up. Any ham who wants to operate Morse Code using CWGet or some other software can do so right now - if they have a station that includes rig, antenna, and computer. Yep. I can finally agree with something you said. So a version of the experiment you describe can happen in every contest. But it doesn't. Many, many, many amateur just aren't interested in morse code, and many, many, many amateurs just aren't interested in contests. But if we were able to have have 100% participation and every amateur were offered a manual morse code key and a downloaded copy of CWGet.... Yet I don't know of any amateur radio contesters who operate that way. Do you? Nobody knew of anyone who operated amateur radio as in Larry Rolls "Only CW can save the situation" but I NEVER ONCE saw your objection to it. So what? I don't read everything written to rrap. Larry hasn't posted here in *years*. Sure he has. He's posted as himself and he's probably posting as someone else. I bring up a scenario and NOW you have a problems with how contestors operate. Not at all. I just don't see anyone using CWGet to operate a contest - even though they could. Heck *you* could. Why don't you? I don't enjoy morse code. There's some bias in your approach. None at all. I think you're making that up. Your "thought experiment" doesn't seem to be thought out very well. Sure it was. Alternative scenario snipped. Alternative scenario snipped. A simple, real-world challenge. What's the problem? The problem is that there isn't 100% participation in field day. It fails to meet the requirements of my scenario. The requirements for US amateur radio license have been slowly but steadily reduced for more than 25 years now. Just 25 years? I wrote "more than 25 years". I guess you forgot about the "Conditional" license where hams get an upgrade from their buddy. What does that mean? Besides, the Conditional stopped being issued about 30 years ago. Yep, but nobody ever claimed that amateur radio was being dumbed down. The USA amateur service has a proud history of it. How was it "dumbing down" to eliminate the Conditional? Jeez you're thick. No, Brian, I'm not "thick". You just did a poor job of explaining. No, you vectored off when it was clear that the creation of the Conditional Class license using the "buddy-system" of testing was the original dumbing down of the ARS. It was dumbing down to create such a license class. Why? The Conditional and its predecessor Class C go back to before the FCC. So there's a long, long tradition in the dumbing down of the amateur radio service. Not just the code tests but also the writtens. That's not the fault of those taking the tests. No, of course not. It's not anyones fault except the FCC that they put offices so far away from ham's residences. ?? The reason FCC stopped doing testing was to save money. It doesn't cost the FCC anything for an amateur to show up for testing, unless you want to claim that the examinees got to file a voucher for their travel. Actually it cost FCC a lot of money to do testing. It was the travel distance that was key in the creation of the Conditional license, not the desire for the FCC to save money. I was writing about the reason the FCC stopped doing license testing for *all* license classes. That's part of the reduction in requirements. Then you strayed off the subject. Try to stay on the subject. I am on the subject. You're trying to change it. If you choose to comment on somthing I say, then confine it to what I said. If you stick with that simple concept, you'll do OK. First off, they had to have offices with test facilities. The office they had in Philadelphia back when I took my exams was on the 10th floor of the Custom House at 2nd and Chestnut. Lots of square feet of prime real estate just for the exam room. Then there was the time of the examiners, all of whom worked for FCC. Pay and benefits. At least two people per office, three days a week. Times the number of offices all over the country. Then add the FCC folks who revised the exams, duplicated them, and distributed them to the various offices all over the country. And the cost of doing all that. The VE system eliminated all that expense. All FCC has to do now wrt amateur license testing is to look over the QPC submissions and approve them. And occasionally retest somebody. That's all wunnerful, but you vectored off of the subject. Nope. Maybe next time you'll be able to cut and paste something germane to the subject. The subject was the reduction in license requirements by FCC giving over the testing to VEs. Nope. I twas the creation of the Conditional License. Eliminating Element 1 will not save the FCC any expense. Keeping it will not cost them anything, either. Maybe that's why it's taking them so long. Maybe. But they didn't even make the effort to define Morse Code in the rules for the last 3 R&Os. Why should they? Is there any doubt? There appears to be. The ARRL VEC and other VECs are giving el 1 exams at 13-15WPM when Part 97 says 5WPM. Yet they tell you that the exam myst be 5WPM, and you've got all these VEs getting to define what that means. It's not a problem to anyone with common sense. It appears to be a violation of Part 97. They replaced their paid examiners with unpaid volunteers. Good thing there wasn't a union. Why? Are you anti-union? No. Are you? Do you favor scabs? Bandages are better. It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't use any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set. I've used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been licensed. I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used smith charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I can choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it.. Brian, do you think that using a false sexist claim is somehow going to cause you to win the debate? No false sexist claim. It's a sexist claim to assume that Dee's husband takes care of the Ohm's Law and Theory end of her station Why? She said she hardly, if ever, used it. Somebody's got to be doing it? You're presuming she's not doing what needs to be done, and is dependent on someone else to deal with the theory. I don't think that's the case at all. If I considered your opinion to be wrong, do I get to call you a liar? Why would you do that? Have I ever called *anyone* here a liar? You're making that up, right? W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him these days. Where do you get that idea? Hmmm? I've put up antennas with W3RV. Or rather, I helped out a little, since he had it all worked out on his own. No sisters involved. He does know quite a lot about antennas, particularly the practical side. He even knows that a quarter wave at 73 MHz is a lot longer than three and one quarter inches.... Prolly for illegal operation. He has no authorization in that area. Actually, he does. Part 95 remote control, same as your buddy Len. And everybody else. Part 95 requires no authorization, so he doesn't. And knowing his background, he'd probably violate the Part 95 rules. Fair is fair, yes? You're not fair at all. Since you have a corner on the fairness market, do you plan to be the RRAP Moderator? Wait and see. ARRL November CW Sweepstakes starts Saturday afternoon and ends Sunday night. I'll be there - will you? Nope, but knock yourself out. I'll be awake and operating. CWGet won't be part of it. Bless you. |
#167
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() In article , says... There you go again. Don't wonder who I am, go enjoy ham radio. ![]() and tell people they need to learn code. SC RadioGuy wrote: I know who you are!!!!! Would you care to share that with the rest of us? C'mon, spill the beans. We're dying to know if "slow" even has a license. :-) |
#168
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 4:17 am
wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dee Flint wrote: [ etc., etc., etc.... :-) ] Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free license. You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less than half. 40% is more like it. 49.5% according to your very own postings. You are mistaken, Brian. No, I'm not. The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested). The FCC did away with the Technician Plus class of license. They are all Technicians now. The Technician license has no requirement for a code exam. Should a Technician wish to use what were once Technician Plus priveleges, they're on their own to show eligibility. Miccolis can't seem to understand the LAW. No matter how often it is explained to him, he falls back on the Speroni 'definition' of 'What Technicians Are.' Of course, AH0A is a PCTA morseman of unchangeable ideas. Miccolis also insisted that ENIAC was "the first electronic computer" because he got brainwashed by Moore School PR, being in eastern PA. Funny thing, but the LAW was decided in the early 1970s by a Federal Court trial and the Atanasof- Berry Computer of 1939-1942 was declared "first." btw, no US amateur radio license is "code-free". All of them can use Morse Code. And they can all use CWGet. ...and they can all toss their morse keys into the dumpster. :-) btw, next Tuesday I get to choose between Curt Weldon and Joe Sestak. Which do you think I should vote for? Who did you vote for last time? ...and why in hell should WE care? And you couldn't even get the distance to the moon, You are mistaken. Right. If'n Jimmie he say "mistaken" he be da Judge! He be da Law! :-) You've repeatedly claimed that I mis-stated the distance from Earth to the moon on rrap. Show us where I did that - if you can. I don't think you can, because it did not happen. If I did it, show us. Otherwise you're just making things up. You're making that up. Miccolis ought to move to L.A. and get in the make-up biz. Lotsa money to be made here in the entertainment capitol of show business. Especially around Halloween time...:-) and you're a "professional." I've never claimed to be a professional astronomer. What? Only astronomers get to calculate path loss in space? A quarter-million-mile distance was in all the newspapers since the Apollo Program began. Perhaps he thinks only astronomers read newspapers? :-) Len claims to be a "PROFESSIONAL in radio-electronics" (whatever that is) but he messes up on the length of an antenna for a radio service he has claimed to use. How can you be sure? Tsk. Miccolis is hell-bent on character-assassination lately. I make a typo in a message and he makes it into a HEADLINE STORY charging some kind of ineptitude! :-) Not only that, his Waffen SS buddie has to chime in like it is a capital offense! :-) Tsk, Miccolis is now under Typo Alert Status, condition Red. Each and every typo HE makes will be FEATURED INEPTITUDES of his own! Regardless of his 'explanations' of his typos, he will be charged with violations of all mankind! :-) That's all in the sense of "justice, fair play, common sense, (etc.)" to "HELP" others. :-) The same point that you and W3RV are making when you kick around SSB vs CW in your field day and other scores. Why is it that comparing scores is only something that you can do? He has declared himself Ultimate Authority, therefore 'judge.' The Morsemen Who are they? There used to be four of them... The "Four Morsemen of the Apocalypse." :-) I simply want to know where all those stations are supposed to come from. Where do stations come from now? The stork brings them from Japan? :-) Many, many, many amateur just aren't interested in morse code, and many, many, many amateurs just aren't interested in contests. Blasphemy! Heresy! The Church of St. Hiram may begin the Inquisition with you tied on the stake, Brian! But if we were able to have have 100% participation and every amateur were offered a manual morse code key and a downloaded copy of CWGet.... Hmmm...interesting mental picture...350 thousand radio amateurs on the few HF ham bands ALL busy 'contesting' in relatively the same time period. That would result in the Ultimate QRM that would cause meltdown of all the scores checkers... :-) So what? I don't read everything written to rrap. Larry hasn't posted here in *years*. Sure he has. He's posted as himself and he's probably posting as someone else. Las Vegas odds-makers are with your assessment... :-) I just don't see anyone using CWGet to operate a contest - even though they could. Heck *you* could. Why don't you? I don't enjoy morse code. We can only, repeat ONLY, "see" what Miccolis sees. All else is a 'mistake.' Why? The Conditional and its predecessor Class C go back to before the FCC. So there's a long, long tradition in the dumbing down of the amateur radio service. By all those olde-tyme morsemen REFUSING to allow modernization of the US amateur radio service in going to, and trying out NEW modes, methods, and lobbying for UPDATING the ARS regulations. BTW, Miccolis hasn't existed since AFTER the end of WW II, let alone the creation of the FCC in 1934...but he is "knowledgeable" by "experience" of all those old pioneers (in his heart he knows he is 'right'). Miccolis hadn't learned to read yet when the amateur SSB boom began...over two decades AFTER the commercial and military radio world had begun using SSB for long-haul HF comms. He has NO direct experience to the radio world of the 1950s except in some juvenile way. He wasn't working for a living among amateurs who were divided about the SSB issues nor was he party to some of those amateurs' (of long standing then) rather abject ignorance of basic modulation concepts. [John Carson of AT&T had published the mathematical proof in 1915, the basis of the 'phasing' concept...the rest of the radio world accepted Carson's proof and those specializing in FM adopted "Carson's Rule" on FM modulation index] Miccolis never tuned up any SSB transmitter in the early 1950s as I had to do, never QSYed one. Not on HF and sure as hell not IN the military (he never served). Neither did he tune up or QSY any RTTY of MUX TTY transmitter on HF in that time frame. But...he "knows" all about it by reading about it in QST and the ARRL Handbook. Miccolis is a MORSEMAN. Those of the "CW gets through when nothing else will" DUMBED-DOWN amateur persuasion. All they can conceive is switching RF off and on using morse code. Methods that were used in the very first 'radios' of the Spark Tx and 'crystal detector' era. On-off keying of a CW carrier. Wow, real "technical" and full of smarts to bang- bang switch a carrier! Did the ARRL *ever* lobby to improve regulations for the 'new' modes in the ARS? Hell, the DSSS and FHSS modes were kept hamstrung by ARS regulations into the 1990s...when the commercial and military radio services were already using DSSS and FHSS...DSSS being the major player in the commercial WLAN and 'wireless' market. RTTY is still struggling along with OLD speed limits. PSK31 was innovated by a Brit (Peter Martinez) and was trial-tested in Europe for five years before it got any publicity in US ham magazines. Non-US hams have been using PM for extremely-weak radio comms for years, on bands below the lowest allocated US ham bands; the ARRL is finally getting around to 'requesting help' for frequencies as 'low' as a small sliver just above 500 KHz, helped get an 'experimental net' going there in this new millennium. Wow, really 'advanced technology' there, "exploring 'long wave' comms" with "CW." "CW gets through when nothing else will." One of the 1930s era MYTHS, born when hams were trying out DSB AM in days before WW II. "CW" does NOT 'get through' better than PM or some of the other modes, but the DUMBED-DOWN morsemen just can't understand that. They think that OOK CW is "smart!" 1906 thinking in the year 2006. Ptui. Try to stay on the subject. I am on the subject. You're trying to change it. If you choose to comment on somthing I say, then confine it to what I said. If you stick with that simple concept, you'll do OK. Brian, you KNOW Miccolis will NEVER do that. He runs off at the keyboard into dozens of wild trips off the thread. Mainly it is an attempt at MISDIRECTION so he won't have to explain his own errors, mistakes, false assumptions, and general ignorance of ALL radio, not the kind of radio that was spoon-fed to him by ARRL publications. First off, they had to have offices with test facilities. The office they had in Philadelphia back when I took my exams was on the 10th floor of the Custom House at 2nd and Chestnut. Lots of square feet of prime real estate just for the exam room. Then there was the time of the examiners, all of whom worked for FCC. Pay and benefits. At least two people per office, three days a week. Times the number of offices all over the country. [Yawn...like Philly is the Center of the USA? I can't remember the floor of the FCC Field Office in the Federal Building in Chicago, IL, as it was located in 1956...other than it was upstairs...might have been the 3rd floor, but the location wasn't important. Several being examined for Radiotelegraph licenses were audible QRM in the same room when I took my Radiotelephone written test (lots of Great Lakes shipping used "CW" then) The Chicago FCC office didn't need "lots of room for equipment"...one paper-tape code reproducer was good enough and the jacks for various keys didn't take up much space. Tables and chairs for examinees was standard government-issue stuff, tables too high and chairs uncushioned to make all uncomfortable] [The Long Beach, CA, FCC Field Office of today is only slightly better. Was never there for any test (didn't need to), only to get a pile of paper for own business radio (non-amateur) cleared away. By that time the FCC was busy, busy, busy with lots of commercial radio and the new radio services and the rather explosive growth of PLMRS that was opening the "high band"] Then add the FCC folks who revised the exams, duplicated them, and distributed them to the various offices all over the country. And the cost of doing all that. [Apparently Miccolis thinks ALL the FCC does is to regulate amateur radio?!? He is blissfully UNaware of the fantastic growth of ALL radio services in the last half century. He still won't acknowledge the COLEM (who do privatized testing of non- amateur radio operator licenses) nor of the privatized PLMRS frequency coordinators nor of the fact of reduced paperwork and licensing of the private maritime radio users (Long Beach is at the heart of the maritime import-export top harbor and in the center of dozens of large marinas). The FCC is concerned with regulation of ALL US civil radio services, not just amateur.] Maybe next time you'll be able to cut and paste something germane to the subject. The subject was the reduction in license requirements by FCC giving over the testing to VEs. Nope. I twas the creation of the Conditional License. Miccolis did his misdirection thing, then attempted to impose 'lawn order' by saying HE was 'judge' over what was being discussed. Gotta love it. He's been doing that for years... and manages to get away with it. :-) Then he gets caught and he bleats, "Show me where? Provide the posting!" He has been "hurt" or maybe "insulted" when folks disagree with him, poor guy. Eliminating Element 1 will not save the FCC any expense. Keeping it will not cost them anything, either. Maybe that's why it's taking them so long. Maybe. But they didn't even make the effort to define Morse Code in the rules for the last 3 R&Os. Why should they? Is there any doubt? There appears to be. The ARRL VEC and other VECs are giving el 1 exams at 13-15WPM when Part 97 says 5WPM. "It's for newcomers' own good" is probably the morsemen's only good-enough answer. Yawn...keep on with 1906 thinking in 2006, morse code uber alles...blah, blah, blah... Yet they tell you that the exam myst be 5WPM, and you've got all these VEs getting to define what that means. It's not a problem to anyone with common sense. It appears to be a violation of Part 97. It's a grey area in LEGAL terms. The WORD RATE is not specifically defined in Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R., and only "assumed." FCC's Definitions cite the old CCITT-ITU Telegram regulation as to coding and bit and length spacings. That referenced International Telegram Standard doesn't specifically define WORD RATE either. Apparently the FCC gave the VEC Council written permission to do characters at the higher rate, keeping the 'word rate' at 5 words per minute. A problem is that this specific "permission" has NOT made it into the (radio regulation) LAW document yet. That makes it the "grey area" in legal terms since it can be argued both ways. REAL attorneys can comment on whether or not I am "mistaken." Miccolis hasn't been admitted to a Legal Bar Association yet and is unqualified to comment on law. But, he WILL comment on that AS IF he IS the law...("truth, justice, and the American way" spoken by SuperHam) Happy Halloween, Brian. |
#169
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
One Hung Low wrote in
. net: RadioGuy wrote: I know who you are!!!!! Would you care to share that with the rest of us? C'mon, spill the beans. We're dying to know if "slow" even has a license. :-) RadioGuy is like a little hyperactive poodle. He runs around, barks, maybe nips at your heels but not much because he scared of his shadow and he craps everywhere, but he's basically harmless and answers to Papa Dog. I just wish he'd stop humping my leg. SC |
#170
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
RadioGay wrote in
: In article , says... wrote in oups.com: Slow Code wrote: wrote in The late Dick Carrol/W0EX prided himself on being able to send code so poorly that even a computer code reader couldn't copy him. This was in order to prevent unworthy No-Code Technicians from eavesdropping on him. BTW, all the other Pro-Code Extras were good with it, coming up with cool, old-timey sounding excuses for such bad behavoir. "Banana Boat Swing" and "unique fist" were heard. A ham needn't try to produce CW that meets the Morse Code specification for dots, dashes, inter-dot/dash spacing, inter-character spacing, and inter-word spacing. He was pro-code but he wasn't trollish like me or WA8ULX were. At least you admit you're nothing but a troll. A useless low life peice of nothing troll. I believe in CW, but I'm not as Ruthless as I sound. Yes you are. You hate everyone who isn't like you. You are the biggest bigot around. I love to toss out things and then listen to everyone gasp. You love to try and **** off the world and you do a good job. ROFL. Don't you mean rolling on the floor drunk in your own filth!! I know, I know, it's sadistic... Yup, I've heard you're into that know. but it's fun, and maybe some will see and figure out the point of it. Theres no point to what you do and if you think there is you are truely ready for the sanitarium. When you get a hard-on for someone you really get a hard-on. I don't know who you think I am but I feel sorry for them. SC |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
hey BB did steve do somethign specail toy uo laely? | Policy | |||
More News of Radio Amateurs' Work in the Andamans | Shortwave | |||
Amateurs Handle Emergency Comms in Wake of Hurricane Ivan | Broadcasting | |||
Amateurs Handle Emergency Comms in Wake of Hurricane Ivan | Shortwave | |||
Response to "21st Century" Part One (Code Test) | Policy |