wrote:
On 28 Oct 2006 20:56:05 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
On 27 Oct 2006 21:58:15 -0700, wrote:


Slow Code wrote:
5wpm ain't really learning it. I can fart 5 wpm.

Lets kick the requirement up there to between 13 and 20 wpm for all
classes. And no-codes that haven't passed it after a year get booted which
will help clean up the repeaters.

SC

Ok, I am a traditionalist, sorry.

5wpm should not be an impediment to anyone with normal faculties and
normal physical dexterity.
not the legal issue and rest is subejct to deabte ifrst on the meaning
of the terms you are using
I could do 5 wpm at 7 or 8 and I did not know a ham operator...my dad
taught me after he came home from Army as Radio op. Never used it for
15 or so years.
so?

At 25 I took a novice class (finally) and was doing over 20wpm in 2-3
weeks.

good for you I am OTOH spent 5 years nbot managing 5 wpm for novice
license till I gave up

For anything above the entry license, a code increase would be
warranted to operate in the best cw bands, maybe.

there are NO CW only band (except maybe is 12 or 15 or one of those
Warc bands)

When I took my General, Advanced, and Extra I had to do it at the FCC
office and took and sent code from the Director, Detroit office. Talk
about nervous!
I dont think you can compare the V.E.C. experience (as good a job as
they do) with that for excitement and stress.
When you came out of the MCNamara Bldg in Detroit, you knew you had
taken a test. You knew you had earned your ticket!

No, I would not stay on C.B.......as good a service as it is, it cannot
compare with the people of Ham Radio.
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

What is your point.?

I amswered his query in a positive way.
his query was not positive

You obviously know there ARE cw portions of bands PLUS a cw only band
which is OBVIOUSLY what was referred to.

If you could not manage 5wpm in 5 years then you have an unusual
difficulty, or you were not taking the time to do it and stay with it.
Remember I said "normal faculties and normal physical dexterity". A
person with ADD or Dyslexia may not be able to , and others with other
issues may not. ( I know lots of blind guys who are hams, they dont
think blindness is an impediment to ham radio or the code)
interesting that you mention dyslexia

He asked if cw would keep us from Amateur radio. I amswered the
question indicating I did not think cw was a difficult impediment and
used examples why from my own experience.
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com



If you have dyslexia then youdo not have normal faculties and dexterity
and the post did not refer to you,. Why bother responding?

I SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED you in my original post.

wrote:
wrote:
On 28 Oct 2006 20:56:05 -0700, wrote:


If you have dyslexia then youdo not have normal faculties and dexterity
and the post did not refer to you,. Why bother responding?
My factulites are prefectly normal as is my dexterity

I SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED you in my original post.

If you have dyslexia then youdo not have normal faculties and dexterity
and the post did not refer to you,. Why bother responding?

I SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED you in my original post.


Simply because that is what Mark does. He rudely snipes at the posts of
others. It bothers him not that he is unwanted. He has a need for
attentention, be it good or bad.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 00:32:27 -0500, "A. G. Bell" anon@anon wrote:


Simply because that is what Mark does.
learn to quote man will you

.............
When you learn to use a spell check, I'll learn to quote.

We're still waiting for an answer to what "homobrew" is.

wrote in message
news On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 00:39:22 -0500, "A. G. Bell" anon@anon wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 00:32:27 -0500, "A. G. Bell" anon@anon wrote:


Simply because that is what Mark does.
learn to quote man will you

............
When you learn to use a spell check, I'll learn to quote.

I know I just refuse to take the time as I have said manytimes

you are just a nonperson with no name and nothing to contribute to the
NG
.............

As Roger would say, Oh, The Irony.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 00:55:23 -0500, "A. G. Bell" anon@anon wrote:


anytime you choose to follow basic cnventions or give a real
verifablkle name you are digtal flotsams whoose entire existance
online revolves around me it is flattering in sick sort of way
..
Don't flatter yourself, Mark. You are but a toy to be tossed to and fro at
my whim.

You are simply a cheap source of entertainment. Nothing more, nothing less.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:03:09 -0500, "A. G. Bell" anon@anon wrote:



Don't flatter yourself, Mark. You are but a toy to be tossed to and fro at
my whim.
bull**** you have 3 seperate sock puupet devoted to attacking me and
no other life online
.................

I have no other life but online? Aren't you being a bit guilty of calling
the kettle black? That is an odd comment coming from one who often posts a
hundred or more times a day. Being a bit of a hypocrite is yet another of
your endearing qualities, Mark.
And so far as sock "puupet"s are concerned, what gives you, the goon with
ten email addresses, to be critical?
Here again your convoluted thought processes come to the front.

And I am not attacking you, so again, stop flattering yourself. I am merely
addressing your posts and batting you to and fro.
Thanks for the entertainment.