"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

Isn't that something?! The people I consider good, decent folks in the
ARS,
don't have an issue with my callsign at all. Oh, by the way, isn't it
around that time of year that this thread get dropped again, Larry?
ROFLMAO!!!!!

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

There you go again, begging for this thread to be dropped! Whassamatta?
Getting tired of defending the indefensible? Running out of arguments?
Feeling like you're at the end of your rope? I thought so. Well, as it
happens, you know how to make this thread go away. Start acting like
an intelligent, mature, and decent human being, and get rid of that
obnoxious call sign!

73 de Larry, K3LT


OMYGAWD!!! "Begging for this thread to be dropped!"?????????? Larry,
puhleeze. You're not that stupid.

A) I do not defend my callsign: I like my callsign
B) No "arguments" needed for my callsign. It's mine. Period.
C) End of my rope?? Over a phucking callsign?

Now, I *DARE* you to keep this callsign going beyond your usual
"time-of-year" spin with it. But, just to let you know up front, the I have
*no* intention of changing my callsign and I don't think I could get any
more decent a human than I am. As to learning, I do that every day--thank
goodness. As to being intelligent, I think I speak too lofty for you now as
it is!

Gads, you're getting hilarious. Only thing is: we're packing to move so
this is the last I'll be on for a while!. I'll be back on sometime around
the first of March. Gonna have this thread still going, there, big fella?
If not, tell ya what, I'll drag it up again! ROFLMAO!!!

Kim W5TIT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

Yeah, I'd lay odds that this thread was "awakened" again this (late last)
year by Larry, mid-Winter boredom or whatever, and it's about the usual
time
for it to be dying down.

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

That sounds like wishful thinking. However, you asked for it, and as long
as you've got it, you're gonna get it! This thread has a life of it's
own, and
as long as I am a participant in this newsgroup, it will always pop up
whenever you least expect it.

73 de Larry, K3LT


I think you're beyond "popping up," Larry...

Kim W5TIT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

Ummmmm, I did not choose T-I-T, I chose *W* *5* T-I-T. Wishing me to
drop
my callsign would be about like telling Dolly Parton to cover up before
she
gets on stage. Her boobs are one of her trademarks--at least to the
public.
Oh, wait, you may find her vulgar also...

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

Ms. Parton has a lot more going for her than an exceptionally well-rounded
figure. She has a very attractive face (once you get over the big,
bleached
blonde hair and the stage makeup), an exceptionally engaging personality,
and she is an exceptionally talented and entertaining singer, songwriter,
and actress. And while her exceptionally large breasts may be, as she
herself once said, "bought and paid for," they are nevertheless all hers,
and
she does make humorous, but always tastefully self-depricating, references
to them as part of her act. However, I tend to doubt that if she were an
amateur radio operator, that she would consider requesting a Vanity Call
sign such as "W4TIT."

Dolly Parton is the real thing -- beautiful, talented, and successful.
Stop
comparing yourself to her until you write a song like "Jolene" and several
dozen others that are just as good.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Dolly is a great entertainer, to be sure. Not so sure about the singing,
though...she's "ok" to me. I'm also great at what I do, and am beautiful
and successful. So, you're correct...there's no comparing needed!

Kim W5TIT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

Yeah, I'd lay odds that this thread was "awakened" again this (late last)
year by Larry, mid-Winter boredom or whatever, and it's about the usual
time
for it to be dying down.

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

That sounds like wishful thinking. However, you asked for it, and as long
as you've got it, you're gonna get it! This thread has a life of it's
own, and
as long as I am a participant in this newsgroup, it will always pop up
whenever you least expect it.

73 de Larry, K3LT


By the way, Larry, *this* is the original thread, so be sure it's this one
you keep going!

Kim W5TIT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:
You're absolutely right, Dee. I do
live in an environment where tits,
breasts, and other words to describe
the human body are not outright, and
immediately, derogatory or vulgar -
only a certain context makes them so.

Let's try a little experiment that would
serve to prove what you just said.
Sometime within the course of going
about your daily duties, locate and
approach an attractive woman with a
particularly voluptious bustline. Say
something like, "Hey, lady, I think you
have a really nice set of tits there!"
(snip)


I don't think so. I don't know about you, but I don't go around
approaching strangers so I can comment about their breasts. However, during
the course of many conversations with female friends and associates over the
years, some of them have used the word "tits" and so have I in response.
Clearly, since the women led off with the use of that word, they obviously
were not offended by my use of it in response. Clearly, at lot of this
depends on the situation. With a stranger, if the subject even came up, only
the most polite words would be used. With a friend, more casual conversation
is acceptable. In my opinion, the woman always decides when that point is
reached.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Kim W5TIT wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

I think it's just that, Mike. A power thing. I mean, after all, why the
chagrin over a callsign; and all the angst; and all the broohaha were it not
for wanting to be miserable about something.
Call it stupid of me but...

Okay.

I really don't see the huge issue with it and never have.

Precisely.

I enjoy the deliberate ignorance of the reason I got the call...which at its
root was purely on a dare from some local hams.

A dare based upon what, Kim? You've already provided us your
motivation.

Dave K8MN

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Huh? Well, I don't make an issue of my breasts, either. And, in addition,
I've heard many interviews and giggles wherein Dolly was either alluding to
or answering direct questions pertaining to her breasts.

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

You don't make an issue of your breasts? Then what is your call sign
all about? I clearly recall that you stated that since you consider yourself
to be particularly "well endowed," you took up some sort of challenge to
request that particular Vanity Call Sign for the purpose of creating interest
directed toward your breasts. Of course, I can understand your need to
create confusion over this issue, but an out-and-out lie like you made
above only serves to weaken your already thin credibility.

Don't forget that Kim wants it both ways. She describes her
more-than-ample superstucture and requests a callsign because of it but
she notes with disdain the looks she gets from women on the street (as
if she has a way of knowing what other women are thinking). She want to
draw attention to herself but claims that she didn't ask to be born
with.... Well, you know the drill.

Kim empathizes with strippers, lets us in on what she'd like to tell
other women at cocktail parties, tells us which foul words she'd yell at
a football game and clue us in to what prompted her to choose her tacky
call based upon a dare.


Dave K8MN

Len Over 21 wrote:

Yes, we all KNOW how you bragged about those wonderful
grades and class standings while becoming a Human
Resources (personnel) professional, could get your pick of
jobs, etc., etc., etc., ...and then became a bus driver. :-)

All that while telling us of your distinguished, vital, important
USAF career where you always knew more than your officers,
were more smarts, noble, self-sacrificing to learn how to do
20 WPM morse...just like hams did in the 1930s before you
were born.

Sunnavagun!

A perfect time for the profile of your likely actions, Leonard.

N2EY: "Besides, here's a simple, plain fact:

No matter what job, educational level, employer, or
government/military service that a radio amateur has, if said radio
amateur opposes Mr. Anderson's views, he/she will be the target of Mr.
Anderson's insults, ridicule, name-calling, factual errors, ethnic
slurs, excessive emoticons and general infantile behavior."

Please continue your civil debate on the elimination of morse testing in
the Amateur Radio Service in which you are not involved.

Dave K8MN

Kim W5TIT wrote:

Dolly is a great entertainer, to be sure. Not so sure about the singing,
though...she's "ok" to me. I'm also great at what I do, and am beautiful
and successful.

I just love your Al Franken "Saturday Night Live" routine. You're
pleasant, fun to be around and, by golly, people LIKE you. Don't let
your "beauty" or "success" go to your head.

So, you're correct...there's no comparing needed!

....or even possible.

Dave K8MN

In article , JJ
writes:


If Kim had any class at all,
that is precisely what she would do with her present call.

If kim had any class at all she would never have chosen such a call.


Amen!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Kim:

There you go again, begging for this thread to be dropped! Whassamatta?
Getting tired of defending the indefensible? Running out of arguments?
Feeling like you're at the end of your rope? I thought so. Well, as it
happens, you know how to make this thread go away. Start acting like
an intelligent, mature, and decent human being, and get rid of that
obnoxious call sign!

73 de Larry, K3LT


OMYGAWD!!! "Begging for this thread to be dropped!"?????????? Larry,
puhleeze. You're not that stupid.

A) I do not defend my callsign: I like my callsign

Kim:

You'd better like it, because plenty of other hams don't!

B) No "arguments" needed for my callsign. It's mine. Period.

Nobody is disputing that, for obvious reasons!

C) End of my rope?? Over a phucking callsign?

Now, now, Kim, no need to be crude, just because you know how!
Ooops, just remembered your call sign, so I guess that being crude
comes naturally.

Now, I *DARE* you to keep this callsign going beyond your usual
"time-of-year" spin with it.

I believe you mean this thread, and it will continue as long as there
are posts being made to it, by you, by me, and by other participants.
Isn't that how all threads work?

But, just to let you know up front, the I have
*no* intention of changing my callsign and I don't think I could get any
more decent a human than I am.

Get that sentence to the cleaners by noon tomorrow, and they'll have
it ready for you by Friday!

As to learning, I do that every day--thank
goodness. As to being intelligent, I think I speak too lofty for you now as
it is!

You "speak too lofty" for me? Right. Very intelligent. But only if you're
stacking up examples of ungrammatical sentences. Toss this one in the
laundry bag with the one above it.

Gads, you're getting hilarious.

I've been "hilarious" all of my life -- I have a great sense of humor!

Only thing is: we're packing to move so
this is the last I'll be on for a while!.

I see. Well, at least you won't need someone to help you sit on the
suitcase to get it closed!

I'll be back on sometime around
the first of March. Gonna have this thread still going, there, big fella?

Possibly.

If not, tell ya what, I'll drag it up again! ROFLMAO!!!

That's mighty nice of you! I'll hold you to that! Be careful during the
move.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Kim:

That sounds like wishful thinking. However, you asked for it, and as long
as you've got it, you're gonna get it! This thread has a life of it's
own, and
as long as I am a participant in this newsgroup, it will always pop up
whenever you least expect it.

73 de Larry, K3LT


I think you're beyond "popping up," Larry...

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

Now just exactly what do you mean by that? Remember, that as someone
who has accused others of having "dirty minds" when it comes to your
call sign, you'd better be pretty careful how you answer!

Oh, now I get it. Well, when you are around, I can understand how such
things would be unlikely to "pop."

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:



I don't think so. I don't know about you, but I don't go around
approaching strangers so I can comment about their breasts. However, during
the course of many conversations with female friends and associates over the
years, some of them have used the word "tits" and so have I in response.
Clearly, since the women led off with the use of that word, they obviously
were not offended by my use of it in response. Clearly, at lot of this
depends on the situation. With a stranger, if the subject even came up, only
the most polite words would be used. With a friend, more casual conversation
is acceptable. In my opinion, the woman always decides when that point is
reached.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight:

I have many female friends and acquaintences, and I almost never hear
the word "tits" used to describe their breasts. "Boobs," yes, occasionally,
but not the "t" word. I digress; this is about Kim, the reason why she
requested her call sign, and the unfavorable image it projects on others
who are, or may be, involved in the ARS. As a woman who presumes to be
taken seriously as an intelligent, competent woman of the modern era, she
is, in actuality, setting herself and all other women back to the time
when they were mere objects of prurient interest. Or could it be that
she really wants to be seen that way? Unfortunately, the image is
objectionable in any context, and it's effect on the ARS has the potential
to be exactly as Mr. Hollingsworth predicted.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Dave Heil
writes:


Don't forget that Kim wants it both ways. She describes her
more-than-ample superstucture and requests a callsign because of it but
she notes with disdain the looks she gets from women on the street (as
if she has a way of knowing what other women are thinking). She want to
draw attention to herself but claims that she didn't ask to be born
with.... Well, you know the drill.

Kim empathizes with strippers, lets us in on what she'd like to tell
other women at cocktail parties, tells us which foul words she'd yell at
a football game and clue us in to what prompted her to choose her tacky
call based upon a dare.


Dave K8MN

Dave:

All of which is why our Kim is such a constant source of amusement.
However, I doubt that any other YL's who happened to be regular
participants in this NG would find her very entertaining.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
the word "tits" used to describe their breasts. "Boobs," yes, occasionally,
but not the "t" word. I digress; this is about Kim, the reason why she
requested her call sign, and the unfavorable image it projects on others

gee, and all this time I thought she took that callsign because TIT was
simple to send and had a nice rhythm in morse.

Alex / AB2RC

"Alex Flinsch" wrote in message
...
In article , Larry Roll K3LT
wrote:
the word "tits" used to describe their breasts. "Boobs," yes,
occasionally,
but not the "t" word. I digress; this is about Kim, the reason why she
requested her call sign, and the unfavorable image it projects on others

gee, and all this time I thought she took that callsign because TIT was
simple to send and had a nice rhythm in morse.

Alex / AB2RC

I'd hate to think what kind of sex oriented twist some folks might
place on my callsign and it's the original assigned to me by the FCC.

Harold
KD5SAK

Alex Flinsch wrote:
In article , Larry Roll K3LT wrote:

the word "tits" used to describe their breasts. "Boobs," yes, occasionally,
but not the "t" word. I digress; this is about Kim, the reason why she
requested her call sign, and the unfavorable image it projects on others


gee, and all this time I thought she took that callsign because TIT was
simple to send and had a nice rhythm in morse.

Alex / AB2RC

Are you kidding? I doubt she can even send Morse.

Alex Flinsch wrote in message ...
In article , Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
the word "tits" used to describe their breasts. "Boobs," yes, occasionally,
but not the "t" word. I digress; this is about Kim, the reason why she
requested her call sign, and the unfavorable image it projects on others

gee, and all this time I thought she took that callsign because TIT was
simple to send and had a nice rhythm in morse.

Alex / AB2RC

Great for contests and DX!

JJ wrote in message ...
Alex Flinsch wrote:
In article , Larry Roll K3LT wrote:

the word "tits" used to describe their breasts. "Boobs," yes, occasionally,
but not the "t" word. I digress; this is about Kim, the reason why she
requested her call sign, and the unfavorable image it projects on others


gee, and all this time I thought she took that callsign because TIT was
simple to send and had a nice rhythm in morse.

Alex / AB2RC

Are you kidding? I doubt she can even send Morse.

You don't have to send - just copy.

William wrote:

JJ wrote in message ...

Alex Flinsch wrote:

In article , Larry Roll K3LT wrote:


the word "tits" used to describe their breasts. "Boobs," yes, occasionally,
but not the "t" word. I digress; this is about Kim, the reason why she
requested her call sign, and the unfavorable image it projects on others


gee, and all this time I thought she took that callsign because TIT was
simple to send and had a nice rhythm in morse.

Alex / AB2RC

Are you kidding? I doubt she can even send Morse.


You don't have to send - just copy.

So how are you going to converse with another Morse station, assuming
you are in the CW portion of the band, if you don't send? Reread the
post, it was talking about sending.

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

(snip) Unfortunately, the image is
objectionable in any context, and it's
effect on the ARS has the potential
to be exactly as Mr. Hollingsworth
predicted.


If you say so, Larry. I, on the other hand, don't have the time right now
to continue this.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

The days when the nests were all
empty by the time Mom and Dad
hit 50 are long gone, Dwight. And
that's in "typical" America.

That may be typical in your world.

It's typical in much of the USA.

However, I haven't met a single 40 or
50 year old recently with a young child.

Do *you* have reason to meet such people, Dwight? How many "parent's nights"
have you spent recently at the local elementary school?

In fact, I only remember meeting
one in my entire life - a couple with an adopted child. Whatever the case, I
haven't seen it to be commonplace.

But you've spent a good part of your adult life outside the USA, haven't you,
Dwight?

Why does that matter? You may have
noticed that I don't talk about my
domestic situation here.

It matters only in the context of the discussion - how many in our age
group have young children.

Just among my family, friends and acquaintances, the number of families
with at least one parent over 40 and at least one child under 10
exceeds 40%.

Suppose, just suppose, that I have 5
children ranging in age from toddlers to
teenagers. (I don't, but that's not the
point). Would you then say I was right
and Kim's call was inappropriate?

Have those supposed children also talked to Kim on the radio, hearing her
callsign and making something out of it?

You're avoiding the question.

Lets not discuss hypothetical
situations, Jim.

Why not?

Anything can be justified or condemned using that.

Not true at all.

And your source is?

Fifty years of life, meeting thousands in that period.

My 49+ years has resulted in meeting a lot of 40+ parents of small children.

Do you consider that to be "old"?
I don't. I consider it to be "middle
aged".

Forty or fifty is certainly not young.

Not old either.

Both. I say neither is appropriate.

Appropriate for what?

Appropriate for the amateur radio service, which should be G-rated.

As I said earlier, it's not my job to decide what is
appropriate for others in this world, or demand they conform to my ideas of
what is appropriate.

Either a call such as Kim's is appropriate for the ARS or it isn't. If you have
no objection to it, you're saying it's appropriate, and therefore the rest of
us should accept it. Well, I don't. Period.

You and Kim keep using the term
"vukgar"

actually, "vulgar"

rather than addressing
whether it's "appropriate".

I've addressed the issue of appropriateness several times.

And you think it is.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Alex Flinsch
writes:

gee, and all this time I thought she took that callsign because TIT was
simple to send and had a nice rhythm in morse.

Alex / AB2RC

You know, Alex, if Kim had used that as her justification, and had never
mentioned her "well-endowed" figure and the dare she took from friends
to request that call sign, I might have accepted that reason. However,
I would have suggested that "TET" would have been even better. Her
only problem then may have been an adverse reaction by Vietnam-Era
Veterans. It was Kim who raised the issues of her physical characteristics
in regard to her call sign, for the sole purpose of calling attention to them.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Harold Burton"
writes:


I'd hate to think what kind of sex oriented twist some folks might
place on my callsign and it's the original assigned to me by the FCC.

Harold
KD5SAK

Harold:

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'd have to say, none at all.

You just Keep Drinking 5 Scotches And Kool-Aids.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Harold Burton"
writes:


I'd hate to think what kind of sex oriented twist some folks might
place on my callsign and it's the original assigned to me by the FCC.

Harold
KD5SAK

Harold:

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'd have to say, none at all.



No problem or disappointment, my own obsessions don't run that way either.
but there are probably other minds out there that might react with a titter
(no pun intended) to a simple alpha-numeric identifier.

Harold
KD5SAK

"N2EY" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" writes:

However, I haven't met a single 40 or
50 year old recently with a young child.

Do *you* have reason to meet such
people, Dwight? How many "parent's
nights" have you spent recently at the
local elementary school?


My wife has a degree in elementary education and has taught off and on for
twenty-five years. She is now back in school getting another degree in
secondary education. She graduates in a few months and will then start her
masters degree classes this coming summer.


But you've spent a good part of your adult
life outside the USA, haven't you, Dwight?


Yes, around thousands of active duty military personnel and civilian
employees of the military.

And now I have to cut this short, Jim. I'm starting a new business and
it's really eating up my time at the moment. Things should settle down in a
few days. Until then, this newsgroup will have to take a back seat. Take
care.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

JJ wrote in message ...
William wrote:

JJ wrote in message ...

Alex Flinsch wrote:

In article , Larry Roll K3LT wrote:


the word "tits" used to describe their breasts. "Boobs," yes, occasionally,
but not the "t" word. I digress; this is about Kim, the reason why she
requested her call sign, and the unfavorable image it projects on others


gee, and all this time I thought she took that callsign because TIT was
simple to send and had a nice rhythm in morse.

Alex / AB2RC

Are you kidding? I doubt she can even send Morse.


You don't have to send - just copy.

So how are you going to converse with another Morse station, assuming
you are in the CW portion of the band, if you don't send?

All of the portions of the band are CW portions.

Reread the
post, it was talking about sending.

This purpose of this group is Morse Code testing. The exam is receive only.

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net...
"N2EY" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" writes:

However, I haven't met a single 40 or
50 year old recently with a young child.

Do *you* have reason to meet such
people, Dwight? How many "parent's
nights" have you spent recently at the
local elementary school?


My wife has a degree in elementary education and has taught off and on for
twenty-five years. She is now back in school getting another degree in
secondary education. She graduates in a few months and will then start her
masters degree classes this coming summer.

Doesn't answer the question, Dwight!


But you've spent a good part of your adult
life outside the USA, haven't you, Dwight?


Yes, around thousands of active duty military personnel and civilian
employees of the military.

The vast majority of whom were under 40, let alone 50, right? How much
of
the US military (other than senior officers) is over 40?

And now I have to cut this short, Jim. I'm starting a new business and
it's really eating up my time at the moment. Things should settle down in a
few days. Until then, this newsgroup will have to take a back seat. Take
care.

Good luck in the new venture! I dare say that if it has anything to do
with young (10 and under) children, you may be surprised at how many
of them have at least one parent in the 40-50 y.o. range.

73 de Jim, N2EY

William wrote:


All of the portions of the band are CW portions.

True, one can operate CW in any portion of the band, but if you are in
the phone band, you can answer a CW station on phone, you don't have to
answer in CW as opposed to if you are in the portion of the band where
one can not use phone, ie., must use CW, thus the "CW" portion of the
band, you must answer in CW.

Reread the

post, it was talking about sending.


This purpose of this group is Morse Code testing.

It is? Since when? That topic is often discussed but just where does it
state the purpose of the group is Morse testing?

The exam is receive only.

So what good is being able to receive Morse if you can't send it? You
must be one of the cbplussers ULX speaks frequently of. And I still
stand behind my statement that kim probably can't send CW, or bet she
can't copy it either.

JJ wrote in message ...
William wrote:


All of the portions of the band are CW portions.

True, one can operate CW in any portion of the band, but if you are in
the phone band, you can answer a CW station on phone, you don't have to
answer in CW as opposed to if you are in the portion of the band where
one can not use phone, ie., must use CW, thus the "CW" portion of the
band, you must answer in CW.

Unless you are an amateur in a foreign country where freedoms abound.

Reread the

post, it was talking about sending.


This purpose of this group is Morse Code testing.

It is? Since when? That topic is often discussed but just where does it
state the purpose of the group is Morse testing?

The exam is receive only.

So what good is being able to receive Morse if you can't send it?

Dunno. That always puzzled me. Just one of the many oddities of the
inventive licensing system.

You
must be one of the cbplussers ULX speaks frequently of.

If you're listening to ULX, you've got bigger problems than CB radio.
You probably really hated passing that $250 over to him.

And I still
stand behind my statement that kim probably can't send CW, or bet she
can't copy it either.

You can stand behind your modified statement all day long.

In article , JJ
writes:

William wrote:

All of the portions of the band are CW portions.

True, one can operate CW in any portion of the band, but if you are in
the phone band, you can answer a CW station on phone, you don't have to
answer in CW as opposed to if you are in the portion of the band where
one can not use phone, ie., must use CW, thus the "CW" portion of the
band, you must answer in CW.

Reread the

post, it was talking about sending.

This purpose of this group is Morse Code testing.

It is? Since when? That topic is often discussed but just where does it
state the purpose of the group is Morse testing?

This newsgroup was CREATED for the sole purpose of removing
the morse code testing issue from rec.radio.amateur.miscellaneous.

Morse code TESTING is a prime topic of GETTING INTO amateur
radio below 30 MHz. Ergo, the morse code test issue is most
prime for a discussion of amateur radio POLICY.

The exam is receive only.

The omission of the morse code sending test is an OPTION of the
Volunteer Examiner team doing the testing. That is in the
regulations. VEs may invoke a sending test if they so wish.

So what good is being able to receive Morse if you can't send it? You
must be one of the cbplussers ULX speaks frequently of. And I still
stand behind my statement that kim probably can't send CW, or bet she
can't copy it either.

So what good is being tested for morse code...other than it being
the law for amateur radio license examinations in the USA having
below 30 MHz privileges?

The question-topic of the morse code test pertains to GETTING
INTO amateur radio below 30 MHz. Some have misconstrued the
essence of amateur radio as being a skilled radiotelegrapher.
There is nothing in the USA amateur regulations that mandates or
compels any amateur radio licensee to use morse code over and
above any other mode or modulation.

All allocated modes are optional to use in USA amateur radio.
Optional. Option is not a failure.

LHA / WMD

In (Len Over 21) writes:


In article , JJ
writes:

William wrote:

All of the portions of the band are CW portions.

True, one can operate CW in any portion of the band, but if you are in
the phone band, you can answer a CW station on phone, you don't have to
answer in CW as opposed to if you are in the portion of the band where
one can not use phone, ie., must use CW, thus the "CW" portion of the
band, you must answer in CW.

Reread the

post, it was talking about sending.

This purpose of this group is Morse Code testing.

It is? Since when? That topic is often discussed but just where does it
state the purpose of the group is Morse testing?

This newsgroup was CREATED for the sole purpose of removing
the morse code testing issue from rec.radio.amateur.miscellaneous.

[...]

Sole purpose? It seems a bit silly to try to scope any newsgroup,
especially an unmoderated one, to a "sole purpose." Nevertheless, if
you want to follow that line of argument, the historical record
disagrees with you.

During the discussion period preceding the newsgroup vote in 1991 that
realigned the rec.ham-radio.* newsgroups under rec.radio.amateur.*:

http://groups.google.com/groups?thre...a.Stanford.EDU

several other topics were brought up other than Morse code that could
(and eventually did) go into this newsgroup. Phil Howard, KA9WGN, did a
nice job of summarizing them:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...cso.uiuc. edu

and they included:

1. Proposed rules and petitions to the FCC
2. NPRM's issued by the FCC
3. Local antenna/tower issues, laws, covenants
4. Scanner laws and related issues
5. Bandplans and other operating agreements
6. Repeater coordination

Other names for this newsgroup that were considered, and rejected, by
group consensus included .rules, .regs, .regulations, .legal, and even
..fcc. It looks like Jim Grubs, W8GRT, gets the original credit for
proposing the eventually accepted suffix, which was .policy:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...rt.fidonet.org

The .policy suffix was adopted specifically because it recognized the
broad range of laws, rules, regulations, consensus, private legal
contracts, organizational agendas, and even gentlemen's
agreements/understandings, that shape amateur radio.

Over the 13-year history of the .policy newsgroup, there have been many
energetically debated topic threads about policy in amateur radio other
than Morse code, including:

1. The legal consequences of using non-amateur radio communications
systems, or even amateur radio equipment out-of-band, in an emergency
2. FCC PRB-1 and its impact on outdoor antenna regulations and
covenants
3. The no-business rule of amateur radio, and its implications (a.k.a.,
"The Great Usenet Pizza Autopatch Debate")
4. The legal authority of frequency coordinators to enforce band plans
and usage, resolve interference disputes, or even refarm existing
analog FM voice repeaters to allow more room for other modes
like packet
5. Interference issues, including that between amateur radio and FCC Part
15-regulated devices, and now Broadband over Powerlines (BPL)

You say that you have been participating on this newsgroup for about 7
years now. Haven't you noticed?

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

Paul W. Schleck wrote:

snippage

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...rt.fidonet.org

The .policy suffix was adopted specifically because it recognized the
broad range of laws, rules, regulations, consensus, private legal
contracts, organizational agendas, and even gentlemen's
agreements/understandings, that shape amateur radio.

Over the 13-year history of the .policy newsgroup, there have been many
energetically debated topic threads about policy in amateur radio other
than Morse code, including:

1. The legal consequences of using non-amateur radio communications
systems, or even amateur radio equipment out-of-band, in an emergency
2. FCC PRB-1 and its impact on outdoor antenna regulations and
covenants
3. The no-business rule of amateur radio, and its implications (a.k.a.,
"The Great Usenet Pizza Autopatch Debate")
4. The legal authority of frequency coordinators to enforce band plans
and usage, resolve interference disputes, or even refarm existing
analog FM voice repeaters to allow more room for other modes
like packet
5. Interference issues, including that between amateur radio and FCC Part
15-regulated devices, and now Broadband over Powerlines (BPL)

You forgot to add Kim's callsign!



You say that you have been participating on this newsgroup for about 7
years now. Haven't you noticed?


One might almost think the fellow is just here to bust people's chops.
Thanks for the history and Clarification, Paul.

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:01:25 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

Paul W. Schleck wrote:

snippage

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...rt.fidonet.org

The .policy suffix was adopted specifically because it recognized the
broad range of laws, rules, regulations, consensus, private legal
contracts, organizational agendas, and even gentlemen's
agreements/understandings, that shape amateur radio.

Over the 13-year history of the .policy newsgroup, there have been many
energetically debated topic threads about policy in amateur radio other
than Morse code, including:

1. The legal consequences of using non-amateur radio communications
systems, or even amateur radio equipment out-of-band, in an emergency
2. FCC PRB-1 and its impact on outdoor antenna regulations and
covenants
3. The no-business rule of amateur radio, and its implications (a.k.a.,
"The Great Usenet Pizza Autopatch Debate")
4. The legal authority of frequency coordinators to enforce band plans
and usage, resolve interference disputes, or even refarm existing
analog FM voice repeaters to allow more room for other modes
like packet
5. Interference issues, including that between amateur radio and FCC Part
15-regulated devices, and now Broadband over Powerlines (BPL)

You forgot to add Kim's callsign!

I like Paul's callsign better! :)




You say that you have been participating on this newsgroup for about 7
years now. Haven't you noticed?


One might almost think the fellow is just here to bust people's chops.
Thanks for the history and Clarification, Paul.

73, Leo

Mike Coslo wrote:



You forgot to add Kim's callsign!

I suppose the Super Bowl half-time act with Janet Jackson and the other
moron singing with her was just the kind of low class, crass act kim
really enjoys. Maybe kim should loan Jackson her callsign.

Len Over 21 wrote:


The question-topic of the morse code test pertains to GETTING
INTO amateur radio below 30 MHz. Some have misconstrued the
essence of amateur radio as being a skilled radiotelegrapher.

Others have misconstrued the term "GETTING INTO" amateur radio as
meaning the several decades of interest preceeding the several years of
newsgroup posts just before the three-year-old claim of getting "an
Extra right out of the box".

Dave K8MN

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

One might almost think the fellow is just here to bust people's chops.
Thanks for the history and Clarification, Paul.

Poor baby. Feel injured, do you?

Keep the Faith and work, work, work on that morse code to prove to
the amateur community all your dedication and worthiness to the
Old Ways. They will all be proud of you. Remember, morse code
gets through when everything else will.

Don't forget Mass at St. Hiram's early in the morning.

LHA / WMD

In article , Paul W. Schleck
writes:

In (Len Over
21) writes:

In article , JJ

writes:

William wrote:

All of the portions of the band are CW portions.

True, one can operate CW in any portion of the band, but if you are in
the phone band, you can answer a CW station on phone, you don't have to
answer in CW as opposed to if you are in the portion of the band where
one can not use phone, ie., must use CW, thus the "CW" portion of the
band, you must answer in CW.

Reread the

post, it was talking about sending.

This purpose of this group is Morse Code testing.

It is? Since when? That topic is often discussed but just where does it
state the purpose of the group is Morse testing?

This newsgroup was CREATED for the sole purpose of removing
the morse code testing issue from rec.radio.amateur.miscellaneous.

[...]

Sole purpose? It seems a bit silly to try to scope any newsgroup,
especially an unmoderated one, to a "sole purpose." Nevertheless, if
you want to follow that line of argument, the historical record
disagrees with you.

It "disagrees" all depending on which Google quoting is used! :-)

During the discussion period preceding the newsgroup vote in 1991 that
realigned the rec.ham-radio.* newsgroups under rec.radio.amateur.*:

http://groups.google.com/groups?thre...a.Stanford.EDU

several other topics were brought up other than Morse code that could
(and eventually did) go into this newsgroup. Phil Howard, KA9WGN, did a
nice job of summarizing them:

I'm sure. :-)

snip

Over the 13-year history of the .policy newsgroup, there have been many
energetically debated topic threads about policy in amateur radio other
than Morse code, including:

Ohhhh, there were LOTS more and most of them did NOT involve
anything at all to do with radio, let alone amateur radio. :-)

Do you REALLY want to go there? :-)

Google has nearly all of it...all the talk about choo-choo trains,
presidential politics in all its forms, U.S. foreign policy, breasts
and beasts, automobiles, flying airyplanes, small boats, morals
and morality, parenting, imaginary love lives, divorces, and
all kinds of things very much NOT concerning amateur radio.

Gosh and golly, Paul, I've only been working in radio-electronics
since 1952, didn't get into ARPANET until the 1970s, started
BBSing (as in computer-modem communications) in late 1984
and didn't have any real Internet account until 10 years ago.

I'm absolutely, positively agreeing with your vast experience
in this newsgroup. Since Day One of public-access Internet?


You say that you have been participating on this newsgroup for about 7
years now. Haven't you noticed?

Funny how some folks "notice" things that others don't. :-)

Tell you what, Paul, if you are really and truly upset, go to AOL
Member Services and DEMAND that they lock out my personal
access to this newsgroup. Go ahead, make everyone's day and
make it a CLOSED-to-all-but-amateur-licensees in order to "make
everyone happy." Make it ARRL-South for all I care.

Meanwhile, the FCC and other government agencies still maintain
an open-access-to-citizens policy, made even more open by the
Internet (now 13 years old?). I think that's a good thing. Lots of
folks in here want to rewrite the First Amendment and toss out
"little things" like freedom of speech and petitioning a government.

A rather long time ago I did big-time military communications (most
of it on HF) for three years and never used, nor had to know any
morse code. Never had to know or use it since. But, it seems an
Article of Faith that American Amateurism DEMANDS knowledge
of morse code demonstrated by federal testing in order to enjoy a
recreational radio activity done for personal pleasure. I don't think
that's very fair or "democratic" and will keep on objecting to that
unneeded test in public.

Feel free to object to my objection any which way you want. Just
remember that Internetting is NOT amateur radio. My objection to
your objection is probably going to happen...to you or anyone
else...in any manner and form I care to use...whether or not some
True Believer gets mad as heck and goes out of their way (or
gourd) to toss out very clear LIBEL in a most personal way.

No problem to me. If I'm here and not in Houston, I can match
anyone's shots, shot for shot, and salvo as I care to.

SO FAR in here, this forum doesn't require any amateur radio
license to communicate on the Internet.

Sunnavagun! How about that? :-)

LHA / WMD

In article , Dave Heil Miss Construance
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

The question-topic of the morse code test pertains to GETTING
INTO amateur radio below 30 MHz. Some have misconstrued the
essence of amateur radio as being a skilled radiotelegrapher.

Others have misconstrued the term "GETTING INTO" amateur radio as
meaning the several decades of interest preceeding the several years of
newsgroup posts just before the three-year-old claim of getting "an
Extra right out of the box".

Go for it, big daddy dave. Ain't no cats on your hot tin roof.

I left active duty in 1956, moved to southern California in 1956, worked
IN radio-electronics in the aerospace industries out here. I'm still
working IN it but not at regular hours. Better than 40 hours a week
from then to now. Even did a severe major shift to go from illustration
to electronics engineering. Kept up a hobby in electronics at home
all that time. Even authored articles on electronics and ham radio
as a professional writer in spare time. Became senior staff
engineer at several large electronics corporations.

Howaboutthat? Does that "show enough interest?" I'd say making a
career out of an "interest" ought to prove something to anyone with
more than four brain cells. Nope. Not enough to mighty big dave.
To him (bless his 4-synapse grey matter) I'd have to regress and Learn
To Beep Morse and become an amatoor hum wid a reel lisense.

Geez, snarly dave, those electroshock treatments do take away
some of your smarts. Was the gunnery nurse in attendance?
Did he dance well? Who lead?

LHA / WMD

Len Over 21 wrote:


Gosh and golly, Paul, I've only been working in radio-electronics
since 1952

And still dosen't know enough to be able to pass the test for a ham license.