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.

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

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

snippage

You forgot to add Kim's callsign!


I like Paul's callsign better!


Yaknow, I didn't even notice till you mentioned it!
8^)


- Mike KB3EIA -

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.

JJ wrote:

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.

Now that you've started it, here is a little demonstration:

Go to www.google.com . Go to the image search. Search on Janet
Jackson. Observe the pictures that pop up.

Now try to reconcile what you have just seen with CBS and MTV and the
NFL' denial of any knowledge of the ugly little stunt. (yes it was ugly
- that creepy outfit she wore looked like some 1970's lingerie from
behind the iron curtain, and what the heck was that ugly thing on her
breast? - shudder!)

They knew! And the halftime show, which used to be the way for the NFL
to get women that were not interested in football to watch the show has
now changed. My guess is that there will be plenty of men watching the
halftime show next year.

Even if they didn't know this was going to happen, the people they
hired to do the show, MTV, is pretty steeped in sleaze. Note that MTV is
owned by the same company that owns CBS. So ignorance of the act would
be admission of stupidity.

Maybe they'll have porn stars next year.


And lest we forget, Kid Rock comes out in a desecrated US Flag with a
hole cut in the middle. Pretty damn despicable! Is this what the
superbowl is about? I can only assume that the NFL approves of this kind
of disrespectful behavior, and if we watch the trash they spew, we do as
well!
- Mike KB3EIA -