Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 - |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 - |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Kid Rock comes out in a desecrated US Flag with a hole cut in the middle. Pretty [expletive deleted] despicable! I agree 100%. When the halftime show started I changed the channel. Flipped back at one point and saw "Kid", flipped back to something else. Missed JJ - no big loss. Note that the flap over her "wardrobe malfunction" has deflected attention from that flag desecration. 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! I think it's evidence of a basic law of entertainment physics: "conservation of goodstuff". IOW there's only so much good programming. Some years back, the superbowl consisted mostly of rather unexciting games but really good shows and commercials. Then the games got better and the shows and commercials worse. It's not just the superbowl - most of what's on broadcast TV is JUNK. Pure and simple. If some people in the LA area are offended - tough. The irony of the situation is that the people who are really responsible won't be fined, but the stations who simply carried the network feed will be. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Using a Pool Cage As an Antenna? | Antenna | |||
Use a Pool Cage As An Antenna? | Antenna | |||
From the Extra question pool: The dipole | General | |||
REQ:latest Ham University with curent tech pool willing to share?/sell cheep | Equipment | |||
REQ:latest Ham University with curent tech pool willing to share?/sell cheep | Equipment |