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


You know...the claim that CW "will keep you communicating when conditions
prevent you from communicating by voice or digital modes" has been made
time
and time again. Time and time again there have been requests for proof
of
this claim. None has been provided.

To state something does not make it so.

Kim W5TIT

Kim, Dear, what kind of "proof" of this would you accept? You are not a
CW operator, so you are not even qualified to judge any "proof" offered.
Those of us who are proficient CW operators with adequate on-the-air
experience have certainly had this fact proven to them to their
satisfaction,
but a no-coder will always claim that it isn't proven simply because they
have no way of discerning and analyzing the evidence, and they have an
agenda which would cause them to deny the outcome. So please don't
go demanding "proof" unless you're willing to place yourself in a position
to be an objective, competent arbiter of any evidence offered.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Lip service, Larry. You couldn't even offer the contribution that N2EY
made. An excellent example, I might add. And, apparently you have no
proof--only your rhetorical blathering idiocy, as usual.

When you get as good as N2EY at knowing CW and examples of its tremendous
cabability, get back to us, won't you?

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:



I rest my case

Your case was rested 25 years ago.

JJ wrote:

your statement of REAL radio operators is where I have
a problem with the likes of you and Larry. You have this huge ego
that unless every ham feels about code the way you do they are not
real hams. That if they choose not to use code then they are the
unwashed, the unclean. That is the problem I have with those like
you and your attitude toward other hams of your "I am superior
because I use CW" attitude.

What you have then is a problem understanding what is written. I've made it clear many
times, whether it suits you or not, facts are facts- and the fact is that any ham who
chooses to avoid learning to use radiotelgraphy is not a fully qualified ham.
So you don't like it put in such un-policacally correct terms. Tough stuff, Pal.
Ego has absolutely not a thing to do with it, and if you had half a clue you'd recognize
that fact. Qualification and ability do. End of story. Over and out, good buddy.

JJ wrote:

Dick Carroll wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:


You
are (IMHO) clearly not up to the task of recruiting new hams
by proactively advocating CW use.




Just as I would have skipped learning the code if it hadn't been a licensing
requirement, too.

Then what is your problem with the fact that some have a no-code
license and possibly the code requirement will be dropped?
Goodness, if code testing were not a requirement and you skipped
learning the code, then you would not be a "real" ham.

Evidently you skipped code or you'd have some idea what ham radio would/will
be without it. NO? no surprise, coming from you. That leaves you clueless, but we
already knew that.

"Kim W5TIT" wrote ...

Absolutely! Although signal fires may be pretty hazardous...heh heh
__________________________________________________ ____________________

Well, Kim. We'll just make sure that we are all wearing our proximity gear
:-))

Arnie -

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:49:34 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

Then, having been duly forced - completely against his will - he
actually began to like it...so the story goes. Next we'll be hearing
that women secretly enjoy being raped.


Not a valid comparison. It is more like making a child geometry or English
Literature or history. These things are considered part of a basic
education even though the child might not like it at the time. Later in
life, they may find that this introduction led them to an area that
interests them as an adult that they end up pursuing as a career.

It is more like the cases where I've talked to friends about music. Several
had piano lessons as children. Many of them did not like them as a kid.
However, as adults, they always make one of the following comments: a) I'm
glad my parents didn't let me quit piano OR b) I wish my parents hadn't let
me quit piano. None of the ones who quit were glad that they had quit. All
of the ones who had continued were glad that they had done so.

Any physical skill must be practiced to a basic level of ability before a
person can properly evaluate their own interest in it let alone its worth to
other people.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

JJ wrote:


Dick Carroll wrote:

JJ you really don't need to display yourself as a code illiterate,
just because
you're
irritated that someone would actually advocate using it on the air.
You don't have
to.
But you can't seem to help yourself. If you've never observed radio
operators - REAL

radio operators, using code in a very efficient way, that's just your
loss. No need
for you to
act so stupid over it.

Some people can, others "just don't want to". You can be one of those
if you wish.


First, I am not code illiterate, I can operate code if I choose to.
Second, your statement of REAL radio operators is where I have a problem
with the likes of you and Larry.

What is your callsign, JJ?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote ...

If find your comparison of yourself (and Larry) to Forest Gump to be most
appropriate :-) "Stupid is as stupid does." was the saying from the movie
... and while I don't actually think either you or Larry actually ARE
stupid, you both certainly ACT that way.


__________________________________________________ _________________________

And when did you become the expert on who and who is not intelligent,

Carl?

Arnie -
KT4ST


Arnie,

I was voicing my opinion of the way that Dick, Larry, and a few others ACT.
You will note that I said I didn't actually think they ARE stupid ... but
that they
ACT that way (IMHO).

Too bad you decided to do a diss on a person who had a mental handicap.
(and who wasn't stupid)

I was brought up not to make fun of the handicapped. YMMV.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:49:34 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

Just as I would have skipped learning the code if it hadn't been a
licensing
requirement, too.


So, the only effort you are willing to expend is one which is forced upon
you?

Then, having been duly forced - completely against his will - he
actually began to like it...so the story goes. Next we'll be hearing
that women secretly enjoy being raped.

Seriously, though, he had an option. Unless somebody forced him to get
a ham license.....

73 DE John, KC2HMZ


Well, you're right. We aren't "forced" to pass an exam for a ham license.
However, that's been hotly debated in this newsgroup many times also ;)

And, Dick knows what I meant by my comment. I cannot believe he says he
would not have learned CW if it had not been a testing requirement!

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:

You
are (IMHO) clearly not up to the task of recruiting new hams
by proactively advocating CW use.

Just as I would have skipped learning the code if it hadn't been a
licensing requirement, too.

So much for your advocacy of morse to new hams.
You made my point.

Bill you have been quite consistant about missing the entire point. When
there is no
code test
most hams won't learn Morse code.

So what? The objective then, if morse is to continue as a
mode of somewhat prevalent use is for YOU, Larry
and others to RECRUIT new hams to the joys and benefits
of morse that you so consistently profess. It's that simple!

I know that taxes you not a bit, so that means that you don't
care whether or not hams will be losing it as a viable mode.

Do I care, no more than I do if the game of golf was gone
forever or hundreds of other things that others think is
great BUT do not ask for a governmental support system
to do the recruiting. If morse has the value you keep
preaching then there will be new users...maybe not as many
as YOU would want,but morse ain't gonna go way as
I see it. As long as there's one DX country running CW
only there will be new hams learning and using morse.

Which shows how shortsighted you
are, right along with the rest of NCI.

In your opinionany way...

And yes, FCC too.

That's your problem then...take it up with Bill Cross, et al
then. I'm sure they'll appreciate your commentary on how
shortsighted they are.

Of course they have far bigger fish to fry
than to worry about a trivial detail involving the ARS.

Translation...I (Dick) won't waste my time with the FCC
but rather I'll just keep complaining here in RRAP.

The least time they must
spend on ARS issues the better for them, whatever the end result.

Ditto my last.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK