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

writes:

Kim:

All I can say is, I'm not suprised by your typically ungracious remark.
Apparently my effort was in vain, but that's my fault -- I should have
known better!

73 de Larry, K3LT


Would you like me to post some examples of where you have not kept your
posts related to ham radio? Actually, you can look it up yourself.

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

I know what I've posted, both in the past and in the present. I have
repeatedly posted replies to your own posts in which I have attempted to
deal with you as an equal, as an adult. I have most recently attempted
to stifle a disrespectful remark made at your expense, and you have
seen fit to react to it in an ungracious and disparaging manner. You
obviously have no intention of ever emerging from your inane, childish,
immature mode of thought, and continue to persist in personal attacks
against those of us who are best able to challenge you, since you know
you aren't up to the task of debating us on our level.

Ordinarily, I would ask you to reflect on this and consider a reply, but
I have been repeatedly shown that that is too much to ask of you. I have
tried to treat you with respect, but if I do not receive equal
consideration,
all that will happen is that you will continue to make a fool of yourself,
and I will continue to be the one pointing to the errors of your ways.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Well, ya know what, Larry? You have a good time. You must like wasting it.

Kim W5TIT

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Kim, I don't know what is going on with
your newsgroup messages. (snip)


There, how's that?


Well, I was able to read it. However, it has only been a little over an
hour since you posted it. I'm going to mark the message as unread and try
it
again tomorrow to see if it is still on the server. I'll let you know what
happens.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Alrighty then...

Kim W5TIT

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

(But, as I and others have previously said, the decision should
NOT be based on a popularity contest in the community of
incumbents, but should, rather, be based on the sound judgement
of the FCC as to what's regulatorily necessary and good for the
future of ham radio.)

The FCC is not all that qualified to judge what is good for the future of
ham radio.

Then who is?

The reality, however, is that the FCC is the determining body.

Many of the staff are not involved in ham radio. They are a
government body whose purpose is to regulate the various radio services so
that they can coexist.

That's only part of their purpose.

There purpose is not to maintain ham radio or decide
what is good for it.

I would argue that these are also part of FCC goals
for ham radio or any other service.

Again, bottom line...FCC does the deciding.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(Brian) wrote in message om...
(N2EY) wrote in message om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
there is nothing "magical" about Morse
and the insistence on using "wetware" instead of software to do the
decoding is an anomaly of ham radio.

And you say you're not against the use of the mode, just the test, Carl?
;-)

That's correct... I am NOT against the use of the mode.

Maybe. But the way you write about the mode makes me wonder. For
example, when you call those who use the mode "beepers" and other
disparaging names, a different image is projected by you.

Kelley refers to himself as a "beepist."

Where? You are mistaken. AC6XG hasn't posted here in quite some time,
and I've never seen him refer to himself that way.

Is Kelley against Morse/CW use?

Nope. I've worked AC6XG at least twice, both times on CW. Once was on
Field Day (20 CW) and the other on the rrap net on 7037 kHz.

Ahhh. Applying the old Dave Heil "I'm gonna be obtuse" tactic? Poor
Jimmy, gotsta resort to tricks.

Is there anyone else here who has referred to hisself as a "beepist?"

Alun Palmer wrote in message . ..

Bringing the phone subbands in line with other countries in Region 2 would
be sufficient

Can't we all just get along?

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

Now that it seems as though code testing will finally be abolished in
the
ARS, let's amuse ourselves with a bit of speculation as to what this
will
mean in terms of future growth in the numbers of licensed amateur
radio
operators in the United States. What do you think will happen? How
much growth do you think will occur, and how fast?

We may have an initial inrush of some newbies in the onset, but it will
flatten back out to where it is about right now is my prediction. Its
from
a "marketing" standpoint. The hobby just is not promoted like it should
or
could be. Once us existing licensee's hit up our friends and family,
that
is usually it. (kinda sounds a bit like Amway!)

Actually the biggest problem is lack of activity by the current hams. If
we
take the figure of 600,000+ hams and calculate the number of QSOs per day
if
each one had one QSO per YEAR (assume it takes two hams for a qso), thats
300,000 exchanges per year or nearly 1000 per day. That would keep the
bands pretty busy. But instead we hear the same people over and over on
the
VHF and HF frequencies. We have 150 members or so in our club and I only
hear about a dozen on the repeater regularly. It's the same dozen that do
VHF simplex and SSB. We need to get those already licensed more involved.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


That is true Dee, if even half of the licensees out there operated a little
more often, the bands would be busier. HF seems to be holding it's own for
the most part as far as usage. 2 meter and somewhat in the 70cm bands usage
is fair but could be better. 6 meters is considered a "throw-away" band, as
people seem to think it is only good during a band opening. I personally
have had some excellent local, or better put "within state" contacts when
the band otherwise appeared dead.
220Mhz, 902Mhz, and 1.2Ghz bands are desolate, at least around here. I
wouldn't be surprised if we lost the 220 and 902 bands.



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
news

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

(But, as I and others have previously said, the decision should
NOT be based on a popularity contest in the community of
incumbents, but should, rather, be based on the sound judgement
of the FCC as to what's regulatorily necessary and good for the
future of ham radio.)

The FCC is not all that qualified to judge what is good for the future
of
ham radio.

The FCC is the expert agency on radiocommuncations matters.

They are the expert agency on regulating the radiocommunications matters.
It is not their function to be an expert on what is good for a service.
They accept input from all radio services and balance them. Afterall what
is good for say commericial radio might be detrimental towards ham radio
and
vice versa.

In which case they balance the good of both services based
on the needs of the situation.


Many of the staff are not involved in ham radio.

Many of the staff, including at least some of those in WTB who
administer Part 97, are long-time Extras (some even operate Morse
as their primary, preferred mode ... but they seem to be smart enough
to realize that jamming it down everyone's throats isn't good for the
future
of ham radio)


Their reasons for wanting to drop it may have nothing to do with the good
of
the future of ham radio. While they have stated that they see no reason
to
keep it, they did not say that dropping it would be good for ham radio.

Nor did anyone filing comments provide even ONE
argument that rationally suggested dropping code
would be detriminental to ham radio.

They are a
government body whose purpose is to regulate the various radio
services
so that they can coexist.

That is a simple statement of fact.

There purpose is not to maintain ham radio or decide what is good for
it.

"There" (try "their") purpose is to administer ham radio in accordance
with
some fundmental principles about what the basis and purpose of the
amateur
radio service exists for ... see Part 97.1 of the FCC's rules and
Article
25
(newly revised, effective July 05, 2003) of the ITU Radio Regulations.


Sometimes my typing gets ahead of my thoughts. I seldom make such errors
as
you should know by reading my posts and thus there is no reason for you to
point it out other than to divert attention from the main topic of
discussion.

As stated their purpose is to ADMINISTER ham radio, not necessarily to
encourage its growth.

That is your opinion, not fact.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dan/W4NTI"
writes:

Anyone who thinks that BPL will be stopped in favor of amateur radio
is due for a rude awakening -- probably in the form of a very loud
buzzing noise on his favorite SSB net frequency!
73 de Larry, K3LT


Quite true, and even if the amateur radio public unanimously collectively
chipped in 100 bucks a piece in defense of this threat, I am sure it still
would be DWARFED by the corporate threat of the companies getting involved
in this technology. Money talks, and you-know-what walks.


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

"Len Over 21" wrote:

Dwight Stewart writes:

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Kim, I don't know what is going on with your
newsgroup messages. (snip)

I had my witches coven put a curse on her.

Something has sure happened. After I posted that
message, I ran into three or four other messages
posted by Kim that resulted in the same error
message (all posted after the message I replied
to). Very odd.

Dwight, you need to upgrade your computer's
AntiCurse software. :-)

I got mine through the Hogwart's on-line store.
University rates, too!


I've tried the swish and flick method several times. It didn't help with
Kim's messages (my computer's mouse is a little charred though). Perhaps I'm
pronouncing the words wrong.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:08:16 -0400, "Ryan, KC8PMX"
wrote:


2. Most public safety professionals (by which I mean law enforcement,
fire supression, EMS, and SAR personnel) know precisely this about the
radios they use on the job: Either it works or it doesn't. Either the
city cops can talk directly to the county sheriffs or they can't.
Change to a different radio? Sure...just get a new radio...see item
number (1) above for the problem with that.

Hmmm.... but if there ever was any career paths that the possibility of
needing to communicate in a non-voice manner those professions just may
be..... If a firefighter gets trapped in a building or cop has some type
of
situation where he may not be able to speak or something, he may be able
to
tap code out on the speaker.

Perhaps, but it wouldn't be all that likely that anyone hearing it
would recognize it as an attempt to communicate, let alone copy the
message...chances are the fire dispatcher isn't required to learn
Morse in order to qualify for the job.


Perhaps, but I would think the dispatchers would have to know it as well.
Based on the tone of the response I take it as you feel that morse does not
have as much value as stated by others here in the past. If morse is so
important, than radio "services" should have to know it as well, otherwise
the arguments "for code" fall apart in my opinion.
"Radio service" personell are required to learn other skills, in order to
perform their positions, and hams are required to learn other skills along
with morse code.

--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...