"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

John:

I agree that Morse code proficiency has nothing to do with speaking or
typing -- but the ability to effectively employ the Morse/CW mode -- at
speeds greater than 5 WPM -- will keep you communicating when conditions
prevent you from communicating by voice or digital modes. You have done
nothing but provide personal, anecdotal proof that reducing code testing
requirements down to a mere 5 WPM maximum was NOT a good thing!


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


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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in
:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

John:

I agree that Morse code proficiency has nothing to do with speaking or
typing -- but the ability to effectively employ the Morse/CW mode --
at speeds greater than 5 WPM -- will keep you communicating when
conditions prevent you from communicating by voice or digital modes.
You have done nothing but provide personal, anecdotal proof that
reducing code testing requirements down to a mere 5 WPM maximum was
NOT a good thing!


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


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


It isn't so, at least not for digital modes.

Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

John:

I agree that Morse code proficiency has nothing to do with speaking or
typing -- but the ability to effectively employ the Morse/CW mode -- at
speeds greater than 5 WPM -- will keep you communicating when conditions
prevent you from communicating by voice or digital modes. You have done
nothing but provide personal, anecdotal proof that reducing code testing
requirements down to a mere 5 WPM maximum was NOT a good thing!



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.

You never watched Star Trek TNG, eh?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

John:

I agree that Morse code proficiency has nothing to do with speaking or
typing -- but the ability to effectively employ the Morse/CW mode -- at
speeds greater than 5 WPM -- will keep you communicating when conditions
prevent you from communicating by voice or digital modes. You have done
nothing but provide personal, anecdotal proof that reducing code testing
requirements down to a mere 5 WPM maximum was NOT a good thing!



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.

You never watched Star Trek TNG, eh?

- Mike KB3EIA -


heh heh. We should all take lessons from that saga!

Kim W5TIT


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

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 03:38:46 GMT, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Kim W5TIT wrote:
To state something does not make it so.

You never watched Star Trek TNG, eh?

I believe what Captain Picard said was, "Wishing for a thing does not
make it so."

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Very funny, Scotty...now beam down my pants!

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 03:38:46 GMT, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Kim W5TIT wrote:
To state something does not make it so.

You never watched Star Trek TNG, eh?

I believe what Captain Picard said was, "Wishing for a thing does not
make it so."

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Very funny, Scotty...now beam down my pants!

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

"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

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:58:29 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

Kim, Dear, what kind of "proof" of this would you accept?

Dear? I knew it! You ARE in love with her, Larry!

You are not a
CW operator, so you are not even qualified to judge any "proof" offered.

You are not a cow, Larry, therefore you are not even qualified to
judge whether McDonald's or Wendy's makes better cheeseburgers.

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,

Hitler had the collective guilt of Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, and
homosexuals proven to his satisfaction, too.

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.

Actually, all that's really required is a receiver. If there are a few
dozen CW QSOs going on at the bottom of the band, but nobody in the
phone portion of the band...well, why would you think that would
happen, unless there's a CW contest going on?

So please don't
go demanding "proof" unless you're willing to place yourself in a position

Yeah, you'd like that, wouldn't you, ya dirty old man ya... :-)

to be an objective, competent arbiter of any evidence offered.

73 de Larry, K3LT


And as for you, Kim...

Lip service, Larry.

Ahem....I'm trying to keep my mind out of the gutter here. You're not
helping much.

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.

Larry gets rather emotional over the topic, whereas Jim looks at
things a bit more objectively. But then, I think you noticed that.

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

Knowing them and being able to articulate them in this forum are two
different things.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ