"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

JJ wrote:

Dick Carroll wrote:

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.

Hate to burst you bubble Dickie, but I sat in front of an FCC
examiner in the Dallas office and took my code test.

If that's true it would seem reasonable that you would be aware that a ham
who can
operate a
radiotelegraph station is better qualified than one who cannot. So why
aren't youi?

The ONLY aspect that the ham can claim is that s/he is better
qualified at CW. The other, non-CW hams may be far superior
hams than the coded ham in all the other aspects of ham radio
operation and technical.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

The ONLY aspect that the ham can claim is that s/he is better
qualified at CW. The other, non-CW hams may be far superior
hams than the coded ham in all the other aspects of ham radio
operation and technical.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


And it seems to me that non-CW hams would be far superior to CW-hams, with
things such as phone nets, QSOs, etc.

Oh wait, I think you already said that. . .

But, you know what? It doesn't even feel good feeling superior.

Kim W5TIT


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