ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:

Yet Dick is free to lecture others, i.e., "any idiot can get psk going
in under 30 minutes," but by his own words here he couldn't.

Brian:

It took me more like four hours to get PSK-31 running, counting the time
it took to cobble together my sound card interface, download and install
the software (DigiPan, at the time), and get the settings right. However,
it's good to know I'm not an "idiot!"

73 de Larry, K3LT

True enough, but you know how DICK has a knack for saying the wrong thing.

Regardless, if it took 4 hours, you would have to join DICK as a No PSK Tech.

In article , Floyd Davidson
writes:

How are we going to measure it though? ... Hmmm, I guess we may just
need Larry "The Measuring Stick" Roll after all!

My suggestion on that sort of "stick" is to STICK IT.

I think we all know where... :-)

LHA

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

73 de Larry, K3LT

What name calling? I refered to Dick as "Dick." :-)

That's "extra DICK" to you, Carl... :-)

The comment simply paraphrased/slightly modified something someone
else said (I think it may have been Floyd's original comment, but I don't
remember for sure ...)

Besides, this is not a discussion of a truly technical issue, so what does
my level of technical competence have to do with THIS discussion?

Larrah has the fantasy of being a "moderator" in here.

He's another victim of Beeperitis.

LHA

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


Larry,

I don't expect "exalted status" ... just some respect as one who is arguably
more knowledgable and competent in RF technology than the average ham.

Carl:

You have been shown that respect quite consistently, particularly by me.
However, the fact that you seem to be ignoring that fact is getting to be
more than a little bit off-putting.

It hasn't been YOU showing any "respect" Larrah. Sure, you've tossed
in some "polite" small phrases now and then, but then followed that up
with LOTS of "off-putting" disrespectful sentences and phrases all about
your own self-promotion as "expert in communications.".

However, as has been pointed out, you insist that your superior CW skill
is ALL that counts and that since I'm not up to your standards in that area
I'm a "lesser ham."

It's a simple fact that you don't have operating experience and proficiency
in Morse/CW, which I consider to be one of the most useful communications
skills in the radio amateur's arsenal.

Hmmm...let's see...

Larrah claims employment at Radio Shack prior to his 20 years with USAF.
In the USAF he flew a desk and never did any USAF communications.
Then he claims attending college with "summa cum laude" title add-on and
thus able to get any Human Resources career position he wants after
graduation...instead of landing a job as a Personnel specialist, he winds up
a BUS DRIVER but insist on calling his occupation "paratransit specialist."

Yes, a whole heaping glob of "communication skills" in that short resume.

For marketing folks and snake-oil salesmen.

A mere 50 1/2 years ago I was doing trans-Pacific HF transmissions as
part of my military service. At no time during my 3 years in that was there
ANY morse code used for primary communications. The USN radio HF
primary and USAF HF primary communications used the same TTY and
voice and FAX modes at that time. By 1978 HF comm was relegated to
secondary status, all US military branches.

For a half century the military and commercial carriers on HF have NOT
used any manual morse telegraphy for primary communications. But
the soma come loud bus driver insists that "morse code is a primary
skill!"

Ah, but the bus driver insists that is needed in amateurism! Of course,
to keep alive a living museum of the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service!

To keep that legend alive, he insists that ALL who desire to enter a
radio hobby activity MUST take a manual telegraphy test!

Larrah's only justification is his holier-than-everyone opinion and self-
elevation to Raddio Godd status.

I have always acknowledged your
superior, professional-grade technical skills, and those of all other hams of
all license classes who possess them. However, I must reiterate, this is the
AMATEUR Radio Service. The ARS has a long-standing tradition of
requiring proficiency in the use of the Morse code, for the purpose of
permitting radio amateurs to exploit the many benefits and advantages of
that particular mode.

Invalid on all accounts, Larrah. Your accounts are bankrupt.

The FCC is NOT chartered to preserve old legends and old traditions.

ARRL seems to think its duty is to keep the morse legends and myths
alive and doesn't shrink from that propaganda anymore now than they
did a half century ago. They refuse to modernize even though the IARU
sided with eliminating the code test in ITU-R S25.5.

The ONLY place where morse code skills are of "value" would be in
amateur radio. Even snake-oil salesmen who were morsemen couldn't
make a living communicating in morse these days.

But, you, the NON-communicator (except as a very amateur) want to
keep a federal law that forces all newcomers to test for morsemanship!

Incredible!

I have consistently stated that I feel that this skill is
important enough to radio AMATEURS that it simply cannot be replaced,
even with technical skills which exceed licensing requirements.

Not a problem for you Larrah. You know so little about radio-electronics
theory that morsemanship is ALL you have in radiocommunications.

This is my opinion, Carl -- not a demonstration of any lack of due respect.
I would expect a person of your intelligence to recognize and acknowledge
the difference.

Hmmph...I would have expected someone with Summa Cum Laude
status and new BA degree in "human resources" (PERSONNEL) to
"get any job he wanted" in said "human resources." You are now
driving a bus.

Don't worry Larrah...nearly all of us have the "intelligence to recognize
and acknowledge" snake-oil salesmen when they show up in here.

Moreover, I have never held myself out as anything more
than an "average" ham, with the notable exception of occasional hyperbole
used in this newsgroup (and nowhere else) to push the buttons of particularly
intransigent fellow participants, including your own good self.

HYPOCRITE!

Google has thousands and thousands of your own words archived where
YOU hold YOURSELF up as the "role model" of "expert" in anything you
are talking about, showing your "dedication and hard work" to become
an extra class morseman. As an AMATEUR.

Self-elevation. Self-promotion. That is all you do in here.

Now go shine up your big bus, "graduate (summa etc.) human resources
specialist," your passengers are waiting...

LHA

In article , (No
CW Test) writes:


The truth of the matter is that under some
conditions PSK-31 outperforms OOK
Morse CW,

I have a feeling that if and when BPL is implemented on a large scale,
PSK-31 is going to be rendered useless for hams that have BPL service
in their area.

and under some conditions
OOK Morse CW outperforms PSK-31.

On many occasions, the only part of a PSK-31 transmission I could "copy"
was the Morse code CW ID at the end of the transmission! And these
instances were under what I'd call "normal" operating conditions. The one
thing that has kind of disappointed me about PSK-31 is that it really isn't
all that robust when faced with even moderately trashy band conditions.
In fact, a lot of times when I had to give up on PSK-31, I went over to plain
'ole RTTY and was able to keep going. PSK-31 is great, and I like it a lot,
but I'm glad I have CW and RTTY/AMTOR/PACTOR as a backup.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


Yes, I would say that the threshold should be more like "Anyone who's
even close to as dumb as Dick shouldn't be a ham, let alone an Extra."

Carl - wk3c

Carl:

Ahhh -- more name calling! I guess that helps to make your point about
your technical superiority as a ham!

73 de Larry, K3LT

What name calling? I refered to Dick as "Dick." :-)
The comment simply paraphrased/slightly modified something someone
else said (I think it may have been Floyd's original comment, but I don't
remember for sure ...)

Carl:

You referred to Dick as "dumb." Any reasonably objective observer in
this NG would not arrive at that conclusion. Hence, you were engaged
in name calling, regardless of whether it was a quoted source or not.

Besides, this is not a discussion of a truly technical issue, so what does
my level of technical competence have to do with THIS discussion?

Carl - wk3c

A good question, Carl. I've always wondered exactly what your alleged
technical competence has to do with ANY discussion in this NG! After
all, this is about AMATEUR radio! While I freely admit that I do have a
great deal of respect for hams who do possess genuine, professional-
grade technical qualifications, you, and your apologists Floyd Davidson
and Len Anderson, tend to raise the noise level to BPL standards!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Yes, I would say that the threshold should be more like "Anyone who's
even close to as dumb as Dick shouldn't be a ham, let alone an Extra."

Carl - wk3c

Carl:

Ahhh -- more name calling! I guess that helps to make your point about
your technical superiority as a ham!

73 de Larry, K3LT

What name calling? I refered to Dick as "Dick." :-)
The comment simply paraphrased/slightly modified something someone
else said (I think it may have been Floyd's original comment, but I don't
remember for sure ...)

Carl:

You referred to Dick as "dumb." Any reasonably objective observer in
this NG would not arrive at that conclusion.

Trouble is, YOU don't belong here as any sort of "objective observer."

Hence, you were engaged
in name calling, regardless of whether it was a quoted source or not.

Poor baby...you saw a mirror held up and thought someone was
reflecting YOUR image. Baaaaad overinflated ego complex you have.

Besides, this is not a discussion of a truly technical issue, so what does
my level of technical competence have to do with THIS discussion?

Carl - wk3c

A good question, Carl. I've always wondered exactly what your alleged
technical competence has to do with ANY discussion in this NG! After
all, this is about AMATEUR radio!

Larrah, it's just too bad that US amateur radio doesn't have a book,
"Radio for Dummies" that you could read to find out what radio, ANY
radio IS...you NEED one.

"Radio" is a general activity involving technology in and about radio
communication.

Radios do NOT work "differently" because some regulating agency
states one radio activity is "amateur" and another radio activity is
"commercial/professional." Electrons, fields and waves work the SAME
in ANY radio regardless of human legislation.

You can't understand that. I wonder why?

Maybe its because you can't distinguish one active from another...like
all your bragging about "summa cum laude human resources graduate"
and then you get a BUS DRIVER job.

While I freely admit that I do have a
great deal of respect for hams who do possess genuine, professional-
grade technical qualifications, you, and your apologists Floyd Davidson
and Len Anderson, tend to raise the noise level to BPL standards!

Poor baby...still miffed at no one recognizing your intrinsic Greatness?

Technically, you know NOTHING about "BPL" except a lot of hysteric
emotionally-fueled gabbling and paranoia and ten kinds of NIMBY
shouts and hollerings.

Come back when you've learned a smidgen of technical knowledge and
can talk sensibly with some evidence of knowing a small bit about the
technology. [I doubt that will ever happen...]

PROFESSIONALS made all your little radios possible as a product so
that you could buy them, play with them, and then sit around POSING
as an "amateur guru-expert-knowitall."

Don't bite the hands of those who made all your toys.

LHA

"Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Yes, I would say that the threshold should be more like "Anyone who's
even close to as dumb as Dick shouldn't be a ham, let alone an Extra."

There are some who would say that
the threshold should be more like:

"Anyone who's even close to being as
nasty, insulting, and intolerant as Carl
shouldn't be a ham, let alone an Extra."

I'm not one of them, but there are
some who would say that.

Carl, do you think that calling people
dumb is going to make them want to
learn things?

"Anyone who would forsake any communication venue
just doesn't have a clue for the value of that venue..."
- Kim W5TIT

"The things that upset us most are often things we see
as qualities in our ownselves." - Kim W5TIT

The lady's wisdom bears repeating.

In article ,
(AveryFine) writes:


"Anyone who would forsake any communication venue
just doesn't have a clue for the value of that venue..."
- Kim W5TIT

"The things that upset us most are often things we see
as qualities in our ownselves." - Kim W5TIT

The lady's wisdom bears repeating.

Uh Oh, I feel a bit queasy...RRRAAAWWWLLLFFFFFPH!!!!! Dang, forgot I had a
meatball sub for lunch!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Floyd Davidson
writes:

Using PSK-31 is not exactly a great indication of experience.
DICK's experience with *only* CW, PSK-31 and other common modes
used on Amateur bands is an extreme restriction. And that is
exactly why he (and Larry Roll) should *not* be using themselves
as a yard stick for other hams.

Frostbite Floyd:

This newsgroup is about AMATEUR Radio. The experience that Dick and I
have with CW, PSK-31, and other modes "common" to AMATEUR Radio
is certainly not a "restriction," and is, indeed, a "yard stick" by which we
can
analyze other hams on the basis of their technical and operational activities.
The more you take this discussion out of the context of AMATEUR radio,
the more irrelevant you make yourself. If you have professional-grade
technical qualifications, I think that's great. However, I don't -- and very
few AMATEUR radio operators do. What we do have is curiosity, and a
willingness to learn. We also have the operating authority to experiment with
modes such as PSK-31 and adapt them to effective communications in keeping
with the rules, regulations, and purpose of the AMATEUR Radio Service.

The whole point is that this business of DICK and Larry claiming
that what they can do, is what everyone else _must_ do, is
ridiculous on its face because there are many others we could
use as a standard that would put the two of them out the door as
well.

I won't presume to speak for Dick, but I consider myself to be a typical,
average AMATEUR radio operator who has pursued the art and science
of AMATEUR radio communications at a level which is considerably
above that of other hams who, for whatever reasons (excuses), fail to
pursue modes beyond those involving voice communications. Now, to
be fair, I don't include among that group those who tend to specialize in
more technical aspects of the hobby such as building and maintaining
repeater systems. I've known a lot of hams who do this, but are No-Code
Techs who don't have any interest in CW, or anything else on HF, for
that matter. I value their contribution and consider them to be full-fledged
radio amateurs. However, they represent a very tiny minority of the
overall ham radio population, and an even smaller minority of No-Code
Techs. They are even further diluted when you consider the fact that a
lot of the technical/repeater gurus are also CW-tested, CW-using, CW-
loving, and Morse code test supporting Pre-Restructuring Extra class
licensees.

DICK and Larry have dabbled at 2, 3, maybe 4 different kinds of
digital communications systems. Thrilling. Whether I or

Yup. "Dabbled" is just about what I'd call it myself. However, my
"dabbling" represents a level of technical involvement which I would
dare say places me in the top 5th percentile of just Extra-class hams,
not including all other license classes. Therefore, I consider myself
to be more than qualified to judge other hams on this basis.

someone else has used or not used *any* of those, is not really
significant... if I or someone else has in fact used *dozens*
of other digital systems, including many of the more recent
ones. There is _nothing_ special about PSK-31, other than it
is just about the upper limit of DICK's lack of experience.

However low Dick's "upper level" of experience is compared to your
professional technical experience is irrelevant. This is a discussion of
the AMATEUR radio service, and the experiences of AMATEUR
radio operators is the only valid basis for the comparison of the relative
level of technical involvement among radio amateurs. Legitimate
"pros" like Len, Carl, and yourself do add considerable value to the
ARS as a whole, but you cannot in any sense of fairness use yourselves
as any kind of objective "yardstick" by which other hams are measured.

In fact *your* argument is the same bogus one that DICK and
Larry make! Because *they* use CW (or PSK-31), everyone else
either does, or is declared too dumb to license (or understand
how Shannon applies to PSK-31). That is invalid logic and leads
you to erroneous conclusions.

Fallacy. You are making apples-to-oranges comparisons, which is a
well known Usenet tactic, but one which always ultimately ends up
disqualifying the person using it.

The truth of the matter is that under some
conditions PSK-31 outperforms OOK
Morse CW, and under some conditions
OOK Morse CW outperforms PSK-31.

And that tells us *nothing* about which is the more efficient or
effective mode of communications.

No, it doesn't. That would depend on a universally accepted
definition of the terms "efficient" and "effective" in the context
of the use of these modes within the ARS. To the extent that the
meaning of these terms are infinitely arguable, only those of us
with fairly extensive operating experience in each can even come
close to being qualified to render an objective opinion.

Can both of you
accept that fact?

I cannot accept something which isn't true.

DICK is the *only* one who has suggested otherwise. Everyone
else has told him his reasons for such claims are bogus. So
what is *your* point?

Dick's claims are not "bogus" in any way, since they are based on
his practical operating experience as a radio AMATEUR using
modes authorized in the AMATEUR radio service. The only thing
"bogus" around here is your futile attempt to discredit him.
__________________________________________________ ___

BTW, I do believe that Mr. Shannon's theory is relevant to Amateur
Radio. I believe that what Dick is doing is making observations
based on actual operating experience, rather than empirical theory.
This may be the cause of the confusion, but as I said earlier, I do
not presume to speak for Dick.

73 de Larry, K3LT