"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...

HTML format content snipped ... Dick, if you'd learn to set your newsreader
to "plain text" (the convention) and use "'s" to preserve the attribution,
then
re-post, I'd be happy to rebut your nonsense ...

Carl - wk3c

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

(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(No CW Test) wrote in message ...

For the record, I have not
used PSK-31 myself on
the amateur bands.

So I will not lecture others
on how well it does or
does not work.

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.

That is the point.

http://www.geocities.com/horseshoestew/youdick.wav

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

That is the point.

You're wearing the point on your head.

You're wearing your name on your head.

"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
Brian wrote:
"Dick Carroll;" wrote;

You're wearing the point on your head.

You're wearing your name on your head.

At least I don't have to resort to outright lying to make my namr OR my point.
That's about all you ever do.


"Yep, I said that Shannon's law really has nothing to
do with ham radio, and then I proceeded to describe a
case that proved it ."

It seems you resort to outright ignorance, which was indeed
the point above, and it clearly isn't a lie.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
Floyd Davidson wrote:

His answer, which he has repeated several times now, was that
Shannon doesn't apply the anything about Amateur Radio.

At that point, what choice does one have but to write DICK off as
so ill informed that he should be totally ignored.

-

OK Frostproof Floyd, there you go again, or maybe I should say
"still". Just can't get it together when it comes to ham radio,
can you? You prove it yet one more time.

Speaking of proofs, you've generated a real beauty he

If you think I have insufficient undestanding of Shannon's
infornmation theory that's because you're terribly uninformed
yourself. What my little recited experience showed, when the
PSK was not copyable but the CW ID was, is merely to further
confirm what I said- Shannon and his little mathematical circus
really *DON'T* have anything to do with ham radio. ...

Now Claude Shannon's work is a "little mathematical circus"!
And you've added *EMPHASIS* to the statement that it has nothing
to do with ham radio.

DICK, you've made my point for me and there is very little else
to say.

What the "PSK-NO, CW-YES" incident showed was that Shannon
DOES NOT apply **when the channel is not set by his rules**,
which WAS exactly the case, as is virtually always the case in
ham radio.

Well, there is one other thing to say. But I've stolen this
from Cecil once or twice already, so I'll quote him directly
this time:

"Again, power level is only one of three inter-related
parameters. If they are not all equal, then the playing field
is not level. Your being able to copy the CW ID, which has an
equivalent 12dB power advantage, is like saying a 150w SSB
signal is easier to copy than a 1w CW signal. It's true but it
is also meaningless.

Thanks to DICK CARROLL'S LOGIC, SSB can be proven to be
superior to CW every time. That follows from ignoring any of
the throughput parameters."

Cecil, W6RCA

Another way of looking at it, is that Shannon's "rules" do
apply, and that is virtually *always* the case in ham radio.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)