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

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

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.

Amateur radio POLICY, soma come loud bus driver.

RADIO is a technical activity involving communications.

Electrons, fields and waves don't work any differently in one radio
service versus another just because a human regulating agency
separated them in some regulations. You still don't understand
that concept.

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.

Larrah, you CONSTANTLY use YOURSELF as the "yardstick" by which
others are "measured"...whether it's in ham radio or occupation or anything.

Ho hum. Your constant ego-boo is very tired-putting of readers.

The more you take this discussion out of the context of AMATEUR radio,
the more irrelevant you make yourself.

Is someone actually MAKING MONEY posting in this newsgroup?!?

All posts in here are DEFINITELY "amateur" in that regard...the opposite
of professional writing.

The only thing irrelevant in here is your insistence that US amateur radio
is full of technical dummies (like yourself).

Not very nice of you.

If you have professional-grade
technical qualifications, I think that's great. However, I don't -- and very
few AMATEUR radio operators do.

See? Your own "yardstick" in action.

You've just implied that YOUR "expertise" is the SAME as two-thirds of
a million US ARS licensees...all of them technical dummies who can't
do anything but plug-and-play-ham-radio.

A great and glorious gratuitous INSULT to thousands of US ARS licensees
who ARE ALSO professionals in radio.

Feel proud of yourself. You are an archtypical ham Dumb who can't get
dumber.

What we do have is curiosity, and a willingness to learn.

Tsk, tsk, there you go again, shaking your little "we-we" thing.

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.

Of course...Amateur radio is all about working DX on HF with CW.

Not to mention collecting colorful postcards, fancy certificates, and
rising above all others in radio on self-inflated ego balloons filled with
hot air.

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.

Oh, my, you so good and great margarine don't melt in yo' mout.

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.

Thank you, Your Holiness.

Sigh...another sermon on the antenna mount.

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.

Sigh...morsemanship is the epitome of the Archaic Radiotelegraphy
Service.

In your imaginary reality. One that Rod Serling never touched...

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.

QEX ought to devote a whole two-month issue just to YOU...

Therefore, I consider myself
to be more than qualified to judge other hams on this basis.

You just consider yourself "more qualified" than ANYONE.


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.

Tsk, tsk, there you go again...making US ham radio nothing but
Dummies like YOURSELF.

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.

You've got "yardstick" engraved with your own name in gold.

This isn't a "yardstick" for egos, gas man.

Those who KNOW radio technology can MAKE radios and APPLY
them in communications.

Amateur Dummies can only buy them, plug them in, and play with
them.

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.

Geez...you've NEVER been qualified in anything except being a
newsgroupie, Larrah.


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.

1. You aren't objective, you are SUBJECTIVE.
2. All you can claim is "operating" and even then no one gets on
a "sked" with you.
3. All you claim is nothing more than plug-and-play with ready-
made toys.
4. All you've learned as a soma come loud personnel student is a
bunch of gobbledegook nonsense phrases.

I cannot accept something which isn't true.

Translated: You won't acknowledge anything that doesn't prove your
intrinsic glory and greatness.

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.

Extra DICK discredits himself technically very handily.

__________________________________________________ __

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.

"Empirical theory?!?"

Did you learn that as a soma come loud college student?!?

No wonder no personnel department ever offered you a job.

LHA

(Len Over 21) writes:

soma come loud bus driver.

your insistence that US amateur radio
is full of technical dummies (like yourself).

all of them technical dummies who can't
do anything but plug-and-play-ham-radio.

A great and glorious gratuitous INSULT to thousands of US ARS licensees
who ARE ALSO professionals in radio.

Feel proud of yourself. You are an archtypical ham Dumb who can't get
dumber.

Tsk, tsk, there you go again, shaking your little "we-we" thing.

Amateur radio is all about working DX on HF with CW.

Not to mention collecting colorful postcards, fancy certificates, and
rising above all others in radio on self-inflated ego balloons filled with
hot air.

Oh, my, you so good and great margarine don't melt in yo' mout.

Thank you, Your Holiness.

Sigh...another sermon on the antenna mount.

Sigh...morsemanship is the epitome of the Archaic Radiotelegraphy
Service.

In your imaginary reality. One that Rod Serling never touched...

Tsk, tsk, there you go again...making US ham radio nothing but
Dummies like YOURSELF.

This isn't a "yardstick" for egos, gas man.

Amateur Dummies can only buy them, plug them in, and play with
them.

Geez...you've NEVER been qualified in anything except being a
newsgroupie, Larrah.

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

ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote:
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

You need a micrometer, not a yard stick Larry. That's a very
*small* area of exposure.

The more you take this discussion out of the context of AMATEUR radio,
the more irrelevant you make yourself. If you have professional-grade

The more we put it in the context of reality, and remove it from the
small sand box you play in, the more appropriate it becomes as a way
to measure the ARS as a whole.

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.

If hams and the ARS were where all the innovations in radio and
communications come from, your point would be valid. But
exactly the opposite is true, and what actually happens is that
hams and the ARS pick up innovations, mostly from the *many*
hams that do work in the industry.

A perfect example of what happens when the rest of the world is
closed off per your specifications is this entire concept that
CW is still somehow a vital and useful mode of radio operation.
Despite all of your blathering, it is not vital and it is useful
virtually *only* as a hobby pastime for ham operators to enjoy
if they wish.

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

Look Larry the Liar, you can't have it both ways. You've claimed
that *everyone* should learn CW, because you were forced to and then
you ended up enjoying it; you've claimed that your written exam
was more difficult than those given today; you've claimed that your
experience puts you in the top 5% of all hams.

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

So you *aren't*, by your measure, "a typical, average AMATEUR radio
operator". So stop trying obfuscate your claims of being the
Great Stick To Measure All of Hamdom By.

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.

Yeah, they don't count... they do something you don't.

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

And that is what you like, so that is where the Stick Dips. Hmmmm...

Larry, the Calibrated Dip Stick for all of the Amateur Radio Service.

that matter. I value their contribution and consider them to be full-fledged
radio amateurs.

Garsh, I bet everyone of them is just *so* glad to hear about that.

However, they represent a very tiny minority of the
overall ham radio population, and an even smaller minority of No-Code
Techs.

You constitute the *tiniest possible* minority of the overall
ham radio population: One Dip Stick.

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.

So you've just demonstrated that CW doesn't have much to do with
the highly technical aspects of the ARS.

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.

That's an exceptionally rude insult to all Amateur Radio
operators. You appear to me to be probably at about the 25%,
where 3 out of 4 Extra Class hams have a broader base of
experience. (Note that that *is* rather complimentary for
someone who is not a professional. Now if only your ego matched
your experience, you'd be a valuable ham instead of an
embarrassment.)

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.

And we *aren't*. That's the point. We don't think *you* should
either.


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.

You just did the exact same thing up above using repeaters instead
of CW or PSK-31. I'm not comparing apples-to-oranges Larry, I'm
just tossing one bad apple out of a barrel of apples.

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.

Actually, the definition of "efficient" isn't much in debate.
It's a simple measure of the percentage of the channel capacity
attained. "Effective" is as you say, open to debate. In the ARS
"effective" can mean does it make Larry Roll puff up with pride
after a half and hour CW session, or does it take him 4 hours...

Dick's claims are not "bogus" in any way, since they are based on

Dick's claims are simply ludicrous. He is spouting absolute
nonsense. Everything he says is right up there with your concept
of Empirical Theory.

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.

That paragraph sums it up just so perfectly that you can't imagine
what you've said!

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