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 ,
(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

In article , Floyd Davidson
writes:

(Larry Roll K3LT) wrote:
Ahhh -- more name calling! I guess that helps to make your point about
your technical superiority as a ham!

As if Larry never calls anyone names on Usenet.

You're a lowlife hypocrite Larry, in so many ways its just
unbelievable how many times you trip on your own feet.

Floyd:

Ah ha -- raise objections to my "name calling" and make your point with
more name calling of your own! A typical non-response! I must
admit, Floyd, you're really dialed-in on the classic Usenet attitude!

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:

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZnchnoffrrzgnopf.......Whaaaa. .....Oh, Lennie...
did you say sumpthin?

Yes. You fell asleep at the wheel again.

W A K E U P ! ! !

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

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

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

Whew! Pot/Kettle/Black if ever there was an example!

We all KNOW Larrah to be a "pot-kettle-black" for many years, even
back on FIDOnet. No need to state the obvious.

Now stop with reduncancies in posting, pSycho pSteve, and take
your medications like a good lad.

Remember, YOU aren't the moderator in here despite what your
psychosis imagines.

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

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 ,
(Len Over 21) writes:


We all KNOW Larrah to be a "pot-kettle-black" for many years, even
back on FIDOnet. No need to state the obvious.

Now stop with reduncancies in posting, pSycho pSteve, and take
your medications like a good lad.

Remember, YOU aren't the moderator in here despite what your
psychosis imagines.

That's right, Steve! I'm the "moderator" here! If you don't believe me,
just aks Lennie!

73 de Larry, K3LT