In article , "Bert Craig"
writes:

To this young (...and then no-code Technician class.) newbie, the ARRL
actually appeared very dedicated to helping me get ON HF.

Yes, IF you were willing to meet their criteria by jumping through the
Morse code hoop ...

Carl - wk3c

Speak for yourself, Carl. I certainly did NOT have to jump through any
hoops. I set a goal, researched the requirements, and then set about meeting
said requirements.

I also make sure that in all the letters and e-mails I send to the league,
FCC, political reps, etc. I inform them that the current Morse code test was
no barrier for this newbie and did NOT "force" me to jump through any hoops.
So please don't allow any individual or group promoting the "barrier/hoop"
line of Bravo Sierra to include me in their demographic. I suspect there are
more NTs (As opposed to OTs or OFs) like me who dislike being associated
with underachievement. I hope they too will take the time to make their
views on the matter heard.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS# 9384

Bert:

Well said, OM! Unfortunately, it was wasted on Carl. Carl is one of those
murderously resentful NCTA's who would much rather waste all his time
whining about being tested for a useful communications skill than doing what it
takes to learn it. He is truly to be pitied, for he has wasted many years that
could have been spent happily pursuing the hobby of ham radio. The true
irony is that in spite of his professional-grade technical knowledge, he will
never be as good a radio amateur as you are!

73 de Larry, K3LT
FISTS #2008, CC #0703

I don't have any strong preference about the Code / No Code issue, but I
have a well developed opinion about the group of hams who have endlessly
repeated the same tired flamewar crapola for years on this newsgroup, over
the Code / No Code issue.

Less than a dozen "hams" have used this issue as an excuse to turn this
newsgroup into a running flame war that has gone on for years, much to the
detriment of the hobby. People look at this newsgroup to see what hams are
like - and what they see would reflect poorly on any hobby.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

"charlesb" wrote in message
gy.com...
I don't have any strong preference about the Code / No Code issue, but I
have a well developed opinion about the group of hams who have endlessly
repeated the same tired flamewar crapola for years on this newsgroup, over
the Code / No Code issue.

Less than a dozen "hams" have used this issue as an excuse to turn this
newsgroup into a running flame war that has gone on for years, much to the
detriment of the hobby. People look at this newsgroup to see what hams are
like - and what they see would reflect poorly on any hobby.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

Historically Charles, this newsgroup was formed specifically to take
the code/nocode debate out of rec.radio.amateur.misc. That was
about 8-10 years ago.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote:
"charlesb" wrote in message
igy.com...
I don't have any strong preference about the Code / No Code issue, but I
have a well developed opinion about the group of hams who have endlessly
repeated the same tired flamewar crapola for years on this newsgroup, over
the Code / No Code issue.

Less than a dozen "hams" have used this issue as an excuse to turn this
newsgroup into a running flame war that has gone on for years, much to the
detriment of the hobby. People look at this newsgroup to see what hams are
like - and what they see would reflect poorly on any hobby.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

Historically Charles, this newsgroup was formed specifically to take
the code/nocode debate out of rec.radio.amateur.misc. That was
about 8-10 years ago.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Which is all the more support for his point that it does not advertise
hams well.

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

Floyd Davidson wrote in message ...
"Bill Sohl" wrote:
"charlesb" wrote in message
igy.com...
I don't have any strong preference about the Code / No Code issue, but I
have a well developed opinion about the group of hams who have endlessly
repeated the same tired flamewar crapola for years on this newsgroup, over
the Code / No Code issue.

Less than a dozen "hams" have used this issue as an excuse to turn this
newsgroup into a running flame war that has gone on for years, much to the
detriment of the hobby. People look at this newsgroup to see what hams are
like - and what they see would reflect poorly on any hobby.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

Historically Charles, this newsgroup was formed specifically to take
the code/nocode debate out of rec.radio.amateur.misc. That was
about 8-10 years ago.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Which is all the more support for his point that it does not advertise
hams well.

Floyd, I suggest you look up any post by K2UNK and see if his manner
of conducting civil debate "does not advertise hams well". I mention
Bill specifically because although I disagree with many things he
writes here, he is able to debate effectively without being insulting
or derogatory to the other side.

IOW, "gentlemen can disagree without being disagreeable".

He is not the only one, just the one that comes quickest to mind.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote:
Historically Charles, this newsgroup was formed specifically to take
the code/nocode debate out of rec.radio.amateur.misc. That was
about 8-10 years ago.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Which is all the more support for his point that it does not advertise
hams well.

Floyd, I suggest you look up any post by K2UNK and see if his manner

Actually Jim, you probably didn't spend enough time reading what
little I wrote. It doesn't say a *thing* about Bill. You might
notice that he doesn't flood this or any newsgroup with innane
posts on a daily basis, and in fact I agree with almost
everything I've seen him post here.

I will grant though, that it _was_ about you.

of conducting civil debate "does not advertise hams well". I mention
Bill specifically because although I disagree with many things he
writes here, he is able to debate effectively without being insulting
or derogatory to the other side.

IOW, "gentlemen can disagree without being disagreeable".

He is not the only one, just the one that comes quickest to mind.

So you have exceptions that prove the rule. The point was that
the rule *is* valid.

Which is all the more support for that point that it does not
advertise hams well.

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

C'mon Charles,

Don't you realize, some people just are not happy unless they are bitching
about someone. And the others are the kind that like to watch others bitch.
Why do you think talk shows like Jerry Springer etc. do so well? This is
just another version in a different form. Do you honestly think that an
actual intelligent debate over a topic could actually occur here?


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
"charlesb" wrote in message
gy.com...
I don't have any strong preference about the Code / No Code issue, but I
have a well developed opinion about the group of hams who have endlessly
repeated the same tired flamewar crapola for years on this newsgroup, over
the Code / No Code issue.

Less than a dozen "hams" have used this issue as an excuse to turn this
newsgroup into a running flame war that has gone on for years, much to the
detriment of the hobby. People look at this newsgroup to see what hams are
like - and what they see would reflect poorly on any hobby.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ...
C'mon Charles,

Don't you realize, some people just are not happy unless they are bitching
about someone. And the others are the kind that like to watch others bitch.
Why do you think talk shows like Jerry Springer etc. do so well? This is
just another version in a different form. Do you honestly think that an
actual intelligent debate over a topic could actually occur here?

I told PCTA Kurt on here years ago, "a happy sailor is a bitching sailor."

"charlesb" wrote in message igy.com...
I don't have any strong preference about the Code / No Code issue, but I
have a well developed opinion about the group of hams who have endlessly
repeated the same tired flamewar crapola for years on this newsgroup, over
the Code / No Code issue.

Less than a dozen "hams" have used this issue as an excuse to turn this
newsgroup into a running flame war that has gone on for years, much to the
detriment of the hobby. People look at this newsgroup to see what hams are
like - and what they see would reflect poorly on any hobby.

What a hypocrite.

You have been doing virtually the same crap on
rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc for years... debating endlessly and
meaninglessly... bringing up a need to revive long dead HF-based PBBS
systems, and denouncing any attempts at modernization.

So - what brings you over here? Is it the fact that your ilk has run
everyone off rradm, and that you've got nobody to argue with there
anymore? (they've all moved on to more productive forums and
applications).

You and that kook from Oregon are just as thick-skulled as these
CODE-obsessed fruits... you BELONG here.

- Stewart