Dick Carroll; wrote:

Bob Brock wrote:


On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 13:48:10 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:


Bob Brock wrote:

On 4 Sep 2003 05:16:59 -0700, (Brian Kelly) wrote:



Bob Brock wrote in message . ..




If CW is indeed effective and current, then it will propagate due to
its usefulness without regulatory requirement. Judging by how shrill
the proponents are, it appears that even they are afraid that it won't
show itself to be advantageous enough for people to learn on their
own.

On a related question, is it pro coders intention to boycott QSO's
with countries that have already dropped the code requirement for HF
work? Do you guys refuse to talk to Australians now?

That's shrill enough, congratulations.


I guess no answer at all was to be expected since it shows how invalid
the postion is.

How's this for an answer? NO!

Provide references where anyone has even proposed such an activity.

I can't understand why you would want to talk to someone from another
country who had possibly not passed your lid filter, but to each their
own incongruiteis I guess.

Show me where I said that anyone proposed it and I'll consider
documenting it. I'm not in the habit of trying to document things
that I never said and I won't start with you.


Yep. Another one of "them". He proposed it but he didn't propose it.


Whattya think Dick? This person comes in here, asks incredible slippery
slope/leading questions but won't answer them, thinks that "reasonable
approximations" are numbers, and then brags about not upgrading because:

From Bob Brock Afterall, I've
From Bob Brock boycotted General and above for about 9 years now
From Bob Brock because of antiquated requirements.

This sounds like one of the principled people that Carl speaks of who
won't go beyond technician because they don't believe in the Morse test.
Is this typical of Carl's new people?

- Mike KB3EIA

Kim W5TIT wrote:

Well, excuse the observation he but you asked and was answered, at least
by N2EY and by me. Both answers were succinct and without merit for the
return you have above--which seems quite defensive and I'm puzzled by why.

So, you simply asked and were quite simply answered.

And, since you were the one who asked the question of such a weird concept
you would be observing your own actions with regard to your last sentance.


Hey Kim


I don't think we can apply the regular rules of logic to this one!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bob Brock wrote:
On 5 Sep 2003 05:40:47 -0700, (N2EY) wrote:


Bob Brock wrote in message . ..

On 04 Sep 2003 01:29:46 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:


That's a reasonable approximation ... and growing by leaps and bounds
daily with the Petition and associated publicity.

Carl - wk3c

[expeletive deleted]

Prove it.

See, I told you guys that this would happen if any number was claimed.

No number has been claimed, Bob.


From a previous post in this thread:
---------------------------------------------------


Explain how saying There are 5000 members of NCI is violating anyones
privacy.

- Mike KB3EIA -


That's a reasonable approximation ... and growing by leaps and bounds
daily with the Petition and associated publicity.

Carl - wk3c
---------------------------------------------------

I only made it to your first inaccuracy before I quit reading.

Hey Bob, what is the numerical value of "a reasonable approximation"?

I can see that you are impressed by accuracy, so let us know!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bob Brock wrote:

OK Kim, show me where I said that I would boycott someone because of
their code status and I'll get back with you. If you can't quote me
saying that, who made the jump in logic will be apparent.

The ball is in your court.


You won't answer anyone elses questions, why should they answer yours.

Gotta play nice, or at least make sense.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
.. . . .

However, Dick and other Morse fanatics insist that those modes aren't
a suitable option because they (dread the thought) require a computer

Modes which require a computer to run 'em cut both ways. Having to use
a computer to run the stuff represents a huge increase in station
complexity and the inevitable corresponding decrease in station
reliability. Additionally cost, weight, space, power consumption,
required technical skills and a bunch of other factors also mitigate
against the use of computer-based modes.

Given the mythical average ham who could care less about weak-signal
performances and/or throughput rates. Very few of which show up around
here, least of all in this discussion. So in this sense Dick is right.


(and some hardware/software that I'm sure "Shannon doesn't mean squat
Dick" couldn't even begin to understand).

Carl - wk3c

w3rv

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 11:25:13 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Dick Carroll; wrote:

Bob Brock wrote:


On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 13:48:10 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:


Bob Brock wrote:

On 4 Sep 2003 05:16:59 -0700, (Brian Kelly) wrote:



Bob Brock wrote in message . ..




If CW is indeed effective and current, then it will propagate due to
its usefulness without regulatory requirement. Judging by how shrill
the proponents are, it appears that even they are afraid that it won't
show itself to be advantageous enough for people to learn on their
own.

On a related question, is it pro coders intention to boycott QSO's
with countries that have already dropped the code requirement for HF
work? Do you guys refuse to talk to Australians now?

That's shrill enough, congratulations.


I guess no answer at all was to be expected since it shows how invalid
the postion is.

How's this for an answer? NO!

Provide references where anyone has even proposed such an activity.

I can't understand why you would want to talk to someone from another
country who had possibly not passed your lid filter, but to each their
own incongruiteis I guess.

Show me where I said that anyone proposed it and I'll consider
documenting it. I'm not in the habit of trying to document things
that I never said and I won't start with you.


Yep. Another one of "them". He proposed it but he didn't propose it.


Whattya think Dick? This person comes in here, asks incredible slippery
slope/leading questions but won't answer them, thinks that "reasonable
approximations" are numbers, and then brags about not upgrading because:

From Bob Brock Afterall, I've
From Bob Brock boycotted General and above for about 9 years now
From Bob Brock because of antiquated requirements.

This sounds like one of the principled people that Carl speaks of who
won't go beyond technician because they don't believe in the Morse test.
Is this typical of Carl's new people?

You mean that you don't think that people like me exist? What is a
"Carl's new people?" I'm too old to be new and slavery was aboloshed
over a centruy ago. So, I guess the answer would have to be...no, I'm
not. I'm just me.

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 10:43:49 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Bob Brock wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 13:48:10 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:


Bob Brock wrote:

On 4 Sep 2003 05:16:59 -0700, (Brian Kelly) wrote:



Bob Brock wrote in message . ..




If CW is indeed effective and current, then it will propagate due to
its usefulness without regulatory requirement. Judging by how shrill
the proponents are, it appears that even they are afraid that it won't
show itself to be advantageous enough for people to learn on their
own.

On a related question, is it pro coders intention to boycott QSO's
with countries that have already dropped the code requirement for HF
work? Do you guys refuse to talk to Australians now?

That's shrill enough, congratulations.


I guess no answer at all was to be expected since it shows how invalid
the postion is.

How's this for an answer? NO!

Provide references where anyone has even proposed such an activity.


I can't understand why you would want to talk to someone from another
country who had possibly not passed your lid filter, but to each their
own incongruiteis I guess.

Show me where I said that anyone proposed it and I'll consider
documenting it. I'm not in the habit of trying to document things
that I never said and I won't start with you.

Lessee, Bob. You qoute me as saying:

Provide references where anyone has even proposed such an activity.

And next you ask me:

Show me where I said that anyone proposed it and I'll consider
documenting it. I'm not in the habit of trying to document things
that I never said and I won't start with you.


I wanted to get those two sentences right beside each other so you
could see that I never said you said such a thing.

We play rough in here, but we do expect people to make sense.

- Mike KB3EIA -

For the second time. I don't provide references to claims that I
never made. You can put it any way that you want it, but until you
show me where I made such a claim, I have no need to document its
accuracy.

If you're going to "play rough in here," you really need to learn to
read a little better and stop asking me to support positions that I
never took.

Try again...K?

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 10:50:52 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Bob Brock wrote:

I simply asked if anyone would consider boycotting no code HF
operators from other countries. Oz is already issuing licenses.
Asking a question is not proposing anything. However, making that
jump in logic is typical of usenet in general.

Guess you never heard of leading questions, eh? And that is exactly
what you're trying to do.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Actually I saw a lot of that when the no-code techs first came on the
scene, so precedent is there. Also, this is a usenet group, not
direct testimony in a court of law. Believe it or not, I can ask any
kind of a question that I want to. However, if you are going to chase
me on a postion, you really need to be able to find a postional
statement. I've asked for it. You haven't quoted it.

Why is that?

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 10:36:57 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Bob Brock wrote:

I didn't say that I boycotted any ham. I said that I boycotted a
licensing structure that I disagreed with. I'll QSO with any ham on
any band that we are both licensed to operate on. I even learned
code, but I won't upgrade until the requirement that I disagree with
is removed.

Not very interested in Ham radio eh?

Where did I say that Mike. Do you always have this much trouble with
facts?

On 5 Sep 2003 16:52:35 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote:



Mike Coslo wrote:

Bob Brock wrote:
On 04 Sep 2003 01:29:46 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:


That's a reasonable approximation ... and growing by leaps and bounds
daily with the Petition and associated publicity.

Carl - wk3c

Bull****, Prove it.


See, I told you guys that this would happen if any number was claimed.

What number was claimed? What number is "reasonable approximation?

If you just come in here to vent aimlessly, eventually no one will play
with you.

He's already got me disinterested enough that I stopped opening his posts.

Since you can't state, much less support a logical postion, it's
probably best for you if you don't. If you try closing your eyes,
sticking your fingers in your ears, and yelling perhaps it will work
better.

I'll tell you guys why I'm here shortly, but conversing with twits
like you sure isn't it.