|
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dee D. Flint wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message some snippage So, would any of you pro-coders like to help a no-code tech upgrade? I have to warn you in advance that, even after I learn the code, I will still not support code testing as a requirement for HF access. This is a personal decison that I am making because I want to do all that I can to accomadate another person who wants to use amature radio and this is the only way that he can do it. Ok, here you've said you already know code but now want to learn code. This is very confusing. Hey Dee (church lady voice here) Why.... could it be........a TROLL? (church lady voice off) You have to admit, its a great way to get a response out of a lot of people - for a while at least. Just disagree with most everybody, and don't forget to change the story whenver possible. - Mike KB3EIA - Yes but changing it within the same posting would signify that the troll is of very low quality. Ought send him back to troll school. Well Dee, when a person does that, they are always right! 8^). I agree about the troll thing. Or at least send him somewhere. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"Brian" wrote in message om... Hey, I have only used your own words, DICK. Are they not facts? ROFLMAO!!!! He's so confused... Kim W5TIT Kim, go back and read the part about how he only stopped VEing in 94 AFTER the restructured Extra came about. Hihi. He stopped in 1994 because he hates No-Code Technicians. The restructured Extra came much, much later. What's this pea-brain been smoking? |
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:46:31 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 19:46:51 -0500, "Kim W5TIT" 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. Hold up there, Bob Brock. SHOW ME where anyone has said you would "boycott someone because of their code status." No one has said a word about you doing that. YOU copped the attitude with the return of Jim's answer to you and my remarks. No where in the above material has Jim or I said a word about you boycotting anything. HOWEVER, in your earnest desire to be the victim, you missed that all Jim or I have done is answer your question, with nothing but sideline remarks back and forth to each other on the topic. I don't know what ball you've served to my court--I am not playing on a court, I am submitting remarks to a discussion. Kim W5TIT From elsewhere in the thread... [I said] 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. [Dick Carroll said] Yep. Another one of "them". He proposed it but he didn't propose it. -------------------------------------- I admit that you may not agree with the above accusation. If so, say so now and I'll apologize. Nope, I don't. But for goodness sake, don't apologize. Good grief. You've nothing to be apologetic about--'least not the way I see it. And, for goodness sake again--don't *even* be affected by anything Dick Carroll, Waddles (WA8ULX or whatever), Larry Roll or even Dave Heil says. They're humorous, at best. They all remind me of drunken old rambling men. Kim W5TIT Since I apparently misunderstood you, please accept my apology. |
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 11:41:21 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . 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? However refusing to upgrade shows that your hate for code exceeds your love of ham radio. While it's your choice, it seems pretty silly to me. Well, if you were me, that would be relevalent... |
|
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:52:07 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 20:21:53 -0500, "Kim W5TIT" wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . I'll tell you guys why I'm here shortly, but conversing with twits like you sure isn't it. Oh!! Hold me back!! Now he's getting suspenseful! Kim W5TIT OK Kim, I'll keep you in suspense no more. Whether some like to admit it or not, the senseless Morse Code debate will soon be history. I'm here to see if the ham community will then move on to something really important like revising the written tests and the test pools so that when someone passes the test, they actually know how to use a radio, set up or build an antenna, the protocols on the frequencies they are authouized to use, how to minimize RF exposure and stay within safe levels. If someone doesn't know what all those buttons do on their radio, they shouldn't be licensed to use it. If they don't know enough not to use repeater imputs for simplex operation, they shouldn't be licensed to use the frequency. It's my hope that when it is all over with Morse, that the ham community will address the real important issues and Morse ain't it. It is at best a scapegoat that hams can argue about while the more important issues of licensing inept operators is ignored. IMO, the ham community has some really screwed up priorities and hopefully, with the endgame for code in sight, they may....just may come to grips with some real issues. I'm hopeful, but not expectant. This newsgroup is not the place to find intellectual, even-handed debate, Bob. You're way off base with your concept if you think it is. It just isn't. QRZ, eHam.net, or others maybe, but not this one... And, lose the idea that the CW thing is going to die--it's not. If you are that serious about wanting to change the wheel, then get involved heavily in the ARRL and W5YI. Use those venues to affect change; but you'd better be willing to take giant baby steps at a time--and I don't think you're that serious. That's not an insult--few people have the fortitude, time, and stamina it takes to turn a wheel. I tried for four years--and most of my free time. Didn't work. Giant baby steps=hugely small steps at a time. Kim W5TIT Kim, within a year the only debate in here about CW will be about the consequences of it no longer being required. The whining will be terrible for awhile, but like the no-code tech discussions, they will eventually disappear. However, you are right about one thing. This is not the place to look without heavy filtering of those who are incapable of logical discussion. I think I'll hang around for a while just to watch the endgame. |
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 17:25:09 GMT, Mike Coslo
wrote: Dee D. Flint wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dee D. Flint wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message some snippage So, would any of you pro-coders like to help a no-code tech upgrade? I have to warn you in advance that, even after I learn the code, I will still not support code testing as a requirement for HF access. This is a personal decison that I am making because I want to do all that I can to accomadate another person who wants to use amature radio and this is the only way that he can do it. Ok, here you've said you already know code but now want to learn code. This is very confusing. Hey Dee (church lady voice here) Why.... could it be........a TROLL? (church lady voice off) You have to admit, its a great way to get a response out of a lot of people - for a while at least. Just disagree with most everybody, and don't forget to change the story whenver possible. - Mike KB3EIA - Yes but changing it within the same posting would signify that the troll is of very low quality. Ought send him back to troll school. Well Dee, when a person does that, they are always right! 8^). I agree about the troll thing. Or at least send him somewhere. - Mike KB3EIA - I thought that I was dealing with people who had a little knowledge about the internet and how to click on links. I was mistaken. Go back to sleep now... |
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:31:17 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 20:30:30 -0500, "Kim W5TIT" wrote: You're right, Dee. That's the point I try to make...I rote memorized for the test. Now, the argument for the above scenario could also be made that the instrukshions can be looked up. I've built quite a few antennas. All of them I used instrukshions for; and they all worked great. Kim W5TIT What would be wrong with requiring them to build a quarter wave dipole that is resonate at a specified frequency as part of the test? That is, if the test were changed to be written and performance based. There's nothing at all wrong with having some part of the test be based on something related to performance--other than CW; comment on that in a moment--if there could be a generally agreed upon topic. I think establishing something like a digital station would be more appropriate than building an antenna, because I think what should be tested is something everyone will do at one point or another. While not everyone may dabble in digital, APRS, SSTV, or whatever, everyone will have to establish a radio set up at some point or another. The best would be a sucessful mobile installation, but doing testing outside just wouldn't be feasible. On your latter comment, be careful how you word things in this debate: the test is performance based right now. It baseed on one's ability to understand CW, and that is performance. Only if they know how to connect the antenna to the radio. ;-) |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
... OK Brainless dip****. when you finally get to foaming at themouth so that you can't carry on even an IRRational conversation time has come to dump you back on your sorry arse into the sewer, from whence ye came...right back with The TIT, Loosegoose Lennie and Brock the Crock BYE! Stay gone a LONG time !!! PLONK! ROFLMAO!!! Except DICK has no idea how to actually filter someone. What's the difference whether he dialogues with a poster through a direct response or as the result of a re. Good grief, DICK, at least get some balls to go with...oh, well maybe that's not your namesake... Kim W5TIT |
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
... On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:43:32 -0500, "Kim W5TIT" wrote: To use Hans' spelling: for crying out phucking loud, Bob. Either you literally have just decided to pop in and don't read any other time; or you really are just trolling. This newsgroup runs several, *several* topics at any given time. You can choose whatever ones you would like and even create your own. But, you aren't going to change the debate on CW and no one ever will. I just laughed hysterically at another post of yours, where you said, "thank goodness it will all be ending soon." That's ludicrous. You're either young or blissful if you think the CW debate is going to end or go away. Anyone who can read the news knows which way code testing is going to go. The only real question is when. I see that Oz has decided that they don't have to wait until 2005 to dump it. Gee...what a suprise. Bob. You're young, aren't you? I can almost tell that by your optimistic attitude about the CW issue. You have to realize, Bob, that the CW issue for the drunken-type ramblers is not a CW issue at all. It's a value issue--that they value some mysterious talent they see in their ability and desire to use CW. It isn't about regulations, it isn't about the FCC, it isn't about whether it is a testing element or not. In their eyes, they will always be above anyone else not of their ilk. We know that's wrong. Others who have far more logic and brains and the capacity to think straight know that's wrong. But, they do not. So, their incessant whining and arguing and condemning and blaming will go on into eternity, while the rest of ham radio--the real part--moves on, has fun, helps out, and grows. I have to be pretty darned "professional" during the day and getting down to another level sure is great fun! Oh, I come and go. I have many more parts to my life that are more pressing sometimes than ham radio or the newsgroup, but I won't go into them. It sounds like the serious hams who want to discuss real ham things have lives too. Absolutely. The only reason I happened upon the newsgroup again is I've been designing and building an MS Access application for use by a company. I am on the computer so much at work that it really isn't a draw here at home. When I was on before, we'd actually just gotten the internet connection, and a second computer so we didn't have to "share" :GRIN: and I would load up the newsgroup while I was cruising around. For this project that I did here, we went out and bought a new computer with Office XP Pro, Office Pro, TurboCAD, Dreamweaver, and Crystal Reports. This MS Access application turned into an all-out total package for the company and it's challenged some of my abilities--which I really dig because it's meant growing some new knowledge and that's never bad! At any rate, the project is now winding down, save some tweaks and mods. I don't know if I'll keep coming to the newsgroup. I don't have much to do on the computer at home; I'm much more an outside or home decorating person than I am a internet junkie (hubby's the internet junkie). And, heck--now we're looking at new homes so that's bound to keep me distracted. But, like I said, after the shock that there are people who act the way they do here in this newsgroup, it becomes nothing but fun and entertainment to draw them out--well, except for DICK who can't directly respond to anyone who's smarter than he--into a tirade of emotion. The occasional half-serious-to-serious discussion is great. BTW, the last time that I read anything is this ng was when you posted your goodbye to the group way back when. You see, this is a newsgroup that you can leave for months or years and come back exactly where you left off because the same things are being said over and over again. Oh yeah. You got that right. For those folks whom you depict above, all one need do is imagine the local bar-and-grill/pub, where Johnny and Drake and Chuck have hung forever. One walks in, could be 15 years later, and there they a still on the same stool, slumped over, arguing the same damned things they've argued for years. Pathetic, I know, but it's no different than watching a car race, not for the winner but to see what accidents we can see. Personally, I kinda like your callsign. I hope that you can live up to it. I couldn't care less whether you like it or not, Bob. I don't care if anyone else likes it or not. It's personal between and a group of friends and the rest of the world be damned. And that debate has been had and made many times here; and it's coming up again--Winter is coming. Kim W5TIT So, basically you're saying that the ng is stuck and useless except for a distraction. Absolutely. The only folks you'll ever see in any half-way decent debates in this newsgroup are Jim/N2EY; Brian Kelley; Hans--once in a while; and the occasional visitors who'll bring up something happenstance into this newsgroup and figure out real quick that there's so few serious participants that it's just not worth it. That's a shame, but I tend to agree with you. Oh, I don't think it's a shame...'least not any more. I kinda like it. I don't know where you work or what have to do for a living but I get plenty of serious, mentally challenging, stressful distractions at work. I think the transition I used to look for here was a seriuos-but-not-mentally-challenging exchange. Well, that's not going to happen ;) so I just shed all the "stuff" and decide to be as basal as I can possibly be--unless there's something that I can contribute to an intellectual discussion. And, let's face it, I'm just not into ham radio for the intellectualism of it so most of those discussions go way up over my head and I am bored to tears with the idea of learning enough about whatever is that's being discussed...!! Reading those discussions is like just looking at the cover of that mag that ARRL puts out--the Techie one. Still though, I think that if a few hams wanted to discuss stuff that is actually policy related with regards to enforcement, policy, etc. it could become a useful group with a lot of filtering. That possibility is insidiously redundant, i.e., can happen anywhere. There's nothing stopping you from doing that right here--a new thread--and completely ignoring the posts to it that have nothing to do with the topic and everything to do with one's being on top of their imaginative mountain. You could also start it--well, anywhere. Kim W5TIT |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com