|
So you have no rational argument for the retention of code testing?
None that you would understand |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I've explained out committment to our members' privacy. If FISTS doesn't have the same policy, that's their choice, and thus, you could have answered my question without breaching any confidence. I can't do the same because of the committment we have made to our members. Can't you think of a better reason? Let's say there are 5000 members of NCI. 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 |
That's a reasonable approximation ... and growing by leaps and bounds
daily with the Petition and associated publicity. Carl - wk3c Bull****, Prove it. |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message It doesn't take a majority to win an issue, Dick. All it takes is an irate minority that is prepared to be loud and active. No, what it takes are rational, compelling arguments that support your position ... NCI had them in the case of WT 98-143, the PCTAs couldn't come up with ANY (because there are no rational, compelling arguments for keeping Morse testing). What do they do for an encore? We present more rational, compelling arguments, of course. Carl, with all due respect, "rational and compelling arguments" are in the head of the beholder. Why do you do people a disservice by suggesting otherwise? I have read both documents, and find the NCI and FISTS proposals equally rational and compelling. In the end, it all comes down to what a person **believes**. And that is not rational. Not in your case, not in mine. And too much of the "belief" business and it turns into religion, which some PCTA'ers have been accused of. It all works both ways. Propping up a "belief system" ("tradition", etc. ... all the things that keep things stuck in the past) is NOT a legitimate regulatory purpose or role. Carl - wk3c |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote: ... most of the traffic handled via NTS is 1) of little/no importance To whom? And you'd allege that there is no other possibility ? Sure sounds like it. You *should* know that even health and welfare traffic is important to the mission of the ARS, as it not only relieves worried families etc but also gies important exposure to the capabilities and mission of the ARS. Sorry you missed all that. and 2) much makes use of "coded messages" (sending a canned message number) that would be of little use in an emergency situation where the situation, needs, details would need to be spelled out in some detail. N onsense bafflegab! Have you ever worked a *real* disaster/emergency of any consequence? Yes ... major earthquakes, forest (brush) fires, and the crash of a commercial airliner into a residential area in SoCal ... over many years. Hurricanes in Florida, etc. Often was NCS ... Sure doesn't sound like it! And for your edification, the "canned" mesages, right along with prosigns and the many other CW shortcuts merely add significantly to the efficiency of the mode. ROTFLMAO!!! Sorry, the "Morse is necessary for emergency communications" argument doesn't hold water, and the FCC has already realized that. BS! FCC has never made any statement even close to that, and WE all know it. YES THEY HAVE - from the R&O in WT Docket No. 98-143 ("restructuring") - read it and weep: 31. We also find unconvincing the argument that telegraphy proficiency is one way to keep amateur radio operators ready to be of service in an emergency. In this regard, we note that most emergency communication today is performed using either voice, data, or video modes. We also note that most amateur radio operators who choose to provide emergency communication do so, according to the amateur radio press, using voice or digital modes of communication, in part, because information can be exchanged much faster using these other modes of communication.[1] Further, we note that in traditional emergency services, such as police, fire, and rescue, there is no requirement that emergency service personnel hold amateur radio licenses or any other license that requires telegraphy proficiency. We conclude, therefore, that telegraphy proficiency is not a significant factor in determining an individual's ability to provide or be prepared to provide emergency communications. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- [1]See, e.g., The ARRL Letter, Volume 18, Number 7, at 3-4 (use of single side band when Hams Help Staff Colombian Relief Call Center); Volume 17, Number 13 at 3 (VHF repeaters use to assist tornado victims); Volume 18, Number 4 at 1-3 (use of VHF 2 meter repeaters to assist Emergency Operations center after tornado outbreak). See also Worldradio, February, 1999, at 6 (Salvation Army Emergency Team Radio Network (SATERN) maintaining a network of stations on 14.265 MHz during Hurricane Mitch); and Newsline, Issue No. 1129, February 29, 1999 (communications for Colombian earthquake assistance on 14.347 MHz using voice modes.) One NEVER knows in advance what will be needed to deal with any unforseen emergency/disaster. That's why one should be prepared with spare gear, good plans, etc. so that one does not have to rely on outdated methods ... We all know that, and of course you do too, but it works against that enigmatic agenda of yours. Sorry, Dick, YOU'RE the one with the "enigmatic agenda" ... but the FCC doesn't buy it ... Carl - wk3c |
"Robert Casey" wrote in message ... Dick Carroll; wrote: It isn't on the FCC's website yet but you can read it here.... http://www.eham.net/articles/6371 If CW does enjoy a 13 dB advantage over SSB, avid DX hounds will choose to learn it and use it on their own. No need for a license test. CW makes for small bandwidth combined with simple equipment. NASA doesn't use CW with its deep space probes, but they have fancy equipment on both ends. I mention this in that NASA does the ultimate in weak signal work, something CW is usually good for on ham bands with simple equipment and trained operators. But there's no CW op on the space probe. And plain old binary FSK has a bit more than a 9 dB weak signal advantage over OOK Morse ... if you slow it down to equivalent data rates ... More modern digital techniques are even better. Some produce perfect copy at s/n ratios where even the best CW operator couldn't even detect the PRESENCE of a CW signal, let alone begin to copy it. However, Dick and other Morse fanatics insist that those modes aren't a suitable option because they (dread the thought) require a computer (and some hardware/software that I'm sure "Shannon doesn't mean squat Dick" couldn't even begin to understand). Carl - wk3c |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dick Carroll; wrote: "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote: "Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... As you may know, FISTS has many times the membership numbers of NCI. How many *US* licensees are members of FISTS, Dick? Many times the number of *US* NCI members, Carl. Now Dick, how do you know that? No one knows except a person that isn't telling. - Mike KB3EIA - If FISTS has 10k members, they do NOT have "many times the membership numbers of NCI" ... the numbers would be something that Dick would hate to imagine in worst twisted nightmare :-) Carl - wk3c |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message hlink.net... I think total ellimination is equivilant to negotiations with a terrorist organization (NCI). Dan/W4NTI I think that characterization is totally out of line and is equivalent to the "law of usenet" that goes something like "the first one to equate the other to Hitler automatically loses the argument." Carl - wk3c |
"WA8ULX" wrote in message ... So you have no rational argument for the retention of code testing? None that you would understand I agree with Bruce ... no argument he could possibly present would be coherent enough for any reasonably rational, intelligent person to understand. :-) Carl - wk3c |
"S. Hanrahan" wrote in message ... On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 19:57:23 GMT, "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote: "Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... As you may know, FISTS has many times the membership numbers of NCI. How many *US* licensees are members of FISTS, Dick? Carl - wk3c Nearly 10,000. Not all of them are users of code either. FISTS welcomes anybody, unlike the NCI where you join "the cause to remove code requirements". If you prefer to remove the code requirement, no one is forcing you do unplug your keyer from your radio. Stacey, AA7YA FISTS #3857 Stacey, That 10k number seems to fly in the face of facts ... but it really doesn't matter, because it's the quality of the arguments presented to the FCC that matters, and the FISTS petition, while well-written, is lacking in a truly rational regulatory basis for maintaining ANY Morse test requirement. Carl - wk3c |
|
On 2 Sep 2003 14:41:13 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... How do you justify a trained group of communicators that are versed in a mode that is as useful and needed as CW is? There isn't an emergency right now. It's especially hard when the emergency management agencies have no use for a cadre of CW ops ... it's not the type of communications that they want or need. KT4ST has shown that to be untrue. One person's opinion ... and a person who clearly has a pro-Morse bias from his ham perspective. He's the ONLY EMS person I've EVER heard from who seriously considered Morse a truly valuable and necessary part of emergency communications, and I've been involved in emergency communications for over 25 years. However, with all due respect, Carl, I don't think you'd be the most effective salesman for the mode... It's not my job to be a salesman for Morse ... that's up to the people who like Morse and care to promote its use ... but they shouldn't insist on a govt. enforced "recruiting program" (which as I have pointed out is, in my view, actually counter-productive as it turns more against Morse than it "sells"). Just as the CW NTS nets are anachronisms ... What about SSB NTS nets? Are they anachronisms? A CW NTS net can handle more traffic in less time using less spectrum than an SSB NTS net. Been there, done that. But let's face it ... most of the traffic handled via NTS is 1) of little/no importance and 2) much makes use of "coded messages" (sending a canned message number) that would be of little use in an emergency situation where the situation, needs, details would need to be spelled out in some detail. Sorry, the "Morse is necessary for emergency communications" argument doesn't hold water, and the FCC has already realized that. Carl - wk3c Let's face it- Carl just hates Morse code, despite his many protests to the contrary. It's really not that difficult to understand - after all, he hears all that digital data flying past his ears and the old nternal modem just won't work on it! Ah, the pain! The Frustration! The Agony! You just can't help sympathyzing with his plight. The ONLY way for him to find relief is to slay that dreaded dragon under the bed..... Well, that was a well thought our and logical rebuttal in a falicious kind of way. If a more logical argument than that can't be made, don't be suprised if the FCC doesn't agree with your proposal. |
|
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 20:37:16 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this
mindspring.com wrote: "Brian" wrote in message . com... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message hlink.net... "Brian" wrote in message om... "Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... It isn't on the FCC's website yet but you can read it here.... http://www.eham.net/articles/6371 Enjoy! I thought that FISTS sold themselves as a non-political club? How is sending in a petition a political act? Does that mean when NCI sent in a petition it was political? Or perhaps they were simply following proceedures. Of course participating in the regulatory process is a "political" thing. And yes, FIST's position in the past (and IIRC, their charter) was that they were *not* a politically-oriented group ... just a group that was supposed to foster the *use* of Morse. Right. So where NCI is purposely a politically-oriented group, and behaves accordingly, FISTS is specifically a non-political group who is now behaving politically. Why don't we hear any whining about how FISTS has broken with their charter from the people that are always whining about NCI? Usual PCTA double-standard? Not only a dumb ass, but a knee jerk bleeding heart liberal to boot. Dan/W4NTI Another logical rebuttal I see. Is the pro code postion this weak or does it just attract people who can't make effective rebuttals? |
|
On 4 Sep 2003 01:38:06 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message It doesn't take a majority to win an issue, Dick. All it takes is an irate minority that is prepared to be loud and active. No, what it takes are rational, compelling arguments that support your position ... NCI had them in the case of WT 98-143, the PCTAs couldn't come up with ANY (because there are no rational, compelling arguments for keeping Morse testing). What do they do for an encore? We present more rational, compelling arguments, of course. Carl, with all due respect, "rational and compelling arguments" are in the head of the beholder. Why do you do people a disservice by suggesting otherwise? I have read both documents, and find the NCI and FISTS proposals equally rational and compelling. In the end, it all comes down to what a person **believes**. And that is not rational. Not in your case, not in mine. And too much of the "belief" business and it turns into religion, which some PCTA'ers have been accused of. It all works both ways. Propping up a "belief system" ("tradition", etc. ... all the things that keep things stuck in the past) is NOT a legitimate regulatory purpose or role. Neither is government support for a lamebrained attitude that labels "stuck in the past" as a description of radiotelegraphy on ham radio. Try actually tuning around the CW portions and you soon see how current CW is. Carl, you're beginning to sound like one of the Three Stooges on a stuck record - if anyone her remembers what that is. It's "old" too, but still one of the most effective of descriptives. 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? |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I've explained out committment to our members' privacy. If FISTS doesn't have the same policy, that's their choice, and thus, you could have answered my question without breaching any confidence. I can't do the same because of the committment we have made to our members. Can't you think of a better reason? Let's say there are 5000 members of NCI. The important question is "how many active US hams" are members. Comparing the total number in one group with the number of active US hams in another is slanted. Explain how saying There are 5000 members of NCI is violating anyones privacy. Good question! And we're still waiting for an answer. We're not asking for names or calls, just the number of US licensed hams who are members. Anyone can determine the FISTS numbers. Why is NCI so secretive about theirs - particularly if the numbers don't really matter? I recall reading here a statement by Carl that those in the minority should learn to take 'no' for an answer and get on with life. (Those are HIS words, not mine). What if it turned out (as it did in 1998-99) that the NCI position is a minority opinion? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: "Robert Casey" wrote in message ... Dick Carroll; wrote: It isn't on the FCC's website yet but you can read it here.... http://www.eham.net/articles/6371 If CW does enjoy a 13 dB advantage over SSB, avid DX hounds will choose to learn it and use it on their own. No need for a license test. CW makes for small bandwidth combined with simple equipment. NASA doesn't use CW with its deep space probes, but they have fancy equipment on both ends. I mention this in that NASA does the ultimate in weak signal work, something CW is usually good for on ham bands with simple equipment and trained operators. But there's no CW op on the space probe. And plain old binary FSK has a bit more than a 9 dB weak signal advantage over OOK Morse ... if you slow it down to equivalent data rates ... If you have an optimized receiver and suitable conditions, maybe - depends on what you determine to be "equivalent data rates". But hams don't do slow-HF-BFSK. 60 wpm FSK Baudot RTTY is about the most basic data mode still in use by hams. More modern digital techniques are even better. Some produce perfect copy at s/n ratios where even the best CW operator couldn't even detect the PRESENCE of a CW signal, let alone begin to copy it. That all depends on the equipment in use. Using a receiver optimized for one mode in an attempt to receive another may or may not be a good idea. What mode do you use most on HF, Carl? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: Propping up a "belief system" ("tradition", etc. ... all the things that keep things stuck in the past) is NOT a legitimate regulatory purpose or role. Then why do have so many rules, regulations and laws protecting historic and natural sites? Why do we use "English" measurement units instead of metric? Why are QWERTY keyboards still the standard even though Dvorak has been shown to be superior? What is and is not " a legitimate regulatory purpose or role" is purely a matter of opinion. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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. w3rv |
Bob Brock wrote in message . ..
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? In the event they have that country confirmed for DXCC, they will boycott. |
|
|
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message It doesn't take a majority to win an issue, Dick. All it takes is an irate minority that is prepared to be loud and active. No, what it takes are rational, compelling arguments that support your position ... NCI had them in the case of WT 98-143, the PCTAs couldn't come up with ANY (because there are no rational, compelling arguments for keeping Morse testing). What do they do for an encore? We present more rational, compelling arguments, of course. Carl, with all due respect, "rational and compelling arguments" are in the head of the beholder. Why do you do people a disservice by suggesting otherwise? I have read both documents, and find the NCI and FISTS proposals equally rational and compelling. In the end, it all comes down to what a person **believes**. And that is not rational. Not in your case, not in mine. And too much of the "belief" business and it turns into religion, which some PCTA'ers have been accused of. It all works both ways. Propping up a "belief system" ("tradition", etc. ... all the things that keep things stuck in the past) is NOT a legitimate regulatory purpose or role. It isn't propping, it's part of the package. It's no tradition to me, I'm just a nickle Extra, licensed since 1999. Its the same as learning math basics and using calculators at the same time. its a basic and simple method of communication that I BELIEVE is a very good thing to know. You do NOT believe this. You believe that Morse code is an anachronism, and has no place in the education required to be a ham. I think you may also confuse belief with fact. You'll probably disagree with that also. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dick Carroll; wrote: "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote: "Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... As you may know, FISTS has many times the membership numbers of NCI. How many *US* licensees are members of FISTS, Dick? Many times the number of *US* NCI members, Carl. Now Dick, how do you know that? No one knows except a person that isn't telling. - Mike KB3EIA - If FISTS has 10k members, they do NOT have "many times the membership numbers of NCI" ... the numbers would be something that Dick would hate to imagine in worst twisted nightmare :-) I guess we'll never know, though........ - Mike KB3EIA - |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"S. Hanrahan" wrote in message ... On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 19:57:23 GMT, "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote: "Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... As you may know, FISTS has many times the membership numbers of NCI. How many *US* licensees are members of FISTS, Dick? Carl - wk3c Nearly 10,000. Not all of them are users of code either. FISTS welcomes anybody, unlike the NCI where you join "the cause to remove code requirements". If you prefer to remove the code requirement, no one is forcing you do unplug your keyer from your radio. Stacey, AA7YA FISTS #3857 Stacey, That 10k number seems to fly in the face of facts ... but it really doesn't matter, because it's the quality of the arguments presented to the FCC that matters, and the FISTS petition, while well-written, is lacking in a truly rational regulatory basis for maintaining ANY Morse test requirement. It's the number that they put forth on their petition. If you can prove they are not being accurate, that would shut them down pretty well...... And the supreme court yesterday must hav thought that the FCC's decision process was a tad flawed. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Bob Brock wrote:
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. Not the point. 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? WOW! After all your posts claiming how poor some members of this group's arguments are you post that? - Mike KB3EIA - |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I've explained out committment to our members' privacy. If FISTS doesn't have the same policy, that's their choice, and thus, you could have answered my question without breaching any confidence. I can't do the same because of the committment we have made to our members. Can't you think of a better reason? Let's say there are 5000 members of NCI. The important question is "how many active US hams" are members. Comparing the total number in one group with the number of active US hams in another is slanted. Explain how saying There are 5000 members of NCI is violating anyones privacy. Good question! And we're still waiting for an answer. And still waiting. I can't figure out why that is such a troublesome thing. We're not asking for names or calls, just the number of US licensed hams who are members. Anyone can determine the FISTS numbers. Why is NCI so secretive about theirs - particularly if the numbers don't really matter? I'm beginning to formulate an opinion on that. Probably the same one you are. I recall reading here a statement by Carl that those in the minority should learn to take 'no' for an answer and get on with life. (Those are HIS words, not mine). That is one of the polite things people say when what they really want to say "SHUT UP and quit bothering me". Autocratics in action. But just as it doesn't happen in politics, it doesn't happen here. Would he have taken his own advice in the early days of NCI. What if it turned out (as it did in 1998-99) that the NCI position is a minority opinion? It doesn't take a majority. It takes noise. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dick Carroll; wrote:
Yeah the entire world of ham radio is going to gear up for disaster communications, keep it all ready all the time. Never happen and ANYONE should know it. You use what you find available in whatever circumstances you happen to be caught in when the ship hits the sand. Dick you have hit the proverbial nail on it's proverbial head! This sentence should be required reading, and should be tatooed on everyone's eyelids. Predictions of where disaster will strike are not too accurate. Otherwise we could move people out of the area, and there wouldn't be a problem. Certain areas are more prone to certain types of disasters, but overall, where and when it happens is a random thing. Will these wonderful methods be available to whatever operator happens to be *in* the area? All the old system did was to ensure the likelyhood of someone on the inside, and someone on the outside are able to talk to each other. It doesn't say they have to use Morse. What it did ensure was that under some pretty poor conditions, there would be a comms. Maybe you'll have access to all that "spare gear" and maybe not. If not, well gee, coulda shouloda woulda, but....... Now this is an interesting thing! Are we to *have* to buy this equipment? And what of the poor ham that didn't have the resources and is caught in the middle of a disaster? Plans? You STILL don't know about plans and what happens to the "best laid" of them? HA! It's one thing to be ready to relieve a disaster, quite another to be caught inside one with a desperate need to communicate to the outside. They'll use cell phones and Echolink..... you know, modern technology. - Mike KB3EIA - |
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. |
Dick Carroll; wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: And the supreme court yesterday must hav thought that the FCC's decision process was a tad flawed. Mike, what did I mess yesterday? The Supremes told the F.C.C. that it's relaxed ruling on how many media outlets one entity (Clear Channel and Fox types) could own was not acceptable. And as a person that lives in an area where all the AM stations are playing the exact same thing most of the time, I can say it's a bad idea. And with Fox News bloodying it's nose trying to sue and squelch a satire writer, I am leery of them now too. - Mike KB3EIA - |
-- Now this is an interesting thing! Are we to *have* to buy this equipment? And what of the poor ham that didn't have the resources and is caught in the middle of a disaster? Some ARES groups have incorporated as not for profits. This allows them to get corporate sponsorship for emergency gear. A contractor for a local nuke plant hired to make sure the evac drills go smooth told me last year there was no need for amateur radio. They could depend on cell phones for all their field communications during evacuation of the NYC metro area. No **** ! |
Steve Stone wrote:
Some ARES groups have incorporated as not for profits. This allows them to get corporate sponsorship for emergency gear. When possible, it is a good idea for groups to have equipment at the ready. Mother Nature has this nasty streak in her that seems to favor the unprepared though! ;^) A contractor for a local nuke plant hired to make sure the evac drills go smooth told me last year there was no need for amateur radio. They could depend on cell phones for all their field communications during evacuation of the NYC metro area. Can you imagine? And yet I hear that kind of thing all over. Presumably intelligent people that don't realize that these highly centralized systems are certain to fail when the same conditions that make emergency comms necessary work their damage on those area systems. The inherently independent, non networked nature of Amateur radio is what gives it it's strength. And sometimes why when all else fails.... corny statement that just happens to be true. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Bob Brock wrote in message . ..
On 4 Sep 2003 05:25:03 -0700, (Brian) wrote: Bob Brock wrote in message . .. 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? In the event they have that country confirmed for DXCC, they will boycott. I was asking about you guys, not what they will do. Afterall, I've boycotted General and above for about 9 years now because of antiquated requirements. That's funny. I don't necessarily agree with it, but its funny. Tell me, do you have any anecdotal stories? |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
That's exactly right. He'll never tell because the number is embarassingly small. But apparently is highly effective. |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message hlink.net... I think total ellimination is equivilant to negotiations with a terrorist organization (NCI). Dan/W4NTI I think that characterization is totally out of line and is equivalent to the "law of usenet" that goes something like "the first one to equate the other to Hitler automatically loses the argument." Carl - wk3c I understand your point of view Carl. Down heah in Dixie we call that 'eat up with the dumbass'. Your NCI organization is nothing but a bunch of whinney crybaby lazy me generation morons. You know it, and we know it. Now just go off and whine in your corner. The truth hurts, eh? Dan/W4NTI |
In article , Bob Brock
writes: On 4 Sep 2003 05:25:03 -0700, (Brian) wrote: Bob Brock wrote in message ... 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? In the event they have that country confirmed for DXCC, they will boycott. I was asking about you guys, not what they will do. I don't boycott any ham who follows the rules. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article , Bob Brock writes: On 4 Sep 2003 05:25:03 -0700, (Brian) wrote: Bob Brock wrote in message ... 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? In the event they have that country confirmed for DXCC, they will boycott. I was asking about you guys, not what they will do. I don't boycott any ham who follows the rules. 73 de Jim, N2EY Exactly. And, I hadn't heard of any attempt to boycott a "country" due to its position on CW. That seems like something that would only get thought up right here in this newsgroup, though! GRIN Anyway, that's taking the whole CW debate just way too far, IMNSHO. Kim W5TIT |
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 13:50:54 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:
Bob Brock wrote: On 4 Sep 2003 05:25:03 -0700, (Brian) wrote: Bob Brock wrote in message . .. 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? In the event they have that country confirmed for DXCC, they will boycott. I was asking about you guys, not what they will do. Afterall, I've boycotted General and above for about 9 years now because of antiquated requirements. Your loss, dude. If you wait long enough, the writtens might go away too. No, the writen exams have a basis in the real world. Code just has it's basis as a historical antiquity. I'm more than willing to do whatever is necessary to prove profiency in radio operation. Hey Carl, here's one of your new guys! Im sure that this has some type of significance for you, but it's lost on me. |
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:15:41 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Bob Brock writes: On 4 Sep 2003 05:25:03 -0700, (Brian) wrote: Bob Brock wrote in message ... 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? In the event they have that country confirmed for DXCC, they will boycott. I was asking about you guys, not what they will do. I don't boycott any ham who follows the rules. 73 de Jim, N2EY Exactly. And, I hadn't heard of any attempt to boycott a "country" due to its position on CW. That seems like something that would only get thought up right here in this newsgroup, though! GRIN Anyway, that's taking the whole CW debate just way too far, IMNSHO. 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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:37 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com