|
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 13:12:29 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:
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? Answering a question with a question is no anwer at all. |
On 4 Sep 2003 16:28:59 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote:
Bob Brock wrote: On 04 Sep 2003 11:30:04 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: What is and is not " a legitimate regulatory purpose or role" is purely a matter of opinion. 73 de Jim, N2EY The passing of regulations outside the scope of the organization. So now YOU are to decide for the FCC the scope of their organization,. What an(other) idiot! Now, I asked you to provide a cite in their charter (the communications act). You failed to do so. Is there a reason that you did that? |
No, the writen exams have a basis in the real world.
And what Value is that? The present writtens dont test for knowledge |
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 11:48:06 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:
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........ Would it make you feel better if he threw a number out there or would you guys simply start attacking the number claimed based on some kind of 10 code logic? |
On 4 Sep 2003 16:37:08 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: 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........ That's exactly right. He'll never tell because the number is embarassingly small. Without posting a list, he could clam any number that felt good to him. So, the number would mean nothing withou supporting documentation. What's sad is that you know that and want to harp on a number anyway. |
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 22:40:03 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this
mindspring.com wrote: "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? Is the truth that you are referring to the fact that other countries are dropping the code requirement as fast as they can? |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message thlink.net...
"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'. No doubt. Dumb is written all over your post. Your NCI organization is nothing but a bunch of whinney crybaby lazy me generation morons. Odd. I think the PCTA are the whiney crybaby generation who think if it was good enough for their grandpappies, that its good enough for everyone since. "I had to learn it, whah, whah, whah." I'm not buying it. All we've asked you to come up with was a valid reason to retain the code exam. That should be simple enough, right? You know it, and we know it. Now just go off and whine in your corner. The truth hurts, eh? Does it? |
|
Then what do you think that they test for?
Oh I know what they Test for, and it is not knowledge,it is nothing then Memozizing some Q&As that have no meaning to the test taker. The writtens are nothing more than jumping thru hoops |
Come winter after the antenna work is done, I intend to work on designing
some high speed stuff. Carl - wk Who are you kidding, you have been claiming this for years. |
|
|
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... 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". Bits is bits ... same equivlent data rate is pretty clear. So we'll say 30 wpm plain text. 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. No, because it works well at higher rates and higher rates are desirable. Sometimes higher rates are desirable. BUT, if they *did* slow WAY down to Morse rates, they'd have at least a 9 dB weak signal advantage over OOK Morse.. After your mistakes in the "ARS License Numbers" thread, Carl, I tend to be a bit skeptical about your numbers. 54%, anyone? 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? I'm playing with the soundcard modes right now ... PSKxx in particular, helping some friends check out some pretty slick freeware they're developing. That's nice....guess SSB has it limitations, huh? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Bob Brock
writes: On 05 Sep 2003 03:41:16 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote: Then what do you think that they test for? Oh I know what they Test for, and it is not knowledge,it is nothing then Memozizing some Q&As that have no meaning to the test taker. The writtens are nothing more than jumping thru hoops Bob, If you're bothering to argue with Bruce.... In other words, since they provide the question pool, you don't think that people have to learn the answers in order to correctly answer the questions? How do you think that they figure out how to fill in the correct answer then? You weren't provided with an answer sheet where you only had to memorize the correct sequence were you? The point is that the level of UNDERSTANDING required to pass the writtens today is a lot less than it would be if the actual Q&A were not made public. I used to train people at a nuclear power plant. The way I did it was to provide the students with a list of objectives, which were usually in the form of questions. I told them up front that when I was finished with the class, I expected to have covered those objectives and that they needed to know the answers. When I wrote the test, you know where the questions came from? Yup, they came from those objectives word for word because that was what I wanted them to learn. So, if they would study those objectives and know the answers to those objectives, they could pass the tests with no problems. OK, fine. Did they KNOW, from Day 1, that the test they would be taking would consist of the exact questions and answers you gave them on Day 1? Was the passing grade 74%? Was there a penalty for wrong answers? We didn't play games with them and train them on objectives and test them on something unrelated. We taught them, they learned what we wanted them to learn and we validated that they had learned it without playing mind games with them by extending the tests beyond the objectives. Nobody's saying the tests should go beyond the stated objectives. That worked very well in a nuclear environment. I imagine that the class has a lot of motivation towards safety. We maintained a SALP 1 from the NRC during the time frame I was there and I was there for quite a while. Were the employees tested once at the beginning of their employment at the plant, and never again? Or was continuing education an integral part of that environment? Perhaps it's you contention that getting a license to operate a radio is somehow more complex than the nuclear environment, but that's simply not true and anyone who is rational would know that. Not a question of complexity. In both cases, the material is taught and the student learns it or they don't pass the test. Not all hams take formal classes - in fact, most probably don't. In the bad old days, the FCC published a study guide that listed, in essay form, the type of questions and typical solutions that would be found on the tests. For example, there were questions about Ohm's Law for a DC circuit and how to solve them. Any prospective ham knew he/she would be expected to know how to solve E = I/R and P = IE problems, resistors in series, parallel and series-parallel, etc. And anybody who had a basic UNDERSTANDING of that stuff would have no problem on those test questions. But the actual Q&A were not made public. Today, with the actual Q&A in hand, less understanding is required. That's what bothers some folks. Consider this: Today, the test for Tech is 35 questions from a published pool. Most of those questions are on regulations, with some operating practices, theory and safety stuff. Yet the license granted for passing that test gives alla amateur privileges above 30 MHz, including the authorization to design, build, repair, align, modify and most of all operate transmitters of up to 1500 W power output on 'meat cooking frequencies' as WK3C puts it. There is no separate safety testing nor ongoing education - someone can get all of the RF exposure questions wrong and still pass. Do you think that the test and its methods are really adequate for the privileges granted? FCC does. In fact, back in 2000 they lowered the written requirement for the Tech license by almost half. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
... 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. 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. Kim W5TIT |
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
... On 05 Sep 2003 02:58:33 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote: No, the writen exams have a basis in the real world. And what Value is that? The present writtens dont test for knowledge Then what do you think that they test for? Whether someone can remember correct answers to known questions. Kim W5TIT |
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. Now, someone wants proof and the only way to proove it is to publish a list of members which NCI won't do. Then that one person doesn't get his proof. It was like watching two trains going opposite directions on the same track, you guys knew it was going to happen, yet you did everything possible to make it happen. What ARE you talking about? Ever hear of railroad signal systems? The question then becomes, why? One possibility is that you thought that a number could be published and no one would say, "Proove it." We all know better than that though. Another possiblity was that it's what you wanted to happen, because when it did happen you could all jump on the "the number is BS bandwagon". The advantage of the "BS bandwagon" is that it moves you away from just how untenable the code requriement position really is and it makes you feel somehow stronger. Nope. None of the above. Here's the background: NCI has been around since about 1996. Some of its staff and supporters have claimed that the procodetest position is a minority position - which makes them the majority position. But no proof of same has ever been offered. There have also been claims that NCI "represents" ham radio, and that ARRL does not, etc. Check out this post from the executive director: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain Here's the part I like best: (Carl, WK3C, writes in an earlier post): And are you going to grouse about "restructuring" for the next 50 years? (I replied): Not me. But isn't it the right of all Americans to complain about their government and petition for changes? (Carl answers): Yes ... of course ... Or is that right reserved only for those who agree with NCI's opinions? Of course not, but at *some* point, folks in the minority should take "No." for an answer and get on with life ... (end of quotes) Gotta love that addytood..."at *some* point, folks in the minority should take "No." for an answer and get on with life ..." Did NCI "take no for an answer and get on with life" when they turned out to be in the minority of those who commented to FCC on the 2000 restructuring? Suppose the FCC puts up an NPRM proposing to dump Element 1. And suppose the majority of comments received on the issue say "Keep it". Will NCI "take no for an answer and get on with life"? Naturally some of us asked how big NCI is, and how fast it was growing, and all we ever got was evasive answers such as "lots and lots", "growing by leaps and bounds", etc. The only indication those of us on the outside have of NCI's size is the member numbers we've seen. The highest numbers I've seen are below 5000, which means there cannot be more than 5000 members, right? But there's more! NCI started out with member number #1001, not #0001, so the real size cannot be more than 4000. Why did they start with #1001 instead of #0001? Please don't tell me their computers could not handle low numbers... On top of that, membership costs nothing and all members are considered "active" unless they specifically request being removed from membership. Which has happened in a few cases that I know of personally. So anyone who joined is carried on NCI's books as a member, no matter what their interest and activity today. FISTS and most other groups like ARRL will drop you from their rolls if you don't send in your renewal, but not NCI. Despite repeated requests over at least 6 years, NCI refuses to give an actual number of members. Why? All we've asked for is a statement like "As of September 1, 2003, there were XXXX active members of NCI. Of those, YYYY are licensed US hams". We did not ask for a list of names or calls. All of this makes an NCI-outsider a bit skeptical. If the number of members isn't that big a deal, why all the secrecy about it all these years? I'm sure that there are other reasons that you guys were so adamant about wanting a number that you knew you would disagree with. You're taking Bruce's demand for proof and applying it generally. Why? I'd like to hear them. What are they? See above. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
How do you think that they figure out how to fill in the
correct answer then? Its called memorizing, no knowledge. If question about the material most wouldnt have a Clue. You weren't provided with an answer sheet where you only had to memorize the correct sequence were you? No I wasnt, I knew the Info. Perhaps it's you contention that getting a license to operate a radio is somehow more complex than the nuclear environment, No not really, anymore its a waste of time the way the present written is setup. |
See, I told you guys that this would happen if any number was claimed.
Now, someone wants proof Of course someone wants proof . Hell anybody can say they have any number of anything, but that doesnt make it so. Karl and the nuts are going before the FCC claiming they have X number of support, wheres the facts for your support. Or are they just throwing out any number they hink will Impress the FCC. |
|
On 05 Sep 2003 11:19:23 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
In article , Bob Brock writes: On 05 Sep 2003 03:41:16 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote: Then what do you think that they test for? Oh I know what they Test for, and it is not knowledge,it is nothing then Memozizing some Q&As that have no meaning to the test taker. The writtens are nothing more than jumping thru hoops Bob, If you're bothering to argue with Bruce.... I'm beginning to understand him better. :-) In other words, since they provide the question pool, you don't think that people have to learn the answers in order to correctly answer the questions? How do you think that they figure out how to fill in the correct answer then? You weren't provided with an answer sheet where you only had to memorize the correct sequence were you? The point is that the level of UNDERSTANDING required to pass the writtens today is a lot less than it would be if the actual Q&A were not made public. His contention was the learning was not required. I've shown him where it is required and a very similar system is used in a validated educational system. I used to train people at a nuclear power plant. The way I did it was to provide the students with a list of objectives, which were usually in the form of questions. I told them up front that when I was finished with the class, I expected to have covered those objectives and that they needed to know the answers. When I wrote the test, you know where the questions came from? Yup, they came from those objectives word for word because that was what I wanted them to learn. So, if they would study those objectives and know the answers to those objectives, they could pass the tests with no problems. OK, fine. Did they KNOW, from Day 1, that the test they would be taking would consist of the exact questions and answers you gave them on Day 1? They did if the believed me when I told them. Was the passing grade 74%? For most subjects, 70% was passing. However, after academic training was completed, the employee was required to pass an ETQS performance based test prior to certification. Was there a penalty for wrong answers? The lost points on the exam...we didn't beat them or anything like that. ;-) We didn't play games with them and train them on objectives and test them on something unrelated. We taught them, they learned what we wanted them to learn and we validated that they had learned it without playing mind games with them by extending the tests beyond the objectives. Nobody's saying the tests should go beyond the stated objectives. No amount of academic training is going to make someone proficient at performing tasks. Only experience actually doing it will make that happen. That worked very well in a nuclear environment. I imagine that the class has a lot of motivation towards safety. Mistakes are not acceptable. We maintained a SALP 1 from the NRC during the time frame I was there and I was there for quite a while. Were the employees tested once at the beginning of their employment at the plant, and never again? Or was continuing education an integral part of that environment? Academic training and testing was a one time affair. Performance based retesting was annual. Perhaps it's you contention that getting a license to operate a radio is somehow more complex than the nuclear environment, but that's simply not true and anyone who is rational would know that. Not a question of complexity. In both cases, the material is taught and the student learns it or they don't pass the test. Not all hams take formal classes - in fact, most probably don't. In the bad old days, the FCC published a study guide that listed, in essay form, the type of questions and typical solutions that would be found on the tests. For example, there were questions about Ohm's Law for a DC circuit and how to solve them. Any prospective ham knew he/she would be expected to know how to solve E = I/R and P = IE problems, resistors in series, parallel and series-parallel, etc. And anybody who had a basic UNDERSTANDING of that stuff would have no problem on those test questions. But the actual Q&A were not made public. Today, with the actual Q&A in hand, less understanding is required. That's what bothers some folks. As I said in a previous post in another thread, regulatory agencies are not democracies. Sometimes they do things that I don't like. When that happens I have two choices...conform or boycott. Consider this: Today, the test for Tech is 35 questions from a published pool. Most of those questions are on regulations, with some operating practices, theory and safety stuff. Yet the license granted for passing that test gives alla amateur privileges above 30 MHz, including the authorization to design, build, repair, align, modify and most of all operate transmitters of up to 1500 W power output on 'meat cooking frequencies' as WK3C puts it. There is no separate safety testing nor ongoing education - someone can get all of the RF exposure questions wrong and still pass. Do you think that the test and its methods are really adequate for the privileges granted? No I don't. In addition to dropping the code requirement, I would like to see the academic testing made much harder with a performance based test included. However, that's not going to happen. FCC does. In fact, back in 2000 they lowered the written requirement for the Tech license by almost half. See my above comment regarding regulatory agencies. I can see where they are coming from though. They have limited budget and ham radio is a very small part of their plate. |
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 06:58:06 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On 05 Sep 2003 02:58:33 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote: No, the writen exams have a basis in the real world. And what Value is that? The present writtens dont test for knowledge Then what do you think that they test for? Whether someone can remember correct answers to known questions. Provided that the questions cover the things that you want the person to know, this isn't an issue. |
On 5 Sep 2003 05:32:42 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote:
Bob Brock wrote: On 4 Sep 2003 18:17:10 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" 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. So by your logic I should have, as a VE, boycotted administering no-code Tech tests? You sure demonstrate where you're coming from. Welcome to the house of code haters, you fit right in. I'd prefer that it be called the list of long time code haters. Sez it all! You're so binary. Take a few courses in logic and decision making. It would help you immensely. |
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 06:55:21 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . 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. 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. Kim W5TIT 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. |
WA8ULX wrote: Then what do you think that they test for? Oh I know what they Test for, and it is not knowledge,it is nothing then Memozizing some Q&As that have no meaning to the test taker. The writtens are nothing more than jumping thru hoops What the heck is "Memozizing"? Man, what a third grade education will do for you. |
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? |
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 - |
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 - |
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. - Mike KB3EIA - |
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com