| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
September 5th 03, 04:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Threaded Mode
