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 06 Sep 2003 13:19:23 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Bob Brock
writes:

I weighed the benefit of HF against conforming
with a requirement that I didn't agree with. I felt that by
participating I was helping it to continue.

How is participating in the test helping the requirement to continue?


Just my personal preference. As I said in another place, I spent too
much time doing useless stuff for a regulatory agency while getting
paid for it. I don't want to do it for free. My life...my choice.

There are a lot of hoops
that I would be willing to jump through to get HF privileges. Code
isn't one of them.

To each his own.

Call it a matter of personal ethics. Upgrading would have been the
easy way out.

Or consider this:

Which do you think is more convincing to FCC as a reason to remove Element 1:

- The person who says "I won't upgrade until that test is removed"

or

- The person who says "I took the test, passed it, yet I think there is no
reason for that test to exist any more."

No that I think that either one will have an impact on the final
decision, but I'd have to say a combination of both would be most
effective.

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
news
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