|
"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
... "Kim W5TIT" wrote ... But, but, but!!!! Larry's obviously got or had large boobs, and has obviously worn a bra. Right?! He *has* hasn't he? Surely, for if not he would not be making value judgements on my callsign. __________________________________________________ _______________ It took a while, but I have grown accustomed to your callsign, Kim. And it wasn't necessary for me to wear a bra to do it. ;-) Arnie - KT4ST Uh, Arnie? If you wore a bra, the only thing you'd get from me would be, "What ya packin' there, big fella?" ;) Kim W5TIT |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
One does have to eat a pizza to evaluate its taste and whether they will like it or not. (snip) So while there are some things that do not need to be experienced to evaluate them, there are other things that do. Well, unless one can eat a license requirement, I think my analogies were a little more relavent. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Len Over 21" wrote:
Outside of sounding like low-grade bull****, (snip) I might have thought that when I first read his response, but decided to be a little more controlled in my written response (knowing full well that others would come to that conclusion on their own). All Dwight said was that "your words reek of bigotry, elitism, and discrimination against other Americans." Now, I didn't specifically say Larry's words reeked of anything. What I said is the words I hear from many advocating the continuation of the code testing requirement often reek of bigotry, elitism, and discrimination against other Americans. Of course, some of Larry's past comments certainly might fit into that category, but he has since somewhat toned down his rhetoric. If YOU want to TRULY support personal initiative without "government support" (and all its 'evil' socialist-like things) then you should be able to eliminate the federal code test! Except you do NOT. You keep demanding that the government continue the federal code test in order to keep a few code users around... I've discussed that contradiction with Larry before. He does seem to exclude code testing from his conservative views opposing excessive government regulation. If Morse Code has real value, it should be able to survive in as close to a free market environment as possible. I think it has that value and can survive just fine without a regulation mandating testing. The FCC regulates and licenses ALL civil radio in the USA... yet none of the staff nor commission of the FCC are required to pass any morse code test in order to regulate US amateur radio. Of course, that should be obvious. But Larry's position benefits him more - if accepted, it would undermine all those with different views on this subject. Clearly, only those with views similar to his would accept such a premise. You seem dumb and dumberer to the fact that every other radio service (except a small part of maritime radio) in the USA has either DROPPED morse code (snip) Actually, as you may know, even the International Maritime Organization (IMO) voted in 1998 to eliminate Morse Code. The Coast Guard itself dropped code in 1995. As a result of these two events, the Coast Guard now urges commercial vessels not to use code since CG personnel, and an increasing number of radio operators in the maritime service, may no longer have the skills necessary to communicate using that system. The UN-chartered IMO is responsible for defining and regulating international maritime telecommunications. It's positions are adopted by the ITU. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote: You just locked, loaded, took careful aim, and shot yourself in the foot! If you had ANY experience with Morse/CW at all, you'd realize that the mode which is in "decline" lately on HF is SSB -- due to poor operating conditions. The CW segments continue to jump with activity. (snip) So you're saying code use "in this country" is jumping with activity? If so, where? I've looked in the commercial bands, shortwave broadcast bands, military bands, and so on, and found very little code use (certainly far less than just a few decades ago, just as I said). Dwight: Uh huh. Right. I totally agree. And if I were discussing commercial or military communications, that may be a relevant point. However, since we're discussing Amateur Radio, you're just spinning your wheels with the NCTA's most famously irrelevant and unresponsive argument. I'm gonna give you some free advice here, Dwight. (snip) You're out of your depth when discussing code testing, so I would suggest, for the sake of your own credibility, that you chose a topic you know something about. Now, let me give you some advice, Larry. You're too narrow-minded to even understand the concepts behind code testing. Code testing is not, and has never been, solely to benefit Amateur Radio. OK, Dwight -- then, for the umpteenth time, please inform us what it IS relevant to OTHER than the ARS? By your own admission, no other communications service is using Morse/CW to any noticeable extent. So, WHICH ONE IS??? Therefore, you can't focus solely on Amateur Radio when discussing the code testing issue. The heck I can't, Dwight! So, for the sake of your own credibility on this subject, look outside your own narrowly defined little world at the much larger picture elsewhere (the view from the FCC's perspective). Only then will you be aware enough to seriously discuss this issue. Dwight, unless and until you can show us just exactly WHERE the ARS's code testing requirement ***IS*** relevant OUTSIDE of the ARS, all you're doing is blowing smoke. And not very dense smoke at that. The subject of this thread is "where PCTA's fail in logic." So far, it has only served to prove that the NCTA's have no concept of logic at all, and are therefore unqualified to discuss it. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote: How many CW contacts have you made in your ham "career?" I'm into the multiple thousands. If you have less than 500, then you're not even close to being qualified to render a judgment against code testing. And exactly how does the number of CW contacts made qualify one to make a judgement about the value of code testing as a license requirement? Dwight: Simply by serving as an indication of your level of experience in that particular mode. Again, code testing is not, and never has been, solely for the benefit of Amateur Radio (or solely to benefit CW operations on those bands). I see. Then perhaps you can tell us how it "benefits" photography, cooking, stamp collecting, or any other activity which isn't Amateur Radio? Code use is declining here and around the world. Not really. In fact, the only place where it has "declined" is within the military and commercial communications arenas, where there were relatively few Morse/CW operators compared to the Amateur Radio Service. And, since everything I'm discussing here is related ONLY to the Amateur Radio Service, that's the only group of Morse/CW users who are being considered by me in any of my postings. Looking solely at Amateur Radio, even the majority of those operators don't use code/cw on any routine or regular basis. Because of these facts, the need for a code testing requirement has vanished. The total number of hams who don't use Morse code is relatively high, but only due to the fact that there are many other modes for radio amateurs to employ. I've never demonstrated any confusion on that point, therefore, you are raising an irrelevant and invalid argument here. Twenty-two plus years of OTA HF experience as a radio amateur, which has been about 80 percent CW, 19 percent RTTY and other digital modes, and 1 percent phone. What's your breakdown? I believe the question was what experience you have that makes you UNIQUELY qualified to judge the value of a specific TESTING REQUIREMENT. I don't see anything above that would make you uniquely qualified in this subject. Obviously, since you are in disagreement. That doesn't make you right when you say I'm not a qualified judge of the code testing requirement -- it just means you have an axe to grind which makes it necessary for you to attempt to discredit me. Again, code testing is not, and never has been, solely for the benefit of Amateur Radio (or operations in those bands). And, once again, you fail to mention who or what is benefited by it, if not the ARS. Please provide an answer, or quite wasting our time with this illogical statement. Therefore, the FCC is not going to judge the value of code testing based solely on Amateur Radio. Then WHAT besides the ARS are they going to judge it by? The ARS is the only communications service currently using the Morse/CW mode to any extent which would require the regulatory attention of the FCC. Therefore, the Coast Guard, MARS, the Maritime service, etc. etc. are all entirely irrelevant and unresponsive to this issue. You have to look at the larger picture, Larry. At this point, you're still too narrowly focused. I am focused on the Amateur Radio Service, Dwight. I realize you're thinking about all the other radio services which, for purely economic reasons, have dropped the use of Morse/CW and therefore the necessity to undergo the expensive process of recruiting, training, and providing pay and benefits to Morse/CW operators. This has no impact in the ARS -- but you, in true NCTA fashion, fail to grasp this very simple concept. The plain fact is that the ARS has no personnel- based "cost" at all. Therefore, your argument is irrelevant and unresponsive. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: One does have to eat a pizza to evaluate its taste and whether they will like it or not. I love pizza but hate tomatoes, cheese, and garlic. Yet combine them into a pizza and the result is entirely different. No one can tell how a cake will taste simply from reading the ingredients on a box. You can evaluate its nutritional content but not its taste. So while there are some things that do not need to be experienced to evaluate them, there are other things that do. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee: Correct. And the Morse/CW mode is definitely one of those things that one must "experience" before they become qualified to make any sort of judgment about code testing. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: Well, more importantly, when was the last time Larry wore a bra? (Wooshhhhhh--he will never get that one). Kim W5TIT Obviously not, since I'm not in the habit of wearing ladie's underwear! So, for once you're right, Kim -- that one hit my skull and slid right off! However, my "issue" with you has nothing to do with your bra or what's in it -- it's about your call sign. But I don't expect you to "get" that, either. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: But, but, but!!!! Larry's obviously got or had large boobs, and has obviously worn a bra. Right?! He *has* hasn't he? Surely, for if not he would not be making value judgements on my callsign. Kim W5TIT Kim: One doesn't need to be endowed with large breasts or wear the requisite bra in order to be aware of what constitutes mature, intelligent, and dignified behaviour. That is, of course, unless you believe that Riley Hollingsworth is a cross-dresser! After all, you cannot disparage my opinion of your call sign without showing him the exact same level of disrespect. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes: It took a while, but I have grown accustomed to your callsign, Kim. And it wasn't necessary for me to wear a bra to do it. ;-) Arnie - KT4ST Arnie: I'm fully accustomed to Kim's call sign as well. It's well suited to her childish, self-centered, attention-grabbing personality. Moreover, I've come so accustomed to it that I've given up on the notion that she'll ever show some growth and maturity and change it for something more appropriate, dignified, and respectful of her fellow YL's. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com