| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
May 17th 04, 12:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William) Date: 5/16/2004 8:49 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (N2EY) wrote in message .com... In article , (William) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message .com... (William) wrote in message . com... When I pointed out that Morse Code exams have always been a disincentive to amateur radio, he clammed up and won't respond. I don't respond to most of your posts because they're not worth my time to read. You could have responded immediately to my direct post to your statement about the CW exam being a disincentive. You could have quoted me accurately, but you didn't. Then you could have corrected it a long, long time ago. He has. On several occassions. You and Lennie have simple tried to "dismiss" him with your "TAKARJ" drivvel. I'm not Steve. Despite your calling me names and characterizing me as his "pea-pod brother", I'm not him. Not even close. So you really do read all of my posts, or at least make an effort. Or he read mine wherein a quote of your comment was made. And I might point out that having read this one thing does NOT make his reading of your posts "all-inclusive". Fact is, many WW1 and WW2-era radio operators were also amateurs. Many were recruited specifically because they *were* radio amateurs. This is well documented fact. Silencing of the transmitters is also a well documented fact. Sealing of the receivers was too. Your point? btw - ever hear of WERS? Is this the reciprocol of Steve's Law, where "Sorry Hans, Amateur Radio IS MARS." You don't know what WERS was, then. The article didn't say anything about -amateur- transmissions being allowed. There were also community civil defense type radio transmissions authorized, and amateurs were often the operators of such community stations, but not in an amateur capacity. No...just as supervisors, watch standers, traffic handlers, technicians and engineers. That's all. Then be succinct, and do clear up any misunderstandings right away. Why? You don't do that. Time is money? In your case I'd say because the truth is embarrassing. Steve, K4YZ |
|
#3
May 18th 04, 12:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP? From: (William) Date: 5/16/2004 8:49 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (N2EY) wrote in message .com... In article , (William) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message .com... (William) wrote in message . com... When I pointed out that Morse Code exams have always been a disincentive to amateur radio, he clammed up and won't respond. I don't respond to most of your posts because they're not worth my time to read. You could have responded immediately to my direct post to your statement about the CW exam being a disincentive. You could have quoted me accurately, but you didn't. Then you could have corrected it a long, long time ago. He has. On several occassions. No, he hasn't. He did not respond at all. That's why I said, "Then you could have corrected it a long, long time ago." You and Lennie have simple tried to "dismiss" him with your "TAKARJ" drivvel. You're such a "Brain." I'm not Steve. Despite your calling me names and characterizing me as his "pea-pod brother", I'm not him. Not even close. So you really do read all of my posts, or at least make an effort. Or he read mine wherein a quote of your comment was made. Or he read my posts. And I might point out that having read this one thing does NOT make his reading of your posts "all-inclusive". Do you pretend to know what Jim reads? Fact is, many WW1 and WW2-era radio operators were also amateurs. Many were recruited specifically because they *were* radio amateurs. This is well documented fact. Silencing of the transmitters is also a well documented fact. Sealing of the receivers was too. Your point? "Oh Lord it's hard to be Ham-ble, when you're radio-less in every way..." btw - ever hear of WERS? Is this the reciprocol of Steve's Law, where "Sorry Hans, Amateur Radio IS MARS." You don't know what WERS was, then. The article didn't say anything about -amateur- transmissions being allowed. There were also community civil defense type radio transmissions authorized, and amateurs were often the operators of such community stations, but not in an amateur capacity. No...just as supervisors, watch standers, traffic handlers, technicians and engineers. But NOT as hams. Get it? That's all. Please. Then be succinct, and do clear up any misunderstandings right away. Why? You don't do that. Time is money? In your case I'd say because the truth is embarrassing. The truth is, I taught you and Dave a thing or two. But the information is completely wasted on you because you'll never deploy to a foreign country without a government. You're merely a has-been ex-marine trying to fit into a CAP (Air Force-like) uniform. Suck it up, Steve. People will think you're the bus driver in "The Honeymooners." bb |
|
#4
May 17th 04, 05:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(William) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message . com... In article , (William) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message .com... (William) wrote in message . com... Nope, like your pea-pod brother TAFKA Jim/N2EY saying, and I'm paraphrasing, " ~Morse Code exams are a disincentive to CW use.~ " Brian, You're not paraphrasing what I wrote. You're misquoting me. ----------------------------------------------------------------- From: N2EY ) Subject: My Idea For A New License Structure View: Complete Thread (48 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy Date: 2004-01-31 07:50:35 PST In article , (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: For implementation sometime AFTER the "code issue" is resolved: For some folks, it will only be resolved when there is no code testing at all. (1) Amateur Basic. Forty question test with access to 144mHz, 50Mhz, 28mHz, 21mHz, 18mHz, 7mHz and 1.8mHz. Why no 80, 30, 20, or 12 meters? Why not allow 222 in hopes of increasing use of the band? Same phone allocations as other licensees on HF bands. You mean same as Extras have now? Morse Code endorsement required for opera- tion in lower 100kHz of any band. Bad idea. Acts as a disincentive to use CW and digital modes, and as an incentive to use voice only! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jim, I paraphrased your statment. No, you didn't. You isquoted it, in such a way that the meaning was changed. You stated, and the idea was, if the CW exam is dropped for voice, and if retained for CW use, it would act as a disincentive for CW to be used in the lower 100 KHz of any band. That's correct. *IF* such changes were made *in the future*, the test *would act* as a disincentive. Which is quite a different thing from what you wrote: " ~Morse Code exams are a disincentive to CW use.~ " *are* is present tense. *Would be* is future conditional tense. Your misquote changes the meaning. So it's neither a quote nor a paraphrase. Is that correct? See above. Now you can argue the details all you want but the fact remains your misquote does not have the same meaning. So a Morse Exam can only be a disincentive if it's in the future, It can only be a disincentive to Morse Code *use* if it is required for Morse Code use but not for other mode use. That's what I wrote. Not: " ~Morse Code exams are a disincentive to CW use.~ " which is what *you* wrote, and incorrectly said was a paraphrase of what I wrote. even though many, many, many amateurs How many? have posted here that it has been a disincentive in the past, and is currently a disincentive. So what? They're entitled to their opinion, just as I am. Or do you think that I am not entitled to express an opinion here? And only you can say what is a disincentive in the amateur world, and all other opinions are wrong? Not at all. Just don't attribute an opinion to me that isn't what I wrote. When I pointed out that Morse Code exams have always been a disincentive to amateur radio, he clammed up and won't respond. I don't respond to most of your posts because they're not worth my time to read. You could have responded immediately to my direct post to your statement about the CW exam being a disincentive. You could have quoted me accurately, but you didn't. Then you could have corrected it a long, long time ago. Your mistakes are not my responsibility. I just don't have the time to read all the back-and-forth between you and Steve. Nor does Steve, but he makes an effort. I'm not Steve. Despite your calling me names and characterizing me as his "pea-pod brother", I'm not him. Not even close. So you really do read all of my posts, or at least make an effort. Not at all. I came across this one by chance and am responding. Or when he held up some OT amateurs who saved the day in WWII, but I pointed out that we had no operating priveleges in WWII. Another misquote. I didn't quote nor did I paraphrase. That's true! You misquoted. It would have to be presented as a quote to do that. You're still mistaken about it. I posted a historic item about the use of Morse Code by our military in WW2. Some of the operators were hams. No claim was made that they were operating amateur radio stations. But some folks get all riled up over *anything* positive being posted about Morse Code, even if it happened over 60 years ago. I don't have a problem with historical fact or even Morse Code use today. Then why did you misquote me? Why all the fuss about the historical item I posted? I do have a problem with inaccurately holding up soldiers as amateurs. Where was that done? Fact is, many WW1 and WW2-era radio operators were also amateurs. Many were recruited specifically because they *were* radio amateurs. This is well documented fact. Silencing of the transmitters is also a well documented fact. Irrelevant to the post about WAR. And the flavor of the post was about contributions that amateur radio makes, was it not? Look it up. You obviously have more time for newsgrouping than I. I think we put out about equal time, You're mistaken. Again. despite your claim that you don't read my posts. I don't read most of them. Would you prefer that I read none of them? OK, Done. PLONK |
|
#5
May 17th 04, 05:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"N2EY" wrote in message
om... (William) wrote in message . com... even though many, many, many amateurs How many? have posted here that it has been a disincentive in the past, and is currently a disincentive. I get an entirely different feel OTA, where it counts. I've had the pleasure of meeting quite a few (Dare I say, many.) fellow newbies OTA and lemme tell ya, R.R.A.P ain't exactly the most accurate measure of how the amateur radio community feels re. the issue. OK, Done. PLONK 'Bout damn time! 73 de Bert WA2SI |
|
#6
May 18th 04, 12:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(William) wrote in message . com... (N2EY) wrote in message . com... In article , (William) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message .com... (William) wrote in message . com... Nope, like your pea-pod brother TAFKA Jim/N2EY saying, and I'm paraphrasing, " ~Morse Code exams are a disincentive to CW use.~ " Brian, You're not paraphrasing what I wrote. You're misquoting me. ----------------------------------------------------------------- From: N2EY ) Subject: My Idea For A New License Structure View: Complete Thread (48 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy Date: 2004-01-31 07:50:35 PST In article , (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: For implementation sometime AFTER the "code issue" is resolved: For some folks, it will only be resolved when there is no code testing at all. (1) Amateur Basic. Forty question test with access to 144mHz, 50Mhz, 28mHz, 21mHz, 18mHz, 7mHz and 1.8mHz. Why no 80, 30, 20, or 12 meters? Why not allow 222 in hopes of increasing use of the band? Same phone allocations as other licensees on HF bands. You mean same as Extras have now? Morse Code endorsement required for opera- tion in lower 100kHz of any band. Bad idea. Acts as a disincentive to use CW and digital modes, and as an incentive to use voice only! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jim, I paraphrased your statment. No, you didn't. You isquoted it, in such a way that the meaning was changed. You stated, and the idea was, if the CW exam is dropped for voice, and if retained for CW use, it would act as a disincentive for CW to be used in the lower 100 KHz of any band. That's correct. *IF* such changes were made *in the future*, the test *would act* as a disincentive. Which is quite a different thing from what you wrote: " ~Morse Code exams are a disincentive to CW use.~ " *are* is present tense. *Would be* is future conditional tense. Your misquote changes the meaning. So it's neither a quote nor a paraphrase. Is that correct? See above. Now you can argue the details all you want but the fact remains your misquote does not have the same meaning. So a Morse Exam can only be a disincentive if it's in the future, It can only be a disincentive to Morse Code *use* if it is required for Morse Code use but not for other mode use. Can a Morse Code Exam be a disincentive for other modes? That's what I wrote. Not: " ~Morse Code exams are a disincentive to CW use.~ " which is what *you* wrote, and incorrectly said was a paraphrase of what I wrote. But in the proposal quoted above, the Morse Code Exam is not a disincentive for other modes. If there were EVER a reason to have a Morse Code Exam, it would be to ensure that a person operating (using) CW knew how to do so. The above proposal does EXACTLY that. But you say it's a disincentive. I say that's too bad. even though many, many, many amateurs How many? Don't know, I haven't kept count. have posted here that it has been a disincentive in the past, and is currently a disincentive. So what? They're entitled to their opinion, just as I am. Or do you think that I am not entitled to express an opinion here? You have before, and I saw no one stopping you. And only you can say what is a disincentive in the amateur world, and all other opinions are wrong? Not at all. Just don't attribute an opinion to me that isn't what I wrote. So the Morse Code Exam has never been a disincentive to any mode, including CW, ever in the history of the amateur radio service? This is fascinating. I've known several NO CODE Technicians that learned Morse Code and operated CW on 2M without having ever taken a Morse Code Exam at the time. Your position has always been that it's imperative for all amateurs pass a Morse Code Exam prior to having CW privs. Except when they don't have to pass a Morse Code Exam for other priveleges. In that case, the Morse Code Exam is a disincentive to CW use!!! Holy Cow!!! When I pointed out that Morse Code exams have always been a disincentive to amateur radio, he clammed up and won't respond. I don't respond to most of your posts because they're not worth my time to read. You could have responded immediately to my direct post to your statement about the CW exam being a disincentive. You could have quoted me accurately, but you didn't. Then you could have corrected it a long, long time ago. Your mistakes are not my responsibility. I think I nailed it. I just don't have the time to read all the back-and-forth between you and Steve. Nor does Steve, but he makes an effort. I'm not Steve. Despite your calling me names and characterizing me as his "pea-pod brother", I'm not him. Not even close. So you really do read all of my posts, or at least make an effort. Not at all. So you just happened upon two (2) of my posts out of many hundreds over the past several month. What are the odds? You are one (1) lucky guy. I came across this one by chance and am responding. Or when he held up some OT amateurs who saved the day in WWII, but I pointed out that we had no operating priveleges in WWII. Another misquote. I didn't quote nor did I paraphrase. That's true! You misquoted. It would have to be presented as a quote to do that. You're still mistaken about it. Citation, please. I posted a historic item about the use of Morse Code by our military in WW2. Some of the operators were hams. No claim was made that they were operating amateur radio stations. But some folks get all riled up over *anything* positive being posted about Morse Code, even if it happened over 60 years ago. I don't have a problem with historical fact or even Morse Code use today. Then why did you misquote me? Why all the fuss about the historical item I posted? I do have a problem with inaccurately holding up soldiers as amateurs. Where was that done? Fact is, many WW1 and WW2-era radio operators were also amateurs. Many were recruited specifically because they *were* radio amateurs. This is well documented fact. Silencing of the transmitters is also a well documented fact. Irrelevant to the post about WAR. Relevant. Whatever they were doing, it was NOT amateur radio. And the flavor of the post was about contributions that amateur radio makes, was it not? Look it up. You obviously have more time for newsgrouping than I. I think we put out about equal time, You're mistaken. Again. Of course. I think I nailed it. Again. despite your claim that you don't read my posts. I don't read most of them. Yet you manage to zing right into the doozies, somehow. You are one (1) lucky guy. Would you prefer that I read none of them? If you're going to be snippy about it, yes. OK, Done. See? You didn't even wait for an answer. PLONK You've made a series of astounding and rediculous statements over the past couple of months. If I weren't here to point them out, who would? The PCTA lock-step marches on. Best of Luck. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| light bulbs in rrap | Policy | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1360– September 5 2003 | Dx | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1360– September 5 2003 | Dx | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1360– September 5 2003 | Dx | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1360– September 5 2003 | Dx | |||
Hybrid Mode
