In article , "Bert Craig"
writes:

Jim, Jim, Jim...

Message click
Block Sender click
Yes click

A dose of 'Troll-Be-Gone' works almost every time.

Bert, Bert, Bert...it works the other way, too! :-)

In article , PAMNO
(Rev. Jim of the amateur moral majority crusade) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(Rev. Jim puts on his Evangelistic robes for
a hellfire-and-brimstone Sermon On The Antenna Mount which is
really a nasty old Troll for his series of shouting and hollering in the
disguise of a "polite" reply) writes:

"You can't have "meaningful exchanges" when you soil the
communications environment with personal attacks of any kind
on those who do not agree with you."

Neither can one do that by:

1. Constantly bringing up years-old exchanges from archives
and trying to win one for your gypper.

2. Using cute lil Yiddish cuss words (mild), especially when
the user doesn't know whatinheck it means.

3. Trying to be a Fundamentalist Believer in telegraphy mode
long after other radio services have given it up as any sort of
"necessary" skill in this new millennium.

4. Acting the shocked (perhaps outraged) moralist by chiding
others of impropriety in giving return fire to those who are
overtly sniping at certain individuals. Hypocrisy is clearly
seen by all readers.



Why didn't you answer the question, Len?

I do. You don't like the answers! Awww...poor baby!


Got your ego all in a dither because you aren't the
"renowned historian" and truthsayer in all things amateur?

Nope. That's not me at all. It does, however, describe the behavior of certain
other people who post here.

Such as Rev. Jim who seems to be stuck in past events
and can't go with the reality of now.

Well, heck yes and gosh darn, Rev. Jim are all upset again.

Who is "Rev. Jim"? The only one I know is a character on the classic comedy
series "Taxi".

That character was also fictional. :-)


This could be the start of REAL truthtelling in reply which would last
(probably) months and result in long, long, "refutations" that Rev. Jim
never ever tells any untruth and speaks with the voice of the gods.

"You can't have "meaningful exchanges" when you soil the
communications environment with personal attacks of any kind
on those who do not agree with you."

Poor baby, you tried that schtick in here before and that one didn't
work well, either, did it? :-)


In those Reply Comments, you proposed a minumum age requirement of 14 years
for
any class of US amateur license, even sthough such a requirement has never
existed in the USA. You gave no evidence of how the lack of such a requirement
has had a negative effect on amateur radio or any other radio service, yet you
wanted such a requirement (which would not affect you, of course) created.

See? The date of acceptance of that Comment on docket 98-143
is on public view as 13 January 1999.

That's over FIVE YEARS AGO. It's been argued and bitched about by
olde-tyme hammes in here at least twice after that. Now Rev. Jim
keeps on regurgitating it...he should see a doctor about not being able
to keep opinions of others down...vomitus hate-opinion-itis is a serious
thing that may indicate a more serious malady.

R&O 99-412 rather ended any further discussion on docket 98-143 but
lots and lots of hum radio guys had to keep on commenting and
commenting and commenting and commenting and...yawn


Here's a few simple, direct questions, Len. In fact, I'll direct them to the
entire group:

Tsk, tsk, tsk...you are Feenix risen from your own ash, Rev. Jim.

[if you don't know "Hashafisti Scratchi" then the above doesn't
make any humor...:-) ]

The NO-AGE non-issue is just that. No age thing on licensing for
hum radio licensees. Period. End. Full stop.

It's fairly obvious that chronologically-long-in-the-tooth radio hums
can get terribly immature and childish about their divine, sacred
olde-tyme hamme raddio traditions being scoffed. Tsk, tsk, tsk.


Rev. Jim got his BP up over 200/100 again on manual telegraphy.

Who? You cannot be referring to me, because I find Morse Code radiotelegraphy
to be a relaxing experience.

"Opiate of the masses" for the fundamentalist telegraphic evangelist.

Yawn.


In the first days of ALL radio, the ONLY way to use it for any sort
of communication was by on-off keying telegraphy. That first demo
of radio was in 1896, in Italy and in Russia. The telegraphy codes
used were the "morse code" (presumably with some local country
variants for some characters, unknown to exact details). The first
Morse-Vail Telegraph (commercial) service was in 1844 or 52 years
before the first radio-as-communications medium demonstration.

There's no question that "morse code" has historical significance.
It does. But, the first radio demo was 108 years ago...roughly five
generations in the past.

That's all true.

That CANNOT be! I posted it. Therefore (in Rev. Jim fanstasy) it must
be IN ERROR! INCORRECT! Full of flaws! :-)

And what's also true is that the person referred to in the preceding post
denies and distorts the role Morse Code radiotelegraphy has played since those
early days. Such as its role in World War 2 radio communications. Or its role
in maritime communications well into the 1990s. Or its widespread use by
radio amateurs.

Good news: Plenty of space on the Mall in DC for a great big
MONUMENT TO TELEGRAPHY! Start an organization to lobby
for its erection. Sounds like your sort of thing...!

Hello? World War 2 ended FIFTY-NINE YEARS AGO.

Rev. Jim took no part in WW2 nor in any of the military conflicts that
followed in all those 59 years.

Try to keep up with current events or reality might shock you.

[by the way, what has WW2 telegraphy to do with NATO
phonetic alphabets?!?!? try to stay focussed...]


You don't have to "respect" anyone. But someone who can discuss in a civil
manner - without name calling or ad-hominem insults - earns the respect of
almost everyone, including those who disagree.

Ooooo...Rev. Jim done beat hisself to a pulpit.

Sermon on the Antenna Mount! And it's only Wednesday! :-)

For example, I have great respect for K2UNK, Bill Sohl, even though we
disagree
on almost all amateur radio policy matters. I cannot recall a single instance
where Bill made fun of anoter's age, work, gender, license class, education,
name, ethnicity, and/or military service.

That's "civil debate".

I'd call the above MISDIRECTION. :-)

Bill can wade in as he wants...or doesn't want. Bill's option, not
yours.

This thread is about PHONETIC ALPHABETS. Or is it? :-)

"Able, baker, charlie..." phonetic alphabet was used by the U.S.
military prior to 1955. In 1955, the entire U.S. military adopted
the NATO Phonetic Alphabet ("alpha, bravo..."). That's factual.

Not only factual, I was in the U.S. Army at the time (1955), read
the AR, memorized the new phonetic alphabet and used it. Also
factual.

Gosh and golly, Rev. Jim, had I your gift of prescience, I would
have kept the mimeographed pages intact from 49 years ago,
had them in a safety deposit box vault for safekeeping to show
those of today! :-)

[no xerocopy machines back then, no job-printing run-offs for
most military documents, just mimeographed on rather easily
oxidizeable paper]


"You can't have "meaningful exchanges" when you soil the
communications environment with personal attacks of any kind
on those who do not agree with you."

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Rev. Jim, speak softly and quit trying to use
your Big Schtick.

Look out or someone will beat you to a pulpit. :-)

[which has happened many times in here but those on
anaesthetic can't feel it... :-) ]

"You can't have 'meaningful exchanges' with Rev. Jim unless
you cherish, love, honor, and obey the Belief in manual
telegraphy and the radio times of before the Rev. existed."

Beep, beep...

LHA / WMD




There's a very wise bit of advice that says a person should treat others as
they wish to be treated.

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

N2EY wrote:

There's nothing to respect or admire able about being able to tear down,
insult, and destroy - or attempt to.

Here's a classic for ya - I call it "the sphincter post":

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...001001%40nso-f
p.aol.com&output=gplain

I hear tell that those air raids on Tokyo in the fifties were exercises
in sheer terror.

I dunno, I've never been to Tokyo. Not even for 30 seconds.

Troll, troll, troll your boat...madly down the steam (puffing away
prodigiously).

Remember the exchanges about how far it is from air bases in North Korea and
Vladivostok to Tokyo, Bear bombers and such? Someone was very unhappy when it
was pointed out that the distance is well over 650 miles, not "about 500
miles". And that the statement "about an hour in a Bear bomber" meant little
because that aircraft did not enter service until the late 1950s.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Rev. Jim pulled out his Military Google-isms of the past
and tried to make an amphibious bridge over his troubled waters. [he
was all wet]

Pointing out the fact that any American *under* a certain age grew up with the
knowledge that hostile ICBMs could reach us in a matter of minutes sets off a
predictable response, too.

Not in the mid- to late-1950s, senior. :-)

Rev. Jim IS predictable. Lives in the PAST. He MUST keep on
fighting the good fight over ancient postings, again and again and
again and again and...yawn

That sequence (in "34 Years Ago Today") was a classic. ;-)

I have to admit to being a little puzzled by what
appears to be a reference to the writer's multiple sphincters (in the
next to last paragraph).

Perhaps multiple ones are needed in order to handle his prodigious output ;-)

Perhaps Rev. Jim ought to change religious orders away from
the hypocratic hellfire-and-brimstone telegraphy cult. That way
he would not be so mortally wounded again...and again and
again and again and...yawn

Some of these postings "just write themselves." :-)

LHA / WMD

"Alun" wrote in message
...

I suppose I ought to submit some questions on phonetics for the question
pools. I wonder if I could succeed in getting it tested? I beleive it
should be tested. Even the most diehard CW ops seem to use 2m FM, and
there
are occasions where phonetics can be useful there too.

Actually there are questions on the test. Theoretically, the prospective
ham is supposed to learn the phonetic alphabet. However, there's only one
or two questions on the test pertaining to the phonetic alphabet. So if the
student just memorizes the answers to the questions, he won't have a strong
grasp of it. There's often a question about why it is used but some of this
info doesn't stick with the person past the test itself.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Mike Coslo wrote:



In fact, the whole phonetic debate is a little funny, since
despite the kvetching, an experienced operator can pick out the
different phonetics without getting his/her knickers in a twist.



For some reason, my call "Whiskey Alpha Two India Sierra Echo" comes back
"Whiskey Alpha Two India Sierra Tango" fairly often. Seems people hear the
ends of the words better than the beginnings. "Echo" and Tango" rhyme
somewhat,
which I thought the phonetic alphabet was to avoid. What's the most common
alternate for "Echo" used on HF?

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
Mike Coslo wrote:



In fact, the whole phonetic debate is a little funny, since
despite the kvetching, an experienced operator can pick out the
different phonetics without getting his/her knickers in a twist.



For some reason, my call "Whiskey Alpha Two India Sierra Echo" comes back
"Whiskey Alpha Two India Sierra Tango" fairly often. Seems people hear
the
ends of the words better than the beginnings. "Echo" and Tango" rhyme
somewhat,
which I thought the phonetic alphabet was to avoid. What's the most
common
alternate for "Echo" used on HF?

Edward.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

After you've lived and experienced a few eras in anything, you'll
find lots and lots of "experts" in that anything, who either "know
all about (from reading a book or seeing a movie)" or are some-
how so gifted in their relative youth that they are divine
messengers sent to enlighten all the hoi polloi and the koi.
:-)

Gee, Len, that's interesting....

You mean like someone who's never held any class of amateur license, nor
been involved in radio regulation in any way, yet loudly and repeatedly
proclaims what changes should be made to the amateur radio regulations?

Or someone who has never been directly invoved in the raising of children,
yet proclaims what they can and cannot do at various ages - even to the
point
of not allowing them to be amateur radio operators before a certain age?

Or someone who has never really learned or used Morse Code, yet loudly and
repeatedly denies its usefulness - even to the point of denying its
historical importance?

Or someone who claims a desire for "civil discussion", yet will not carry
on a civil discussion with someone of differing opinions, and instead
refers to
the other parties by ad-hominem insults to their age, work, gender,
license
class, education, name, ethnicity, and military service?

You forgot to add:

"Someone that has a main purpose here of antagonizing people into
e-battles as a master troll." And in this case, his lack of experience
in certain areas only serves as more bait.

Well, if the shoe fits...

Sorry for replies to some older posts. I've been through two weeks of
hell at work, and didn't get to respond to everything. Now I'm taking a
well deserved day off and can get back to it.

Good to have you back, Mike

Yes, the shoe does fit.

Well, there you have it.

I for one, am impressed by just how GOOD Mr. Anderson is at this!

I'm not.

There are all sorts of reasons to be involved in a newsgroup. Some of
us like to post to exchange knowledge, some to debate, and others to
have an adventure - using other posters as pro or antagonists in a sort
of text based adventure game.

Lots of other reasons, too. One can only speculate on Mr. Anderson's reasons.
;-)

With the different personalities involved, the games can get pretty
interesting and funny, or sometimes they can become boring and
repetitive. The MARS is Ham radio stuff is a good example of the latter.

No it isn't.*

If a poster is the type that is trying to antagonize others - that is
to say one that is using the group in the text adventure mode - he or
she does not want to get people so angry that they don't respond. That
would be losing the game. This player will want to be antagonistic of
course, but will want to allow other posters to stay just this side of
filtering or ignoring him or her.

In some cases, yes.

Some here filter Len, but enough do not that he finds a steady stream
of willing participants in his game.

Perhaps.

Face it, he is good at it.

Not really. I have seen many other posters get the better of Mr. Anderson. It's
not hard to do at all.

All I've done is present a differing opinion than his, and point out some of
his mistakes. His responses have been - predictable.

It's fascinating how a few words of a different opinion can cause Mr. Anderson
to produce volumes of verbiage. And how a calm, polite correction of even one
of his errors brings such a torrent of anger and abuse.

It may not be what you are in here for, but
he succeeds in his game.

Sometimes.

Note this does not apply to the strange fringe postings that appear to
be personal battles, such as the one that Dave seems involved in with
some hams in his locale. That is just really wierd stuff.

Just different versions of the same game. And the "game" sometimes extends
beyond the newsgroup. For example, some time back I and some others received
several unsolicited emails from Mr. Anderson, with attachments that were
allegedly pictures. I deleted them unopened, as is standard procedure for
unsolicited attachments. I found out later they were supposedly a picture of
his commercial radiotelephone license and a picture that included adult male
nudity. Of course this is second hand information because I simply deleted the
emails, but you have to kinda wonder why such Mr. Anderson would send me such
things.

You
(or anyone here) know what will happen when you rise to the bait, you
know pretty much what the resulting exchange will be, and yet it is
irresistable.

Naw, it's totally resistible. And predictable.

And yet you are now involved once more!

Only by choice.

Whereas most antagonists eventually find no one to write to in a news
group, Len has managed to generate enough interest to make himself and
those who would spar with him into some of the leading posters.

Nothing new there, Mike.

This is no small accomplishment. I for one have to respect that.

I don't.


You don't have to, that much is true.

Well, there you have it.

73 de Jim, N2EY

* pop culture reference to "The Argument Clinic" - classic Monty Python sketch

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

There are all sorts of reasons to be involved in a newsgroup. Some of
us like to post to exchange knowledge, some to debate, and others to
have an adventure - using other posters as pro or antagonists in a sort
of text based adventure game.

Lots of other reasons, too. One can only speculate on Mr. Anderson's reasons.
;-)

Speculate away, Rev. Jim, in the most "civil" negative connotations
your lil imagination thunk up...:-)

Speculate until all you see are speckles...

Of course we can all speculate on Mr. Miccolis' reasons (to sound off
like some latter-day "T.O.M.") when that ARRL president-for-life
ceased mortal existance long before Rev. Jim got is first Good Book
(ARRL Handbook, that is).

With the different personalities involved, the games can get pretty
interesting and funny, or sometimes they can become boring and
repetitive. The MARS is Ham radio stuff is a good example of the latter.

No it isn't.*

If you are trying to be "with-it" (of two decades plus ago), try to
remember that everyone is NOT a Monty Python fan... :-)


Face it, he is good at it.

Not really. I have seen many other posters get the better of Mr. Anderson.
It's not hard to do at all.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...your Python was gored and you think everyone else's
was, too? :-)

All I've done is present a differing opinion than his, and point out some of
his mistakes. His responses have been - predictable.

BS, Rev. Jim. You've got a bad habit of trying to convince others
that you "know" things you can't verify. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

It's fascinating how a few words of a different opinion can cause Mr. Anderson
to produce volumes of verbiage. And how a calm, polite correction of even one
of his errors brings such a torrent of anger and abuse.

"Torrent of anger and abuse?!?!?" :-)

Poor baby. Wanting to be the hall monitor in here, ey?

Jimmah, da Google is NOT your friend in this case. :-)

It may not be what you are in here for, but
he succeeds in his game.

Sometimes.

More times than not. I'm still here... :-)

Note this does not apply to the strange fringe postings that appear to
be personal battles, such as the one that Dave seems involved in with
some hams in his locale. That is just really wierd stuff.

Just different versions of the same game. And the "game" sometimes extends
beyond the newsgroup. For example, some time back I and some others received
several unsolicited emails from Mr. Anderson, with attachments that were
allegedly pictures. I deleted them unopened, as is standard procedure for
unsolicited attachments. I found out later they were supposedly a picture of
his commercial radiotelephone license and a picture that included adult male
nudity. Of course this is second hand information because I simply deleted the
emails, but you have to kinda wonder why such Mr. Anderson would send me such
things.

Oh, dear. Isn't the nasty old Reverend getting out of hand with his
preachy moralizing? :-)

"Male nudity!" :-)

By accident, a JPG of an aerial photo of a converted B-26 with one of
the crew mooning the photo plane in the nose is considered "male
nudity!!!"

Several of the folks who are in here thought it was FUNNY.

But, the rigid moral majority, more self-righteous than mental
viagra overdosing, say it is "male nudity!!!" Good grief.
Grow up. Get a new fig leaf to cover your anguish...

If you had bothered to Google (your constant source of diss-material)
you would have found out the sequence of events was totally in public
in this venue.

By the way, I DID send the correct attachment which was, indeed, a
scan of my FIRST First Class Radiotelephone (Commercial) license.
I've had several of those licenses, all the way to the change-over to
the General Radiotelephone Operator license class.

You
(or anyone here) know what will happen when you rise to the bait, you
know pretty much what the resulting exchange will be, and yet it is
irresistable.

Naw, it's totally resistible. And predictable.

And yet you are now involved once more!

Only by choice.

Yes, "Mr. Miccolis" wants to keep on beating dead horses until they
die all over again to prove his point that He was "correct," and all
must accept that lest they get caught in an endless loop of Rev. Jim
preaching his self-righteousness. "Mr. Miccolis" can do no wrong,
ever, and he is compelled to repeat old arguments forever and ever
to demonstrate that.

"Mr. Miccolis" will try to repeat many ancient arguments, discussions,
et al, long after they quit being topics. Why? Apparently "Mr. Miccolis"
can't let sleeping dogs lie nor can he let beaten horses die, either.

It's sort of like watching re-runs of "Wheel of Fortune" (or any other quiz
show on TV) and hoping a guest will come up with a different answer! :-)

Tsk, tsk, tsk...such sore losers! :-)

LHA / WMD

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:



N2EY wrote:


In article ,



(Len Over 21) writes:


After you've lived and experienced a few eras in anything, you'll
find lots and lots of "experts" in that anything, who either "know
all about (from reading a book or seeing a movie)" or are some-
how so gifted in their relative youth that they are divine
messengers sent to enlighten all the hoi polloi and the koi.
:-)


Gee, Len, that's interesting....


You mean like someone who's never held any class of amateur license, nor
been involved in radio regulation in any way, yet loudly and repeatedly
proclaims what changes should be made to the amateur radio regulations?


Or someone who has never been directly invoved in the raising of children,
yet proclaims what they can and cannot do at various ages - even to the

point

of not allowing them to be amateur radio operators before a certain age?

Or someone who has never really learned or used Morse Code, yet loudly and
repeatedly denies its usefulness - even to the point of denying its
historical importance?

Or someone who claims a desire for "civil discussion", yet will not carry
on a civil discussion with someone of differing opinions, and instead

refers to

the other parties by ad-hominem insults to their age, work, gender,

license

class, education, name, ethnicity, and military service?

You forgot to add:

"Someone that has a main purpose here of antagonizing people into
e-battles as a master troll." And in this case, his lack of experience
in certain areas only serves as more bait.


Well, if the shoe fits...

Sorry for replies to some older posts. I've been through two weeks of
hell at work, and didn't get to respond to everything. Now I'm taking a
well deserved day off and can get back to it.


Good to have you back, Mike

Yes, the shoe does fit.


Well, there you have it.


I for one, am impressed by just how GOOD Mr. Anderson is at this!

I'm not.

There are all sorts of reasons to be involved in a newsgroup. Some of
us like to post to exchange knowledge, some to debate, and others to
have an adventure - using other posters as pro or antagonists in a sort
of text based adventure game.


Lots of other reasons, too. One can only speculate on Mr. Anderson's reasons.
;-)

With the different personalities involved, the games can get pretty
interesting and funny, or sometimes they can become boring and
repetitive. The MARS is Ham radio stuff is a good example of the latter.


No it isn't.*


Yow - the Mostly Steve Brian MARS argument has gotten to the point
where I can hardly hack it. YMMV!

That was a good skit, though!


If a poster is the type that is trying to antagonize others - that is
to say one that is using the group in the text adventure mode - he or
she does not want to get people so angry that they don't respond. That
would be losing the game. This player will want to be antagonistic of
course, but will want to allow other posters to stay just this side of
filtering or ignoring him or her.


In some cases, yes.

Some here filter Len, but enough do not that he finds a steady stream
of willing participants in his game.


Perhaps.

Face it, he is good at it.

Not really. I have seen many other posters get the better of Mr. Anderson. It's
not hard to do at all.

All I've done is present a differing opinion than his, and point out some of
his mistakes. His responses have been - predictable.

I must not be getting my point across here. This isn't about being
right. It's about the discourse. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's
wrong, and a lot of it is just neutral as in opinion.



It's fascinating how a few words of a different opinion can cause Mr. Anderson
to produce volumes of verbiage. And how a calm, polite correction of even one
of his errors brings such a torrent of anger and abuse.

Yes, I've had that happen.


It may not be what you are in here for, but
he succeeds in his game.


Sometimes.

Note this does not apply to the strange fringe postings that appear to
be personal battles, such as the one that Dave seems involved in with
some hams in his locale. That is just really wierd stuff.


Just different versions of the same game.

Oh, that other one is some pretty severe stuff. Between the perverse
accusations, the threats, the obscenities and the stuff that just might
end up as courtroom evidence, this stuff is tame by comparison.


And the "game" sometimes extends
beyond the newsgroup. For example, some time back I and some others received
several unsolicited emails from Mr. Anderson, with attachments that were
allegedly pictures. I deleted them unopened, as is standard procedure for
unsolicited attachments. I found out later they were supposedly a picture of
his commercial radiotelephone license and a picture that included adult male
nudity. Of course this is second hand information because I simply deleted the
emails, but you have to kinda wonder why such Mr. Anderson would send me such
things.

I've heard about that one.

You
(or anyone here) know what will happen when you rise to the bait, you
know pretty much what the resulting exchange will be, and yet it is
irresistable.


Naw, it's totally resistible. And predictable.

And yet you are now involved once more!


Only by choice.


Well, sure! Steve is involved by choice too!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Hello and good morning,
I am following this very interesting and funny thread since it was initiated
by ??? long ago.

"Bert Craig" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
| "Robert Casey" wrote in message
| ...
| Mike Coslo wrote:
|
|
|
| In fact, the whole phonetic debate is a little funny, since
| despite the kvetching, an experienced operator can pick out the
| different phonetics without getting his/her knickers in a twist.

Let me straighten out the whole phonetics discussion from the point of the
DX side:

1. Standart ITU Phonetics are testet everywhere outside most english
speaking countries, even in Great Britain as we where told by Alun. Thats
neccesary because they all have their alternative set of phonetics in native
language. If a US-ham now is useing a different set, there could be problems
of understanding, because the properly pronounced ITU phonetics might be the
ONLY english words, and the figures, the DX will be capable of.

2. As we are tested on the ITU-phonetics for ham-licence, in other instances
(law enforcement, emergency response, military) we are bound to homeland
phonetics. Despite that fact, hams are using the ITU-set even on VHF/UHF and
even they dont have a CEPT licence (only national) instead of the logical
native language one.

3. The use of alternative sets of phonetics, or even those funny
replacements as they are in use in the US, like
"W4ZLY " Whisky for Zebras Like Yoghurt - sometimes would make it hard to
accomplish a full QSO. BTW this is a real example.

|
|
|
| For some reason, my call "Whiskey Alpha Two India Sierra Echo" comes
back
| "Whiskey Alpha Two India Sierra Tango" fairly often. Seems people hear
| the
| ends of the words better than the beginnings. "Echo" and Tango" rhyme
| somewhat,
| which I thought the phonetic alphabet was to avoid. What's the most
| common
| alternate for "Echo" used on HF?
|
| Edward.
|

England
Equador
Easy

| --
| 73 de Bert
WA2SI
|


73 de
Ocean Easy Eight Sugar Ocean Queen
Kay Gee Six Eee aR Zed
Helmut