In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Indeed. You managed to cobble together a paragraph which doesn't
address my comments at all.

Tsk. One is REQUIRED to "address your comments," your
royalness? :-)

Not at all, your Foghorn Lenhorn-ness. You can type a paragraph about
regional variations in Swahili dialect in response to someone's input on
the possibilities for the introduction of errors in RTTY messages. It's
just that doing so will make you look rather simple-minded.

Tsk. Try to stay focussed. I wasn't "introducing Swahili dialect"
into anything. :-)

Can a morse radiotelegraph circuit introduce error or is it supposedly
free from error of any kind?

Answer that yes and you yourself are very simple-minded. Tsk.


Well, I certainly don't see things which aren't there. :-) :-)

Tsk. You are seeing things not there continually.

I made no remark about "introducing Swahili dialects." You did.


No, I haven't forgotten any of those things. My experience in such
things is much more recent than your own and it is therefore fresher in
my memory. All of those things introduce a time lag.

Tsk. Are you saying that TTY "introduces a time lag" now?

Are you also saying manual morse is instantaneous?

More tsk. You should be out educating all the rest of the
radio services on the supposed efficacy of morse code and
manual on-off carrier keying.

All the rest of those radio services that once used morse have
dropped it for communications purposes.

Then there are a number of radio services which never bothered
with any morse code when they began.

But, you will then "argue" that "this is amateur radio" as if it was
a haven, shrine, or religious temple for morse code and that all
amateurs MUST test for it...won't you? :-)


They surely do "affect" morse reception, but you were touting the
superiority of RTTY.

Incorrect. I was simply pointing out that morse code telegraphy
is the SLOWEST of all modes available to U.S. radio amateurs.

But, you cannot keep on the subject and must always attack
the persons of those who disagree with you. Tsk.


Those "home hobby ham stations" use RTTY too, Leonard.

You don't, do you? :-)

I'm quite
familiar with the use of FSK. It is still effected by noise and
multipath distortion.

...and on-off keyed carriers are NOT so affected? :-)

Of course they are. You are too simple-minded to admit to that.


So, if I've got this right, we save on paper but spend on equipment.
There's a dilemma. If my morse stuff is in memory on a keyer or PC, I
can resend it quickly and easily without resorting to any paper.

Tsk. "Spend on equipment?" What are you communicating with
on this newsgroup? Morse code into your telephone line? :-)

Tsk. So simple-minded you walked into that very visible trap
like a blind man trying to bluff.


The fact is that while FEC can be of some help, it is still subject to
errors. It isn't a robust system like packet or Sitor/Amtor.

...and, to you, of course, manual morse code is without error. :-)

Lacking a few received characters in morse? Why, just fill in the
blanks. Who will know? :-)


I don't have much in the way of negative criticism for non-morse
communication methods, Leonard. Fact is, I use most of 'em.

Of course you do...oh, yes, everything from facsimile to slow-
scan TV. :-)

Fact is,
on/off keying cuts it quite well in the communications world of now.

By whom? Third- and fourth-world nations who don't have any
capital monies to invest? :-)

Face the facts. The rest of the radio world does NOT use morse
code for communications.

That hasn't changed just because you aren't proficient in its use.

TRY to stay focussed on the subject instead of (once more)
launching into personalities.

TRY to understand that the rest of the radio communications
world does NOT use morse code for communications.

All you can do is to be very trying...


Despite the statement above, your diatribe doesn't read like someone who
supports use of morse code.

Tsk. You ARE seeing things that aren't there...


Did you confuse me with you there for a moment?

Never happen. I know me. I know you. You do NOT know me.

"Arrogant thundering" = any disagreement with your views.

You can't stay focussed on the subject. All you can do is act
the thunder mug on anything I post. :-)


Past tense?

I'm using the Internet to send these messages. Whether that uses
radio or other means is not an issue. Except by your misdirection
and seeing things that aren't there.


That's a load of manure, Leonard. That isn't the "only" at all. It is
any radio amateur who uses morse and supports continuation of morse
testing. I, for one, couldn't care less if you decide to "emulate" me
or not.

Irrelevant.

NO one cares to "emulate" you. :-)


What YOU write here isn't the case simply because YOU write it. Radio
amateurs worldwide are using morse code daily for real communications.
That you don't approve doesn't change that.

Again, irrelevant.

At issue is the morse code TEST, not whether or not "Dave" or his ilk
"use morse."

Note that USE has no real relation to the MORSE TEST.

Or do you spend all your amateur radio time "taking tests?" :-)


There isn't any "higher morse rate" testing.

Isn't that awful...hi hi.


You aren't even involved.

Tsk...with role models like the archtypical PCTA extra, who would
want to be "involved" in amateur radio? :-)

It would really take an arrogant bully to
expect radio amateurs to swallow your view of how amateur radio should
be regulated.

Tsk. I feel that the USA should have the FCC regulate amateur radio,
all according to the Communications Act of 1934 plus the Congressional
law of 1996.

Who do you feel should "regulate" U.S. amateur radio?

A bunch of arrogant bullies trying to make newcomers swallow their
bilge about doing as they had to do?

What do you know of the "fun" of amateur radio?

Tsk. What do you know of "fun" in ANYTHING? :-)

Well, there you have it--the opinion of one never involved in amateur
radio; one whom it would seem finds that five word per minute exam an
insurmountable obstacle to his entry into amateur radio.

Tsk. Still seeing things that aren't there.

Still tossing out personal pejoratives instead of discussing the subjects.

THAT is the "fun" that appears in this amateur radio newsgroup. :-)


So you believe that all that goes on in HF amateur radio is the use of
morse? You don't seem to have any idea of what goes on.

Tsk. You don't have any idea of how to discuss things civilly.


Petition your government for redress of your numerous grievances.

I have. :-)

You don't like that. TS for you. :-)


Different interests? What are your "interests" in amateur radio, Len?
What do YOU consider "vital" to ham radio enjoyment?

Freedom from the oppression of olde-tyme hammes insistent on
ruling over all others would be a good start... :-)

Oh, tsk. That would eliminate you, wouldn't it? Can't have that.

You have to stay here and effect ethnic cleansing of U.S. amateur
radio. All must think and act in the "officially approved" manner. :-)

Which has a strange similarity to your own interests, narrow as
those might be...


You have to be in if you:

1. want to partake in those things "vital to ham radio enjoyment".

This was NOT a discussion about "partaking" in anything.

Then, again, this isn't a discussion at all...just "Dave" trying to
push others around. Again.

2. want to be seen as credible.

Lets "Dave" out...he is INcredible. :-)

The FCC regulates U.S. civil radio.

You aren't the FCC.

NEITHER ARE YOU. :-)


I'd have thought you'd have picked up on this one by now. Those people
are paid to regulate amateur radio. They are PROFESSIONALS.

YOU are not a professional regulator...just an amateur one.

YOU may be admitted to A bar, but never a bar association.


That's be another incorrect response. I'm a participant.

You are a precipitate. The dried leftovers following evaporation.

Participants are more important than regulators.

Tell that to Congress. Have them change the Communications Act
of 1934. :-)

With no participants, there'd be nothing to regulate.

Keep at it with your warmth and charm in newsgroups and that will
be a foregone conclusion. :-)


You're an old thing and I'm not demanding to keep you.

Tsk. Again with the personal pejoratives. :-)

So...you are "young?" :-)


Are you going to STOP me?!? Oh, my. Tsk.

Why, no. You do that. Consider yourself stopped by inertia.

Tsk. You, repeat YOU, keep trying to stop me.

Your technique (word used instead of other nasty ones) does NOT
work!

Sunnuvagun!


It has been pointed out on numerous occasions that no one has prevented
you from spilling your guts.

Feel free to do your own seppuku. Nobody is stopping you... :-)

But you just can't force anyone to take
your stuff seriously.

You aren't "anyone." You are the arrogant bully of the newsgroup,
even better than the gunnery nurse. :-)

Wouldn't dream of trying to make YOU seriously "take" anything.

That's what you try to do to others. :-)


You attempt to push others around quite frequently.

Tsk. You gods of radio seem to think you are inviolate. Nobody is
supposed to say ANYTHING nasty to you dieties. :-)

It's tough being
arrogant about amateur radio when you aren't actually a licensed ham
though.

It's much much more arrogant when you ARE a licensed ham (either
FCC or FDA) and you keep on trying to push folks around, strip
citizens of their Rights such as the First Amendment. Tsk.

First Amendment. Refresh your memory with what it means.

It says that my right to free speech is equal to your own.

Tsk. It does NOT say your right is in any way stronger than mine.

Yet, throughout in here, that's what you keep on claiming.

It makes no
requirement for me to accept your views or to refrain from giving you
the raspberries.

YOU would NOT come even close to accepting a contrary idea
to what you hold... :-)


You misread. I wrote that you have no experience in *amateur* radio.

According to "Dave," one can't have ANY "interest in radio" without
getting an amateur radio license! :-)

Wasn't any qualifier to the word "radio" when "Dave" wrote it. :-)


Heh heh heh heh. I'm a long-time veteran of computer-modem
communications with a survivor's thick virtual skin. :-)

Virtual skin? Is that like those "message knuckles" you wrote about
some time back?

LIke I've seen lots of computer-modem bullies in the last 20 years.
Most of those are gone. I'm still here... :-)


Well, you seem to have it on points over those who tired of your
nonsense and left, and over those whose respiration stopped. I'm
betting that I can outlast you.

Anything is possible... :-)

You are a god of radio. One of the Four Morsemen of this
Apocalypse.


You probably lose some folks as soon as you start your "jump through the
same hoops" schpiel.

Poor baby. Still can't get used to what others say of the morse
test, can you? :-)

You aren't yet a newcomer and you'll not be able
to jump through my hoops. They no longer exist.

Incorrect.

But, it is impossible to get you to admit to an error.

You are a god of radio and therefore inviolate.


I'm sure that it seems that way to a guy with an obvious inferiority
complex; a guy who sees demands in ordinary statements; a guy who views
the comments of those who don't agree with him as "arrogant",
"bullying", "imperious".

Now, now, don't get upset...the mirror you are looking into when
writing that has YOUR reflection! :-)


Need matters not. You brayed about insistence that all must do as I
have done. Fact is, it can't be done. Tsk, tsk. Poor baby.

Sadness is. When "Dave" was made, the mould was broken...

[or was that "mold?" Sometimes its hard to tell the difference...]


Now, watch it come to pass.

Tsk. "Dave" keeps on with the personal pejoratives and gets all
flustered when they aren't received well.

If you threw passes properly then receivers might catch them.
Remember which way your goalposts are on the field...you keep
forgetting and that's not good. You should practice punting.
Your arm must be so sore from throwing all that stuff you throw....

Try to play with your Orion some more. Seriously, not trivially.
Can't have a god of radio use equipment trivially. :-)

If you go away from your radio toys into the newsgroup, then lots
of replies to you will "just write themselves!" :-)

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Indeed. You managed to cobble together a paragraph which doesn't
address my comments at all.

Tsk. One is REQUIRED to "address your comments," your
royalness? :-)

Not at all, your Foghorn Lenhorn-ness. You can type a paragraph about
regional variations in Swahili dialect in response to someone's input on
the possibilities for the introduction of errors in RTTY messages. It's
just that doing so will make you look rather simple-minded.

Tsk. Try to stay focussed. I wasn't "introducing Swahili dialect"
into anything. :-)

That's right, you introduced equally unrelated. Then again, you don't
have to address my comments ;-)

Can a morse radiotelegraph circuit introduce error or is it supposedly
free from error of any kind?

It isn't necessarily free of error, Len. Then again, I've not claimed
that it is.

Well, I certainly don't see things which aren't there. :-) :-)

Tsk. You are seeing things not there continually.

Which things are not there continually?

I made no remark about "introducing Swahili dialects." You did.

Your response was equally irrelevant.

No, I haven't forgotten any of those things. My experience in such
things is much more recent than your own and it is therefore fresher in
my memory. All of those things introduce a time lag.

Tsk. Are you saying that TTY "introduces a time lag" now?

We'll never know. You snip the relevant portions.

Are you also saying manual morse is instantaneous?

I don't think so.

More tsk. You should be out educating all the rest of the
radio services on the supposed efficacy of morse code and
manual on-off carrier keying.

I have no interest in educating the rest of the radio world in anything.
You may, if you like.

All the rest of those radio services that once used morse have
dropped it for communications purposes.

So? What is that supposed to mean for the service which uses it
commonly and regularly?

Then there are a number of radio services which never bothered
with any morse code when they began.

Did you have a point?

But, you will then "argue" that "this is amateur radio" as if it was
a haven, shrine, or religious temple for morse code and that all
amateurs MUST test for it...won't you? :-)

As pointed out quite a few times to you, thousands of radio amateurs use
morse daily despite what the "rest of the radio world" decides to do.

They surely do "affect" morse reception, but you were touting the
superiority of RTTY.

Incorrect. I was simply pointing out that morse code telegraphy
is the SLOWEST of all modes available to U.S. radio amateurs.

Incorrect. That isn't what you were doing. Since you don't use morse
and aren't a radio amateur, why do you worry about morse throughput?

But, you cannot keep on the subject and must always attack
the persons of those who disagree with you. Tsk.

You can't possibly realize how silly the above statement makes you look.

Those "home hobby ham stations" use RTTY too, Leonard.

You don't, do you? :-)

Why, yes, I do.

I'm quite
familiar with the use of FSK. It is still effected by noise and
multipath distortion.

...and on-off keyed carriers are NOT so affected? :-)

By noise? Sure. By multipath distortion? Not much at all.

So, if I've got this right, we save on paper but spend on equipment.
There's a dilemma. If my morse stuff is in memory on a keyer or PC, I
can resend it quickly and easily without resorting to any paper.

Tsk. "Spend on equipment?" What are you communicating with
on this newsgroup? Morse code into your telephone line? :-)

Tsk. So simple-minded you walked into that very visible trap
like a blind man trying to bluff.

Some "very visible trap"! I regularly use morse from my car. I don't
have a PC in my car.

The fact is that while FEC can be of some help, it is still subject to
errors. It isn't a robust system like packet or Sitor/Amtor.

...and, to you, of course, manual morse code is without error. :-)

I've not stated such.

Lacking a few received characters in morse? Why, just fill in the
blanks. Who will know? :-)

One thing for su You won't.

I don't have much in the way of negative criticism for non-morse
communication methods, Leonard. Fact is, I use most of 'em.

Of course you do...oh, yes, everything from facsimile to slow-
scan TV. :-)

That's right.

Fact is,
on/off keying cuts it quite well in the communications world of now.

By whom? Third- and fourth-world nations who don't have any
capital monies to invest? :-)

By radio amateurs across the globe, those with CASH and those without.

Face the facts. The rest of the radio world does NOT use morse
code for communications.

Why this concern about what the "rest of the radio world" is doing?
Hams aren't required to follow other services.

That hasn't changed just because you aren't proficient in its use.

TRY to stay focussed on the subject instead of (once more)
launching into personalities.

Tell you what: You settle on a subject and perhaps we can do that...if
you can't keep from launching into personalities.

TRY to understand that the rest of the radio communications
world does NOT use morse code for communications.

Try coming up with a valid explanation as to why I should concern myself
with that.

Despite the statement above, your diatribe doesn't read like someone who
supports use of morse code.

Tsk. You ARE seeing things that aren't there...

Incorrect. You've snipped them so they aren't there.

Did you confuse me with you there for a moment?

Never happen. I know me. I know you. You do NOT know me.

Interesting that you believe you can know me without my knowing you.
I've read your stuff for nearly a decade.


Past tense?

I'm using the Internet to send these messages. Whether that uses
radio or other means is not an issue.

We'll never know. Your snippage removes any context.

Except by your misdirection
and seeing things that aren't there.

I can't see them. You snipped 'em.

That's a load of manure, Leonard. That isn't the "only" at all. It is
any radio amateur who uses morse and supports continuation of morse
testing. I, for one, couldn't care less if you decide to "emulate" me
or not.

Irrelevant.

Very relevant.

NO one cares to "emulate" you. :-)

You aren't in a position to know that. :-)

What YOU write here isn't the case simply because YOU write it. Radio
amateurs worldwide are using morse code daily for real communications.
That you don't approve doesn't change that.

Again, irrelevant.

Very relevant. Why should radio amateurs follow the methods of
unrelated services?

At issue is the morse code TEST, not whether or not "Dave" or his ilk
"use morse."

The issue, according to you, is that other radio services don't use
morse.
Do try to stay focussed.

Note that USE has no real relation to the MORSE TEST.

I don't agree.

Or do you spend all your amateur radio time "taking tests?" :-)

I'll spend my amateur radio time doing what I choose. You spend your
amateur radio time....Oh, never mind.

There isn't any "higher morse rate" testing.

Isn't that awful...hi hi.

You seemed to think it an issue a couple of posts ago.

You aren't even involved.

Tsk...with role models like the archtypical PCTA extra, who would
want to be "involved" in amateur radio? :-)

Lots of folks want to and do. You haven't and won't.

It would really take an arrogant bully to
expect radio amateurs to swallow your view of how amateur radio should
be regulated.

Tsk. I feel that the USA should have the FCC regulate amateur radio,
all according to the Communications Act of 1934 plus the Congressional
law of 1996.

*Poof!* You've got your wish.


What do you know of the "fun" of amateur radio?

Tsk. What do you know of "fun" in ANYTHING? :-)

I know all about the fun in amateur radio. I know quite a bit about the
fun in usenet. Couldn't you come up with a meaningful answer?

Well, there you have it--the opinion of one never involved in amateur
radio; one whom it would seem finds that five word per minute exam an
insurmountable obstacle to his entry into amateur radio.

Tsk. Still seeing things that aren't there.

Not really. I just took a look at amateur radio. I didn't see you.

Still tossing out personal pejoratives instead of discussing the subjects.

THAT is the "fun" that appears in this amateur radio newsgroup. :-)

Why, Leonard, that is PRECISELY your mode of operation here on a regular
basis. I know. We're to do as you say, not as you do.

So you believe that all that goes on in HF amateur radio is the use of
morse? You don't seem to have any idea of what goes on.

Tsk. You don't have any idea of how to discuss things civilly.

Why, Leonard. That is precisely your mode of operation here.

Petition your government for redress of your numerous grievances.

I have. :-)

Don't get upset with me because the government hasn't seen things your
way.

You don't like that. TS for you. :-)

I wouldn't mind if you petitioned government for something each and
every day of the remainder of your life.

Different interests? What are your "interests" in amateur radio, Len?
What do YOU consider "vital" to ham radio enjoyment?

Freedom from the oppression of olde-tyme hammes insistent on
ruling over all others would be a good start... :-)

Oppression? Oooooooh! Are you a victim now?

Oh, tsk. That would eliminate you, wouldn't it? Can't have that.

No, you can't have that.

You have to stay here and effect ethnic cleansing of U.S. amateur
radio.

You aren't an ethnic group and you aren't in amateur radio.


You have to be in if you:

1. want to partake in those things "vital to ham radio enjoyment".

This was NOT a discussion about "partaking" in anything.

Why'dja snip the relevant portion, Leonard? I directly responded to
something written by you.

2. want to be seen as credible.

Lets "Dave" out...he is INcredible. :-)

Couldn't you come up with anything original?

The FCC regulates U.S. civil radio.

You aren't the FCC.

NEITHER ARE YOU. :-)

What's with the caps?

I'd have thought you'd have picked up on this one by now. Those people
are paid to regulate amateur radio. They are PROFESSIONALS.

YOU are not a professional regulator...just an amateur one.

That's incorrect. I don't regulate amateur radio.

That's be another incorrect response. I'm a participant.

Participants are more important than regulators.

Tell that to Congress. Have them change the Communications Act
of 1934. :-)

No changes are needed. No regulators are needed where there are no
participants.



You're an old thing and I'm not demanding to keep you.

Tsk. Again with the personal pejoratives. :-)

So...you are "young?" :-)

Everything is relative, Leonard. I'm just a kid when compared to you.

Are you going to STOP me?!? Oh, my. Tsk.

Why, no. You do that. Consider yourself stopped by inertia.

Tsk. You, repeat YOU, keep trying to stop me.

There, there, Leonard. I'll give back your study guides, repair your
practice oscillator and allow you access to the site where you can
download the appropriate forms.

Only your own failure to act keeps you from an amateur radio license.

Your technique (word used instead of other nasty ones) does NOT
work!

Oh? You mean you'll have that Extra "right out of the box" sometime in
the forseeable future?

Sunnuvagun!

It has been pointed out on numerous occasions that no one has prevented
you from spilling your guts.

Feel free to do your own seppuku. Nobody is stopping you... :-)

But you just can't force anyone to take
your stuff seriously.

You aren't "anyone."

You may not like it but, yes, I am someone.

You are the arrogant bully of the newsgroup,
even better than the gunnery nurse. :-)

Actually, I believe that title is rightfully yours. You've earned it.

You attempt to push others around quite frequently.

You often confuse me with yourself.

Tsk. You gods of radio seem to think you are inviolate. Nobody is
supposed to say ANYTHING nasty to you dieties. :-)

Oh, here we go again. One time I'm a god. The next, I'm no god.
Fact is, I'm a radio amateur. You are not.

It's tough being
arrogant about amateur radio when you aren't actually a licensed ham
though.

It's much much more arrogant when you ARE a licensed ham (either
FCC or FDA) and you keep on trying to push folks around, strip
citizens of their Rights such as the First Amendment. Tsk.

Funny that you mention the First Amendment as if your rights have
somehow been taken away. That view is as incorrect now as it was the
very first time you tried to sell it.

First Amendment. Refresh your memory with what it means.

It says that my right to free speech is equal to your own.

Tsk. It does NOT say your right is in any way stronger than mine.

Yeah? And?

Yet, throughout in here, that's what you keep on claiming.

Is it? You've written and written and written and written. I've not
attempted to prevent you from doing so at any time. I have often
ridiculed you and laughed at you. I intend to continue doing so.


It makes no
requirement for me to accept your views or to refrain from giving you
the raspberries.

YOU would NOT come even close to accepting a contrary idea
to what you hold... :-)

You have no way of knowing that. All that you can be certain of is that
I find your ideas on regulating amateur radio to be laughable. I find
you to be a peculiar oddity--a man obsessed with regulating that in
which he has no part.

You misread. I wrote that you have no experience in *amateur* radio.

According to "Dave," one can't have ANY "interest in radio" without
getting an amateur radio license! :-)

You've been corrected on this one a number of times. You persist in
writing the same thing. It is a lie.

Wasn't any qualifier to the word "radio" when "Dave" wrote it. :-)

Yes, there certainly was.

Heh heh heh heh. I'm a long-time veteran of computer-modem
communications with a survivor's thick virtual skin. :-)

Virtual skin? Is that like those "message knuckles" you wrote about
some time back?

LIke I've seen lots of computer-modem bullies in the last 20 years.
Most of those are gone. I'm still here... :-)

That doesn't fill us in on "virtual skin" or "message knuckles".

Well, you seem to have it on points over those who tired of your
nonsense and left, and over those whose respiration stopped. I'm
betting that I can outlast you.

Anything is possible... :-)

Any many things are likely. :-)

You are a god of radio. One of the Four Morsemen of this
Apocalypse.

You seem to have some trouble making up your mind on the issue. There
is an archived record on the subject.

You probably lose some folks as soon as you start your "jump through the
same hoops" schpiel.

Poor baby. Still can't get used to what others say of the morse
test, can you? :-)

Poor baby. You can't get used to the idea that you'll have to climb
that 5 wpm mountain in order to partake in HF amateur radio.

You aren't yet a newcomer and you'll not be able
to jump through my hoops. They no longer exist.

Incorrect.

Quite correct. I took a 20 wpm morse exam. It isn't possible for you
take it. I took and passed written exams for the Novice, General,
Advanced and Extra. It is no longer possible for you to do so. No
exams are given for two of those classes. Exams very different from
those taken by me are now being used to test for both the General and
Amateur Extra.

But, it is impossible to get you to admit to an error.

I'd first have to make one.

You are a god of radio and therefore inviolate.

No, I'm inwestvirginia.

I'm sure that it seems that way to a guy with an obvious inferiority
complex; a guy who sees demands in ordinary statements; a guy who views
the comments of those who don't agree with him as "arrogant",
"bullying", "imperious".

Now, now, don't get upset...the mirror you are looking into when
writing that has YOUR reflection! :-)

Can't be, Leonard. You're the guy who uses the terms "arrogant",
"bullying" and "imperious". You're the guy who sees simple statements
as DEMANDS. You're mistaken.

Now, watch it come to pass.

Tsk. "Dave" keeps on with the personal pejoratives and gets all
flustered when they aren't received well.

The only thing you could do to fluster me would be to swear that you
actually like them.


Try to play with your Orion some more. Seriously, not trivially.
Can't have a god of radio use equipment trivially. :-)

Irrelevant.


Dave K8MN

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil

writes:

Indeed. You managed to cobble together a paragraph which doesn't
address my comments at all.

Tsk. One is REQUIRED to "address your comments," your
royalness? :-)

Not at all, your Foghorn Lenhorn-ness. You can type a paragraph about
regional variations in Swahili dialect in response to someone's input on
the possibilities for the introduction of errors in RTTY messages. It's
just that doing so will make you look rather simple-minded.

Tsk. Try to stay focussed. I wasn't "introducing Swahili dialect"
into anything. :-)

That's right, you introduced equally unrelated. Then again, you don't
have to address my comments ;-)

Can a morse radiotelegraph circuit introduce error or is it supposedly
free from error of any kind?

It isn't necessarily free of error, Len. Then again, I've not claimed
that it is.

Tsk. More political spin. :-)

All other modes BUT morse has errors. An absolute. Yet you say
morse "isn't necessarily free of error." :-) A decided qualified non-
statement.

Anyplace else but in PCTA haven, such antics would be called
"sinning by omission."


I made no remark about "introducing Swahili dialects." You did.

Your response was equally irrelevant.

Tsk. You tried to introduce "Swahili" in here. I didn't. :-)


Tsk. Are you saying that TTY "introduces a time lag" now?

We'll never know. You snip the relevant portions.

In Heilian logic, that's "not necessarily relevant." :-)


I have no interest in educating the rest of the radio world in anything.

Riiiight. All should revere and respect you because you Are.


All the rest of those radio services that once used morse have
dropped it for communications purposes.

So? What is that supposed to mean for the service which uses it
commonly and regularly?

Tsk. You can't see the relevence, your reverence? :-)

Morse code just doesn't have all the attributes that lie like urban
myths in the brainwashed minds of hams. It isn't faster than any
other mode, isn't error-free...all it is is a throwback to the pioneer
times of the first radios, far before the existance of anyone in this
newsgroup.


Then there are a number of radio services which never bothered
with any morse code when they began.

Did you have a point?

Yes, I borrowed Amstrong's lance. [nice sharp point at the end]

But, you will then "argue" that "this is amateur radio" as if it was
a haven, shrine, or religious temple for morse code and that all
amateurs MUST test for it...won't you? :-)

As pointed out quite a few times to you, thousands of radio amateurs use
morse daily despite what the "rest of the radio world" decides to do.

Well, isn't that spay-shul? :-)

So...because morse is the distant second-most used mode on HF
by hams, the FCC *must* test for it in order to get an amateur radio
license with HF privileges?

Most strange. There is NO other mode allocated to amateurs which
requires a separate pass-fail test for manual operation.

Ah, but YOU had to take that morse test to achieve your rank, status,
and privilege...therefore all others must do as you did.


Incorrect. I was simply pointing out that morse code telegraphy
is the SLOWEST of all modes available to U.S. radio amateurs.

Incorrect. That isn't what you were doing.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. It was very correct. You are incorrect.

Since you don't use morse
and aren't a radio amateur, why do you worry about morse throughput?

More tsk. I don't "worry" about it. I KNOW by example of history
of radio and seeing it used, hearing it used, that morse IS the
slowest form of communications allocated to hams for communications
pursposes.

But, you cannot keep on the subject and must always attack
the persons of those who disagree with you. Tsk.

You can't possibly realize how silly the above statement makes you look.

Tsk, tsk. What I said is true. Denial of your own arrogant tactics,
of bullying, doesn't help you...but you keep on denying them even
though all other readers can see it.


Lacking a few received characters in morse? Why, just fill in the
blanks. Who will know? :-)

One thing for su You won't.

Tsk, tsk. That's any easy thing to prove by recordings at both end
of a bad radio circuit relying on manual morse. :-)

But...mighty macho morsemen think that they are SO spay-shul
that they can claim anything they want to to non-morse persons
and get away with it. :-)


Why this concern about what the "rest of the radio world" is doing?
Hams aren't required to follow other services.

They don't seem to. They seem to regard amateur radio as having
its own distinct laws of physics, different from other radio. They
seem to think that discussion about federal regulations on amateur
radio should be forbidden to non-amateurs!

They seem to think that the First Amendment Rights don't belong
to non-amateur-licensed U.S. citizens.


Tell you what: You settle on a subject and perhaps we can do that...if
you can't keep from launching into personalities.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. YOU jumped into this thread ranting and raving
about "not having an amateur license" in a remark I wrote to Kim.

Your usual diatribe has been noted by all other readers and
recorded at Google message archives.


TRY to understand that the rest of the radio communications
world does NOT use morse code for communications.

Try coming up with a valid explanation as to why I should concern myself
with that.

No need to expect the impossible. Your royal mind is made up.
It is unchangeable. :-)


Tsk. You ARE seeing things that aren't there...

Incorrect. You've snipped them so they aren't there.

Tsk. You are STILL seeing things that aren't there... :-)


I'm using the Internet to send these messages. Whether that uses
radio or other means is not an issue.

We'll never know. Your snippage removes any context.

Tsk. I never introduced the communications methods used by
the Internet. One thing for sure, the Internet doesn't use any
manual morse for communications! :-)


I can't see them. You snipped 'em.

"If thine eye offend thee, cast it out..."


Very relevant. Why should radio amateurs follow the methods of
unrelated services?

Tsk. Then why do radio amateurs require all the formalism of
"correct" methods, "correct" jargon, even the "official radiogram"
forms sold by the ARRL? :-)

Tsk, tsk...all the play-acting the professional in amateur comms
as if deviation from that would mean loss of a job! :-)


Note that USE has no real relation to the MORSE TEST.

I don't agree.

That was understood. :-)


Or do you spend all your amateur radio time "taking tests?" :-)

I'll spend my amateur radio time doing what I choose. You spend your
amateur radio time....Oh, never mind.

:-)


Tsk...with role models like the archtypical PCTA extra, who would
want to be "involved" in amateur radio? :-)

Lots of folks want to and do. You haven't and won't.

Define the numerical quantity in "lots." :-)

Tsk. Look at the published numbers from the FCC databasee. You
will find that the non-morse-test licensees have grown far more than
all the morse-tested licensee numbers...and that continues to grow.

You don't accept that any more than a "renowned historian" in here
accepts it. You must defend your imperial territory of rank/status/
privilege via passing a 20 WPM morse test.


I know all about the fun in amateur radio. I know quite a bit about the
fun in usenet.

Tsk. Not demonstrated in here.


Not really. I just took a look at amateur radio. I didn't see you.

Wow! One glance and his imperiousness sees ALL!

Superhuman. [gods of radio are like that...]

Tsk. Still trying to forbid First Amendment Rights to U.S. citizens,
aren't you?

Ave, Imperator!



Is it? You've written and written and written and written. I've not
attempted to prevent you from doing so at any time. I have often
ridiculed you and laughed at you. I intend to continue doing so.

I didn't expect you to do anything else. :-)

Sociopaths usually use that rationale to excuse their behavior.


According to "Dave," one can't have ANY "interest in radio" without
getting an amateur radio license! :-)

You've been corrected on this one a number of times. You persist in
writing the same thing. It is a lie.

Tsk. I've not been "corrected." "Dave" tried to back-track from what
he originally wrote that anyone having an "interest" in radio would or
should get an amateur radio license first. :-)

Apparently some of the old State Department so-called "diplomacy"
had rubbed off since "Dave" doesn't admit to errors he openly made.
"Dave" always explains that "Dave" is "correct" in whatever he does.


You seem to have some trouble making up your mind on the issue. There
is an archived record on the subject.

I have no problem at all on eliminating morse code testing. I advocate
its elimination.

I have no problem at all on recognizing bullies and sociopaths viciously
defending their alleged "honors" in rank/status/privileges achieved by
passing a 20 WPM morse code test. There are several in here. :-)


Poor baby. You can't get used to the idea that you'll have to climb
that 5 wpm mountain in order to partake in HF amateur radio.

Tsk. You keep saying that one MUST "demonstrate" willingness to
be licensed in amateur radio?

To whom? To some dead-in-the-mind PCTA extra?

PCTA extras do NOT regulate U.S. amateur radio. They never did.
But, they keep thinking they do. :-)


Quite correct. I took a 20 wpm morse exam. It isn't possible for you
take it.

Incorrect. I could still take a COMMERCIAL radiotelegraphy license
test for 20 WPM. I have NO desire to do so, but the USA allows
that option. Tsk, for an ex-federal employee you seem strangely
unaware of licensing according to Part 2 of Title 47 C.F.R.

I took and passed written exams for the Novice, General,
Advanced and Extra.

Are you expecting to be a guest of honor at the Kennedy Center
for doing so?

It is no longer possible for you to do so.

Ave, Imperator! [old Roman statement roughly translatable to
"no s**t?!" ]

No exams are given for two of those classes. Exams very different from
those taken by me are now being used to test for both the General and
Amateur Extra.

...therefore YOU are a "superior" ham.

Here, I give you a AAAAA grade as a ham according to FDA regs.


But, it is impossible to get you to admit to an error.

I'd first have to make one.

Gods of radio NEVER make errors. They even say so... :-)


Try to play with your Orion some more. Seriously, not trivially.
Can't have a god of radio use equipment trivially. :-)

Irrelevant.

No, I'm being oscarlevant. :-)

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil

writes:

Can a morse radiotelegraph circuit introduce error or is it supposedly
free from error of any kind?

It isn't necessarily free of error, Len. Then again, I've not claimed
that it is.

Tsk. More political spin. :-)

Tsk. Poor baby. It isn't spin, much less political :-) :-)

All other modes BUT morse has errors. An absolute. Yet you say
morse "isn't necessarily free of error." :-) A decided qualified non-
statement.

I wrote what I intended to convey. If two morse ops exchange
information for two hours without an error, their communication is error
free.

Anyplace else but in PCTA haven, such antics would be called
"sinning by omission."

If this were anywhere else, nobody would likely be discussing this at
all.

I made no remark about "introducing Swahili dialects." You did.

Your response was equally irrelevant.

Tsk. You tried to introduce "Swahili" in here. I didn't. :-)

No, you didn't. You tap danced all over the place.

I have no interest in educating the rest of the radio world in anything.

Riiiight. All should revere and respect you because you Are.

How does my lack of interest in educating the "world of radio" equate to
a desire to be revered and respected? I'd think I'd merit much more of
that for educating the "rest of the radio world".

All the rest of those radio services that once used morse have
dropped it for communications purposes.

So? What is that supposed to mean for the service which uses it
commonly and regularly?

Tsk. You can't see the relevence, your reverence? :-)

I can't see what isn't there :-)

Morse code just doesn't have all the attributes that lie like urban
myths in the brainwashed minds of hams. It isn't faster than any
other mode, isn't error-free...all it is is a throwback to the pioneer
times of the first radios, far before the existance of anyone in this
newsgroup.

Under certain propagation conditions, CW can outperform RTTY. I've
personally experienced severe multipath echo where a morse circuit was
operating normally while RTTY machines were printing gibberish.

Then there are a number of radio services which never bothered
with any morse code when they began.

Did you have a point?

Yes, I borrowed Amstrong's lance. [nice sharp point at the end]

So, you hadn't any real response.

But, you will then "argue" that "this is amateur radio" as if it was
a haven, shrine, or religious temple for morse code and that all
amateurs MUST test for it...won't you? :-)

As pointed out quite a few times to you, thousands of radio amateurs use
morse daily despite what the "rest of the radio world" decides to do.

Well, isn't that spay-shul? :-)

So...because morse is the distant second-most used mode on HF
by hams, the FCC *must* test for it in order to get an amateur radio
license with HF privileges?

That's right.

Most strange. There is NO other mode allocated to amateurs which
requires a separate pass-fail test for manual operation.

There wasn't any such exam even back when the only two modes in use were
CW and AM phone. So?

Ah, but YOU had to take that morse test to achieve your rank, status,
and privilege...therefore all others must do as you did.

You are particularly thick these days. Others (read newcomers) not only
aren't required to do as I did, they can't possibly.

Incorrect. I was simply pointing out that morse code telegraphy
is the SLOWEST of all modes available to U.S. radio amateurs.

Incorrect. That isn't what you were doing.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. It was very correct. You are incorrect.

Ah, non, non, non, Gaston. You are incorrect.

Since you don't use morse
and aren't a radio amateur, why do you worry about morse throughput?

More tsk. I don't "worry" about it.

Your voluminous output here suggests otherwise.

I KNOW by example of history
of radio and seeing it used, hearing it used, that morse IS the
slowest form of communications allocated to hams for communications
pursposes.

Seeing morse doesn't do much. Hearing it if you can't copy it, does
even less. I've seen voice ops take more time to exchange information
than morse ops, especially in dealing with formal message traffic.

But, you cannot keep on the subject and must always attack
the persons of those who disagree with you. Tsk.

You can't possibly realize how silly the above statement makes you look.

Tsk, tsk. What I said is true. Denial of your own arrogant tactics,
of bullying, doesn't help you...but you keep on denying them even
though all other readers can see it.

Thanks for the giggles, Leonard. You keep describing your own actions
and attributing them to others.

Lacking a few received characters in morse? Why, just fill in the
blanks. Who will know? :-)

One thing for su You won't.

Tsk, tsk. That's any easy thing to prove by recordings at both end
of a bad radio circuit relying on manual morse. :-)

Not if you and guy with like morse skills are at the ends of the
circuit, it won't be easy. :-)

But...mighty macho morsemen think that they are SO spay-shul
that they can claim anything they want to to non-morse persons
and get away with it. :-)

Well ya see, Foghorn, it's like this: A morse op can pretty much do
that with someone like yourself. Anyone with a skill has it all over
someone who lacks that skill. That's a good reason for a guy to develop
as many skills as he can in this life. You seem to be lacking several
of 'em.

Why this concern about what the "rest of the radio world" is doing?
Hams aren't required to follow other services.

They don't seem to. They seem to regard amateur radio as having
its own distinct laws of physics, different from other radio.

Not different physics, Leonard. Different methods of operation in
pursuit of different goals. HF amateur communications aren't much like
the old military point-to-point circuits you are familiar with.

They
seem to think that discussion about federal regulations on amateur
radio should be forbidden to non-amateurs!

There is no indication that "they" do that. I, however, note that
you've had ample opportunity (and Lord knows you've taken the
opportunity) to present your ideas. Those ideas are based on your very
limited knowledge of and exposure to amateur radio. I don't think your
ideas are very sound. Take your couple of ideas about amateur radio
regulation and couple them with your litany of insults directed toward
amateur radio operators and toward the ARRL; toss in your unique ability
to grate on folks and maybe you can see why you haven't brought more
people around to your way of thinking.

They seem to think that the First Amendment Rights don't belong
to non-amateur-licensed U.S. citizens.

That seems to be what you believe, though there are loads of your posts
which could be shown to anyone with the stomach to sift through them.
They'd tend to make your statement about the First Amendment ring
hollow.

Tell you what: You settle on a subject and perhaps we can do that...if
you can't keep from launching into personalities.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. YOU jumped into this thread ranting and raving
about "not having an amateur license" in a remark I wrote to Kim.

Here's what Kim wrote:

"However, under dire circumstances when, presumably, a CW net would be
underway with very experienced communicators and would be the fastest,
most
efficient method of communication (hands down, no pun intended). For
once,
this is a thread wherein the real point of CW can be highlighted. CW
may or
may not ALWAYS be the "one mode that gets through when no other will."
But,
it's hard to argue that CW--if clear and done well--is the fastest and
most
efficient mode."

Here's how you responded:

"Kim, you are welcome to hold any belief system you wish, but the
FACT that on-off-keyed "CW" morse IS the slowest communications
mode in use today or in use a half century ago. I've seen it up
close
and personal throughout this whole past half century. It is
evidenciary
in the REST of the radio communications world."

You added gems like:

"It is the EXCEPTIONAL rarity now to find any two morsemen at
each end of a ham radio circuit who can do SUSTAINED "network"
communications by on-off-keyed "CW" morse at 40 WPM for
hours. HOURS. Networks need hours if the number of messages
are great."

and

"Nonsense alive and well only in the imaginative fantasies of mighty
macho morsemen. Real networks don't operate on imagination.
"Error-free" messages don't get relayed through self-glorified
boasting."

and

"Those who want to fantasize that morse is "faster" or "better" will
have to set up a controlled test NOT in morse favor to demonstrate
that alleged fact. Let all those might macho morsemen sustain
20 to 40 WPM continuously for an 8-hour period...and do the
communications with LESS error than any teleprinter circuit."

Those statements demonstrate your lack of knowledge of morse code and of
what good operators can achieve. There are a couple of other paragraphs
dealing with RTTY opeation that lead me to believe that you don't know
all that much about the limitations of radio teletype.

You're a guy who often whines about his First Amendment rights being
trampled. Yet you're complaining that I shouldn't comment on something
you've written which has a number of glaring errors. I have experience
with both RTTY and morse circuits. You have decades-old experience with
RTTY. Your morse experience is pretty much non-existent.

By the way, you seldom limit yourself to "a remark" to anyone.


Your usual diatribe has been noted by all other readers and
recorded at Google message archives.

It surely has and if you like, you can be treated to it again.

TRY to understand that the rest of the radio communications
world does NOT use morse code for communications.

Try coming up with a valid explanation as to why I should concern myself
with that.

No need to expect the impossible. Your royal mind is made up.
It is unchangeable. :-)

So you've conceded that your "rest of the radio world" claim has no real
relevance to amateur radio operators.

Tsk. You ARE seeing things that aren't there...

Incorrect. You've snipped them so they aren't there.

Tsk. You are STILL seeing things that aren't there... :-)

Nope, it doesn't work. They aren't there and I'm not seeing them %)

I'm using the Internet to send these messages. Whether that uses
radio or other means is not an issue.

We'll never know. Your snippage removes any context.

Tsk. I never introduced the communications methods used by
the Internet.

That's a frank admission but why not go all the way: You never
introduced any communications methods used anywhere.

One thing for sure, the Internet doesn't use any
manual morse for communications! :-)

I can't see them. You snipped 'em.

"If thine eye offend thee, cast it out..."

Yeah, if it was mine eye, I'd likely go along with that. In this
instance, it is you attempting to cast out mine eyes.

Very relevant. Why should radio amateurs follow the methods of
unrelated services?

Tsk. Then why do radio amateurs require all the formalism of
"correct" methods, "correct" jargon, even the "official radiogram"
forms sold by the ARRL? :-)

Why are you concerned?

Tsk, tsk...all the play-acting the professional in amateur comms
as if deviation from that would mean loss of a job! :-)

That's the kind of thing for which you are well known.

Tsk...with role models like the archtypical PCTA extra, who would
want to be "involved" in amateur radio? :-)

Lots of folks want to and do. You haven't and won't.

Define the numerical quantity in "lots." :-)

Don't make DEMANDS, Leonard.

Tsk. Look at the published numbers from the FCC databasee. You
will find that the non-morse-test licensees have grown far more than
all the morse-tested licensee numbers...and that continues to grow.

You asked who would want to be involved in amateur radio. Apparently
those folks would. Apparently you don't. Was that your point?

You don't accept that any more than a "renowned historian" in here
accepts it.

I don't accept that Technician Class licensees want to be in amateur
radio? You're silly.

You must defend your imperial territory of rank/status/
privilege via passing a 20 WPM morse test.

I defend my rank/status/privilege by passing the highest class amateur
radio license available. It gives me *all* U.S. amateur radio
privileges.


I know all about the fun in amateur radio. I know quite a bit about the
fun in usenet.

Tsk. Not demonstrated in here.

That it isn't evident to you is quite believable.

Not really. I just took a look at amateur radio. I didn't see you.

Wow! One glance and his imperiousness sees ALL!

Superhuman. [gods of radio are like that...]

One glance through the RAC database shows that there is no Leonard H.
Anderson at your address, licensed as a radio amateur. It really is
that easy.

Tsk. Still trying to forbid First Amendment Rights to U.S. citizens,
aren't you?

Maybe you'll take a little time from your busy schedule to explain just
how you feel that your rights have been abridged. I'd be really
interested in reading it.

Ave, Imperator!

Is it? You've written and written and written and written. I've not
attempted to prevent you from doing so at any time. I have often
ridiculed you and laughed at you. I intend to continue doing so.

I didn't expect you to do anything else. :-)

Then you won't be disappointed.

Sociopaths usually use that rationale to excuse their behavior.

Well, good for them.

According to "Dave," one can't have ANY "interest in radio" without
getting an amateur radio license! :-)

You've been corrected on this one a number of times. You persist in
writing the same thing. It is a lie.

Tsk. I've not been "corrected." "Dave" tried to back-track from what
he originally wrote that anyone having an "interest" in radio would or
should get an amateur radio license first. :-)

Would you like a good googling, Leonard?

Apparently some of the old State Department so-called "diplomacy"
had rubbed off since "Dave" doesn't admit to errors he openly made.
"Dave" always explains that "Dave" is "correct" in whatever he does.

You seem to have some trouble making up your mind on the issue. There
is an archived record on the subject.

I have no problem at all on eliminating morse code testing. I advocate
its elimination.

That's great. Now back to this "You are a god"/"You are no god" issue;
how do you feel about that?

I have no problem at all on recognizing bullies and sociopaths....

There seems to be some difference of opinion on that issue.


Quite correct. I took a 20 wpm morse exam. It isn't possible for you
take it.

Incorrect. I could still take a COMMERCIAL radiotelegraphy license
test for 20 WPM.

When did COMMERCIAL radiotelegraphy license come into the discussion?
Are you planning to ship out? I thought you were discussing those being
forced to do as I did. I don't have a COMMERCIAL radiotelegraph
license.
Are you getting enough sleep, Len?

I have NO desire to do so, but the USA allows
that option.

So, its pretty much like your efforts toward obtaining an amateur radio
license, huh?

I took and passed written exams for the Novice, General,
Advanced and Extra.

Are you expecting to be a guest of honor at the Kennedy Center
for doing so?

It'd be nice, but it really isn't necessary.

It is no longer possible for you to do so.

Ave, Imperator! [old Roman statement roughly translatable to
"no s**t?!" ]

I'm happy that you have understood.

No exams are given for two of those classes. Exams very different from
those taken by me are now being used to test for both the General and
Amateur Extra.

...therefore YOU are a "superior" ham.

Wrong conclusion, Leonard. Therefore, you can't take the.

But, it is impossible to get you to admit to an error.

I'd first have to make one.

Gods of radio NEVER make errors. They even say so... :-)

It is really more simple than that. All that's necessary is to
demonstrate that one of your statements contains an error.

Try to play with your Orion some more. Seriously, not trivially.
Can't have a god of radio use equipment trivially. :-)

Irrelevant.

No, I'm being oscarlevant. :-)

Oh--It's the booze and heroin talking? Well, you're just like him
except for the wit...and the fact that he has been dead for some time.

Dave K8MN

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:


Can a morse radiotelegraph circuit introduce error or is it supposedly
free from error of any kind?

Any mode can introduce errors in a message.

No, I haven't forgotten any of those things. My experience in such
things is much more recent than your own and it is therefore fresher in
my memory. All of those things introduce a time lag.

Tsk. Are you saying that TTY "introduces a time lag" now?

It does. And when things like prepunched tape are used, the time lag increases.


All the rest of those radio services that once used morse have
dropped it for communications purposes.

Not all. Almost all. And so what? They are not amateur radio.

Should hams stop using Morse Code?

Then there are a number of radio services which never bothered
with any morse code when they began.

So what?

But, you will then "argue" that "this is amateur radio" as if it was
a haven, shrine, or religious temple for morse code and that all
amateurs MUST test for it...won't you? :-)

You are confused between "test" and "use".

They surely do "affect" morse reception, but you were touting the
superiority of RTTY.

Incorrect. I was simply pointing out that morse code telegraphy
is the SLOWEST of all modes available to U.S. radio amateurs.

Morse Code is *not* the "SLOWEST of all modes available to U.S. radio
amateurs."

But, you cannot keep on the subject and must always attack
the persons of those who disagree with you. Tsk.

That's your game, Len.

Fact is,
on/off keying cuts it quite well in the communications world of now.

By whom?

Radio amateurs.

Face the facts. The rest of the radio world does NOT use morse
code for communications.

So? What is your point, Len?

Nobody but FM broadcaster uses the stereo multiplex system developed over a
half-century ago by Armstrong.

That hasn't changed just because you aren't proficient in its use.

TRY to stay focussed on the subject instead of (once more)
launching into personalities.

Gee, Len, you launch into other people's personalities all the time. ;-)

And the word is spelled "focused".

TRY to understand that the rest of the radio communications
world does NOT use morse code for communications.

Why is that important to amateur radio, Len? You repeat that statement over and
over like a mantra, but never explain its significance.

I don't think any other radio service still uses 5 level FSK Baudot for radio
communications either. Nor PSK-31.

Despite the statement above, your diatribe doesn't read like someone who
supports use of morse code.

Tsk. You ARE seeing things that aren't there...

Right - you don't support the use of Morse Code. You'd ban it from ham radio if
you could.

"Arrogant thundering" = any disagreement with your views.

You can't stay focussed on the subject. All you can do is act
the thunder mug on anything I post. :-)

You posts often look like, and contain, the contents of said mug.....;-)

That's a load of manure, Leonard. That isn't the "only" at all. It is
any radio amateur who uses morse and supports continuation of morse
testing. I, for one, couldn't care less if you decide to "emulate" me
or not.

Irrelevant.

NO one cares to "emulate" you. :-)

I care to emulate K8MN.

Let's see....

IIRC, he's retired, living in a beautiful area of his choice, with a wonderful
loving family, a great home and ham station, and the time and resources to
persue multiple interests.

I'll follow that lead any day.

What YOU write here isn't the case simply because YOU write it. Radio
amateurs worldwide are using morse code daily for real communications.
That you don't approve doesn't change that.

Again, irrelevant.

Totally relevant.

At issue is the morse code TEST, not whether or not "Dave" or his ilk
"use morse."

Note that USE has no real relation to the MORSE TEST.

Then why do you keep pointing out that other services don't use Morse?

You aren't even involved.

Tsk...with role models like the archtypical PCTA extra, who would
want to be "involved" in amateur radio? :-)

Then why are you here, Len?

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:


Tsk. Are you saying that TTY "introduces a time lag" now?

It does. And when things like prepunched tape are used, the time lag
increases.

By how much? Give us all the benefit of your long experience in
commercial HF communications and demonstrate the total
uselessness of RTTY as compared to mighty morse code.


All the rest of those radio services that once used morse have
dropped it for communications purposes.

Not all. Almost all. And so what? They are not amateur radio.

Amazing...Rev. Jim finally appeared out of his haze and admitted
that other radio services exist!

Should hams stop using Morse Code?

No.

Should the FCC keep on testing for morse code just because some
amateurs "still use it?"

Then there are a number of radio services which never bothered
with any morse code when they began.

So what?

Tsk. It should really hurt the egos of mighty macho morsemen to
know that many radio services just never bothered with morse code
when they began. Tsk, tsk...all that flouting of "tradition" from when
on-off keying was the ONLY way to communicate by radio!

But, you will then "argue" that "this is amateur radio" as if it was
a haven, shrine, or religious temple for morse code and that all
amateurs MUST test for it...won't you? :-)

You are confused between "test" and "use".

Tsk, tsk. NO confusion. :-)


Morse Code is *not* the "SLOWEST of all modes available to U.S. radio
amateurs."

Awww...now you are thinking that my statement was a "direct
personal attack" on your mighty morsemanship? :-)

Is manual morse code faster than 100+ WPM data?

Is manual morse code faster than the spoken word?

If you answer "yes" to either, show your work. Preferrably on a home
page using recycled pixels. :-)


Nobody but FM broadcaster uses the stereo multiplex system developed over a
half-century ago by Armstrong.

Hello? Ol' Ed developed the "L+R, L-R on a subcarrier" method of
present-day FM stereo sound broadcasting? Tsk, I don't think so.

Rev. Jim is getting too much like his buddy, the gunnery nurse. :-)


And the word is spelled "focused".

Try not to use dirty words in here. The children might object. :-)



Why is that important to amateur radio, Len? You repeat that statement over
and over like a mantra, but never explain its significance.

Tsk, tsk. I never once thought I could get dyed-in-the-wool (before
their eyes) morsemen to think their ultra-favorite mode was
(shudder!) "inferior" to anything else! :-)


Right - you don't support the use of Morse Code. You'd ban it from ham radio
if you could.

Tsk, tsk, TSK. Trying to put words in other people's opinions?

Nasty lie, jungle Jim. You swung on the wrong vine again...


You posts often look like, and contain, the contents of said mug.....;-)

Tsk, tsk. Direct personal attacks again.

Yup, jungle Jim left his taxi to join the gunnery nurse...


I care to emulate K8MN.

Keep us informed on which embassy post you get...bye...


Then why are you here, Len?

Just advocating the elimination of the morse code test for any
amateur radio license. :-)

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

Tsk. Are you saying that TTY "introduces a time lag" now?

It does. And when things like prepunched tape are used, the time lag
increases.

By how much?

Depends on the situation.

Give us all the benefit of your long experience in
commercial HF communications and demonstrate the total
uselessness of RTTY as compared to mighty morse code.

Who says RTTY is useless? Not me.

All the rest of those radio services that once used morse have
dropped it for communications purposes.

Not all. Almost all. And so what? They are not amateur radio.

Amazing...Rev. Jim finally appeared out of his haze and admitted
that other radio services exist!

Who has ever denied that other radio services exist? Not me.

Should hams stop using Morse Code?

No.

Should the FCC keep on testing for morse code just because some
amateurs "still use it?"

Yes.

Then there are a number of radio services which never bothered
with any morse code when they began.

So what?

Tsk. It should really hurt the egos of mighty macho morsemen to
know that many radio services just never bothered with morse code
when they began. Tsk, tsk...all that flouting of "tradition" from when
on-off keying was the ONLY way to communicate by radio!

Doesn't answer the question.

But, you will then "argue" that "this is amateur radio" as if it was
a haven, shrine, or religious temple for morse code and that all
amateurs MUST test for it...won't you? :-)

You are confused between "test" and "use".

Tsk, tsk. NO confusion. :-)

You're confused.

Morse Code is *not* the "SLOWEST of all modes available to U.S. radio
amateurs."

Awww...now you are thinking that my statement was a "direct
personal attack" on your mighty morsemanship? :-)

Nope. Just a mistake on your part.

Is manual morse code faster than 100+ WPM data?

Depends on the situation.

Is manual morse code faster than the spoken word?

Depends on the situation. In some cases, Morse Code *is* faster.

If you answer "yes" to either, show your work.

Why? I've already given examples of situations where Morse Code is faster than
other modes.

Preferrably on a home
page using recycled pixels. :-)

It's spelled "preferably".

Nobody but FM broadcaster uses the stereo multiplex system developed over a
half-century ago by Armstrong.

Hello? Ol' Ed developed the "L+R, L-R on a subcarrier" method of
present-day FM stereo sound broadcasting? Tsk, I don't think so.

Irrelevant.

Does any other service use that system?

Why is that important to amateur radio, Len? You repeat that statement over
and over like a mantra, but never explain its significance.

Tsk, tsk. I never once thought I could get dyed-in-the-wool (before
their eyes) morsemen to think their ultra-favorite mode was
(shudder!) "inferior" to anything else! :-)

Doesn't answer the question.

Right - you don't support the use of Morse Code. You'd ban it from ham radio
if you could.

Tsk, tsk, TSK. Trying to put words in other people's opinions?

No, just an opinion on my part based on lots of observations. You seem to have
a big problem with opposing opinions, Len.

You posts often look like, and contain, the contents of said mug.....;-)

Tsk, tsk. Direct personal attacks again.

Not at all, Len. I simply expressed an opinion of your postings here, not of
you personally. I didn't say *you* resemble the contents of said mug....;-)

Perhaps you so closely identify your own self-image with your postings here
that you take any uncomplimentary opinion as a direct personal attack.

Perhaps you are upset because all did not fall down in awe and worship of your
wordsmithing here.

Besides, I used one of those smiley-thingies. That means it's OK, right? ;-)

I care to emulate K8MN.

Keep us informed on which embassy post you get...bye...

Then why are you here, Len?

Just advocating the elimination of the morse code test for any
amateur radio license. :-)

The smiley tells me not to take that sentence seriously ;-)

Subject: Doing Battle? Can't Resist Posting?
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 10/16/2004 11:00 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Indeed. You managed to cobble together a paragraph which doesn't
address my comments at all.

Tsk. One is REQUIRED to "address your comments," your
royalness? :-)

Not at all, your Foghorn Lenhorn-ness. You can type a paragraph about
regional variations in Swahili dialect in response to someone's input on
the possibilities for the introduction of errors in RTTY messages. It's
just that doing so will make you look rather simple-minded.

Tsk. Try to stay focussed.

Rest snipped.

Same typo repeated over and over. According to Lennie's Newsgroup Rules
of Engagement, a typo is an indicator that the respondant is "mad".

Until Lennie calms down, I say we not talk to him any more.

Steve, K4YZ