I could give a rats ass less if you, or anyone else likes my sentence
structure. I have found that when one criticizes structure and spelling,
they have run out of arguments.

As for you being a sham.....you just answered that. You come on here
trying to act like you know something about a particular subject in Amateur
Radio, and you make a complete fool of yourself. Then when someone tries
to explain it to you, you proceed to make fun of that. Or ignore him/her
totally.

And no I don't have "examples" handy. And won't waste my time looking for
any. You know that is how you are.

And no Kim , I don't think my judgment of you is all that far off. And
the majority of that is because of your choice of vanity callsigns. It
brings shame on you and the Amateur Service.

That is my opinion and if you don't like it. Tuff.

Dan/W4NTI

"Kim" wrote in message
...
It was mostly, Dan, to highlight that mistakes--and ignorance--can and do
happen in any circumstance. That I do not understand the technicality of
most of amateur radio, is as much similar to the fact that you make common
grammatical and spelling errors in a language you fluently speak.

So, as abrasive as you are, surely you are human enough to recognize that
your criticism, chagrin, hateful conduct, and judgment of me is pretty
darned ridiculous. If you are not human enough, so be it. And, come to
think of it, your sentence structure, below, should have been: "But, come
to
think of it, sham is appropriate for you, too."

You may as well define what sham I am undertaking. Are you implying that
I
am not a licensed amateur radio operator? What "sham," Dan?

Kim W5TIT


"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
ink.net...
As soon as I hit the send key I realized the error. But come to think
of
it sham is appropriate for you too.

Dan/W4NTI

"Kim" wrote in message
. ..
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
nk.net...
Hey Kim.....so what?.....At least I didn't pay (how many bux???) for a
callsign that brings sham on yourself.

How you like that?

Dan/W4NTI


"shame"

Kim W5TIT

From: Mike Coslo on Mon 4 Jul 2005 23:18

Dee Flint wrote:

Please show me and everyone else how we can run more than 300 baud on HF
without exceeding reasonable band widths. There are a whole lot of things,
not just video, that would be nice to do.

How can we do it? Bandwidth is directly related to baud rate.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

John has been challenged. His system for real time video via HF will be
posted soon, TTPUOSU!

No, John has NOT "been challenged." Real-time video that fits into
the bandwidth of a SSB voice signal is available from Internet over
3 KHz bandwidth telco lines today, last year, the year before that,
by the thousands. It is HERE. You or anyone can go down to the
computer store in your town and buy the components, put them
together yourself. [a few computers have had them built-in] Those
work in a 3 KHz bandwidth.

Hmmm...on "challenges." The Coslonaut said he would reach "the
threshold of space" last year. He was going where ham radio
had already gone before. So far he hasn't gone.

Remember, when you gotta go, you GOTTA go.

As to your "challenges," I invoke the Byte Brothers: FYDITM!


bit bit

John Smith wrote:
N2EY:

First, you can run duplex, simply use two modems and a separate
transmitter and receiver.

Uh-huh. Got it. The reciever listens while the transmitter transmits.
On the same frequency. 'Way to go "John", slap a patent on it!

Bwwwahaha!

heh heh BIG HUGE GRIN

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
ink.net...
I could give a rats ass less if you, or anyone else likes my sentence
structure. I have found that when one criticizes structure and spelling,
they have run out of arguments.

As for you being a sham.....you just answered that. You come on here
trying to act like you know something about a particular subject in
Amateur
Radio, and you make a complete fool of yourself. Then when someone tries
to explain it to you, you proceed to make fun of that. Or ignore him/her
totally.

And no I don't have "examples" handy. And won't waste my time looking for
any. You know that is how you are.

And no Kim , I don't think my judgment of you is all that far off. And
the majority of that is because of your choice of vanity callsigns. It
brings shame on you and the Amateur Service.

That is my opinion and if you don't like it. Tuff.

Dan/W4NTI

wrote:
wrote:
John Smith wrote:
N2EY:

First, you can run duplex, simply use two modems and a
separate transmitter and receiver.

"John" just convinced me that he knows very little about
radio - HF amateur radio in particular.

Uh-huh. Got it. The reciever listens while the transmitter
transmits.
On the same frequency. 'Way to go "John", slap a patent on it!

Bwwwahaha!

Did you notice there was no mention of antennas?

Yeah, I realized immediately after I posted that I'd missed that "litle
detail" myself. Nutz, I leaped too fast again. But then again maybe his
RX has a built-in sprinkler system . . ? We dunno . .

Poor soul prolly doesn't know what "QSK" means, either.

Why would he? Ya don't find a a helluva lot of QSK ops on 11M.


73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 23:18:54 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Dee Flint wrote:

Please show me and everyone else how we can run more than 300 baud on HF
without exceeding reasonable band widths. There are a whole lot of things,
not just video, that would be nice to do.

How can we do it? Bandwidth is directly related to baud rate.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

John has been challenged.

Correct.

I'm afraid that John is - well - challenged.

Somewhere, there is a bridge missing their troll! :)

His system for real time video via HF will be
posted soon, TTPUOSU!

- Mike KB3EIA -

73, Leo

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:

Tsk. Coslonautics, ink, is still challenged to reach the "threshold
of space" as announced last year...going where other ham radio
balloons have gone before. It is now nearly mid-summer and no
flight, no tests, no words.


Glad you asked! "Things" are moving along well enough, much of the
equipment has been chosen, yet needs to be integrated. Flight 1 will be
tethered to shake down the payload, flight two will be a short,
relatively low altitude flight. At flight 3, the payload form factor
will be changed. Beyond that, the flights will build on the success or
problems encountered during previous flights.

That's all the words you get.

There will be web pages devoted to the project. At that time you can
read and ridicule, but you'll have to go to the website to get yer
material.

Why dontcha ask Len how that "Extra right out of the box" is coming
along. How many years down the road has that been now?

Dave K8MN