RadioBanter - A Sample Of The Supporters Pro-No-Code WT 05-235

K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:

Nope I said I can't when restricted to just the use of my ear

Ear...fingers...flashing lights.

You're incapable. Period.

without using my PC No i can't

My point made. That's what I said in the first place.

No It is not what you said

You said I could not responf to Morse Code distres Signal

I can

No...YOU can't.

Yes I can

Your computer MAY, but only if YOU can recognize the distress in
the first place.

The Computer can't do that without me, and I can recnize SOS it isn't
hard

As I said...POINT MADE!

Not at all

But I never have my radios without having at least one of my pc's, So I
can Alawys do morse Code if I need to

You carry a PC on your belt? In your car? Always?

In my car always, Not a PC on my Belt but my wireless PDA and I am
never far from my car.

You're never far from caring hands that can heal you of your
illnesses, either, Mark, but it seems you won't use those effectively
either!

Yes I am There is No cure for dyslexia, quoting Tom Cruise again will
not help you

Unless, of course, you're now changing your story and claiming you
CAN learn Morse?

nope No need to learn Morse in order to use morse

Even Jim adknowledges that

break
Regardless of the mehtodology, YOU won't learn...

Lie

Nope. Truth.

I can't learn it Tried for years, under the assitance of Experts, the
same same ones that you flame me for ever having seen

You WON'T do it.

No I can't, 5 years pretty well proved that

I already have just not by a methodlogy that I am allowed to use for e
a Code test

You can't do it. Won't do it.

I can do and Have done it

Face facts

But WAIT! Just a handful of lines up you said YOU CAN'T...! ! !

more of Stevie liying about what was said

lets try again "I already have just not by a methodlogy that I am
allowed to use for e
a Code test"

I can't by any Stevie approved method, or any approved of by the VEC's

You keep trying to cut a piece here and a piece there

Manual Morse Code just isn't that specail for modern PCs

It takes up a lot less memory than a spellchecker. Old TRS-80's
could do it with the software held on cassete tapes!

Indeed then you agree finaly

I have logged long ragcrews in Cw I was doing it to help other hams
pass there tests and so rather than typing at each other In Mirc or
other means we chatted over the air me all PC for encoding and decoding
him by ear and keyer toreply.

No...YOU didn't log "long ragchews"...Your PC did.

if you prefer

It's not what I prefer...

Stevie you can't even accept agreement with any manners

It's about you misepresenting the truth again.

Not at all

It simply about your trying to slice and dice words

I say when I make my PC do something that I have doin git I am setting
things in motion

It is simply a defferent point of view

You are completely intolerant to any point of view but your own

And anyone that can follow my typing converted to Morse can pass a test
at the same speed

Except you.

What are you saying?

If I could follow my typed morse at any speed of Course I could pass a
test at the same speed. So my statement is prefectly accurate

No, it's not.

sure is

YOU can't pass a Morse Code exam at ANY speed...You said that in
THIS VERY POST!

which has nothing to do with my statement

You are lyig in saying it does

Indeed I could also pass Morse Code test at any speed with my trusty pc
at my side

No...YOU could not pass a Morse Code test.

Yes I could with my trusty Pc at my side

You refuse to acept facts

You refuse to use a spellchecker.

yes I do

That makes you a voluntary idiot.

no it makes me at worst stuborn

No.
yes

Nope.

yep

It makes you a voluntary idiot.

nope

Yep.

Nope

You want me to spend time and energy on what you want?

Nope. I want to be able to read your thoughts without having to
interpret individual words.

I don't want you reading my thoughts at all.

Then why bomb the NG with ANY of it, Markie..?!?!

Not bombingnaything or anybody

But I want you to work to read my stuff.

Then we've proven who the bully is here, Markie!

Not at all

You are free to ignore everything I write, Indeed I would prefer that

Thanks!

To make you think, if that is possible for you

Sure it is..

then free to start thinking anytime

As a matter of fact I have pushed you to improve your spelling.

It's worked.

nope

the Weather here has changed and I no longer need to take certain
allergy meds that is all

You want it given to you

Nope. I want it in the same English that everyone else uses here.

too bad you don't get it

Go for it yourself you lazy bum

Not lazy.

sure are you admited being lazy

to lazy to work out what I mean

You want my words then work for it, don't ask for it to be Given to you

You don't want to be called an idiot, a fool, or illiterate.

Not esp but I can take it

Yet you do those things that substantiate my claims.

not realy,

and again you choose to make them again and again and agian

You decsion not mine

Willing or not, I've pushed you to improve yourself. But you have
a long way to go.

Nope

just passed the allergy season

You are a fool if you think you can bully me into doing your will

Not bullying, but you've already DONE it, Markie!

Nope

Yep!

nope

As I stated in another thread...

as you lied in another thread

No, I haven't.

yes you have

But anyone who's been following any of this can attest to the
improvement in your spelling over the last several weeks.

which is simply a result of not needing to take my heavier allergy meds

You claim an IQ of 248 and more-than-adequate financial and
material resources, but can't seem to fix simple problems without being
taken by the hand and guided step-by-step.

you claim to undersatnd emdcine without knowing that Leraning Disorders
are not simple problems

"understand" "medicine" "learning"

I know they're not. But they are also fixable.

no they are not

Stop getting medical advice from Tom Cruise

That I've pushed you into doing it here already is proof of it.

That you deny it in the face of several weeks of evidence to the
contrary proves me right.

nope

Intellegnce and Dyslexia are not incompatble. If you were educated you
would know that

"Intelligence"

I am educated. "Informed", too.

neither seem to be true

Neither lead me to believe you're as intelligent as you claim.

How do you know to record one signal over another that MIGHT be a
distress signal?

if I here SOS or anything like it ....DUH

"hear"

You're unlikely to recognize it under ANY circumstances.

Likely? Unlikely who know?

"I know"

really Ms Stevie now what is your 900 number

If the Ship is out on Superior. I may well hear it and reconize it.

It could be in your back yard and you'd not know.

no ship would be sinking in my back yard

indeed how likely is it today athat A ship would Use Morse at all in
distress?

Does it matter? You'd not be able to process it in any case.

I certainly can

a simple fact you can't accept because it unsettles your bigotry

Now agreed I am not as likely to hear the signal, indeed even if you or
Dave were at my rig it would harder to read the CW signal since I don't
bother with specail Filters for CW etc. I would be looking through the
band in SSB sized slices et, so I am more likely to miss it, but IF I
hear it I will respond

"special"

No, Markie...If you're listening in "SSB sized slices", you are
MORE likely to hear a CW distress signal.

Really if you say so, that isn't what ohers are saying but..

"others"

Yes, I say so. Your likelyhood of initially hearing a distress
signal using a modern Amateur transceiver is far greater if you're
listening without filters.

other have said differently not that I realy care I am only listening
with My SSBfilterset

can't even agree with you and have you be polite about it

cuting a mindless rant

I have done so many times

I bet you have.

thank you

That wasan't a gratuity, Markie.

but it should have been, and I was showing more manners than you

No, you weren't.

Sure was

You were "assuming".

not at all

I knew what you meant I choose to respond in a manner more polite than
you

Indeed a FD station where I was doing so may even be in Your log

Not in my log it isn't.

maybe, maybe not, It would be a Club Call of course not KB9RQZ

And I still doubt I have ever worked ANY station wherein YOU were
working the CW station, computer or otherwise.

and you may be right, but you don't know, and for that matter nethier
do I

I AM right and yes I DO know.

another lie you don't know and have no way of knowing

GEE to bad they could not have lasted a bit longer at least I tired

"tried"

But not very hard.

Really?

More lies on Stevies part.

Nope. Evidence on Markie's part proves...

proves?

You claim to know how hard I have worked on morse

You have never even MET me.

You arrogant ass, you don't know enough to judge me

You also don't seem to know the meaning of the word proof

With the ARS luddite mentality on Morse Code, it takes a lot to
assemble and esp test a station using Computer Morse.

It doesn't take 5 minutes.

Plug the speaker into the sound card, turn the computer on and
load the software.

In any case it takes more time than it takes me to just copy the
signal and call the Coast Gurad or AFRCC.

No the PC is already on migth tke me an extra 10 to 20 seconds to get
it ready to call the CG

a few seconds or even a minute or 2 will not matter

and Should that Unlikely occasion arise I will do what I can

Which will be too little too late.

maybe it will, maybe not, but should it happen I will do my best, which
is all anyone can do

It won't matter HOW fast it's sent...If you can't do it, you can't
do it.

Liar

Nope. I could send it at 3 WPM and you'd still screw it up.

Nope but 5 wpm (a preset speed in the program would be better)

My ears don't need a "preset".

so

If I saw your call though I stop the operation at once

Scardiy-Cat!

yes I am afraid in the event I ran into to your call youd try and
provoke in sending the word "****"

We keep trying to get you to use an "external modem" in the form
of a spell checker and you cna't seem to master that. What's to make us
believe you'd be any more functional using a PC for Morse Code
purposes?

Well You know I will put out effort to save a life, I will not to
please a bully

If you managed to save a life, you would please a lot of people.

Indeed I would which is why I have spent some time and effort on
preparing for such an unlikely chance

It was interesting in and of itself working with a freind using a
straight key and his ears with me and my PC I found the practice tuing
and dealing with such a signal quite satifing

Now there were interesting problems along the way so If I had not
practiced ahead of tim I would indeed have real trouble just steping up
and doing it

And if a bully shows up here, I am sure s/he'd be pleased too.

I know my limits...(SNIP)

Obviously not.

sure do

Obviously not.

I certainly do.

You simply do not know what I can

You know the expression about walking a mile in someones shoes.

you have not walked in mine

Knowing one limits pushing them where desirable is part of living

(UNSNIP)...and I prepare for them.

Again, obviously not.

sure do

Obviously not.

Obviously I do

just not as you wish me to

just not in a Stevie approved manner

That's a list somewhere?

Is there?

I thought you just made it up as you went along

(UNSNIP)...I considered long and hard
the Claim of the Procoders about distress, and did something about it.
I aquired the tools to deal with the issue, maybe I (and my Pc) are not
as Good as you or Dave, maybe we are, but we are better than Many
stations that passed the Code test and forgot code the next day,
meaning I am good enough for the current bands

Are you?

sure are

More fit than any of the Code users that boast of lacking a Mike
altogether

Lacking a Mike?

yes lacking a Mike

I have a John, Paul, George and Ringo here...do they count?

nope

The Last a point that the ITU and the FCC agree is correct

I wish I knew what that was supposed to mean.

Then of course you are stupid

No...I just can't figure out what that sentence was supposed to
say!

then you are stupid

It means that the ITU and FCC agree there is no need for manual code
testing or manaul code use, while both reamin premitted

"permitted"

So far the FCC hasn't made that official.

yes they have

Have you missed the NPRM?

after all you comented on it

But I could respond in seconds tell them someone was trying to decode
and tell em things to do in sending there signal that would help my PC
to copy

How can you send a message in response TO a message and tell them
you're trying to "decode" it when you don't even know why the original
message was sent...?!?!

I can send a message quote "to station apearing to sending SOS on this
Frequency DE KB9RQZ please repeat now nature of you emergency, please
be adivised that Sending slowy and evenly is required for this station
to receive decode and attempt to assit you over"

In which case you would have violated on of the principle
guidelines for aiding stations in distress....DO NOT TRANSMIT unless
you are immdeiately able to assist.

nothing imporper about the message

Sure it is.

what?

You have encumbered the distressed operator with having to
accomodate YOUR inadequcies when he COULD be talking to someone who
could help him.

no I have not,

Since it would take me a few second to fire up the program I would know
if someone else were on the air most likely (but not for certain of
course)

Nothing improper about asking him for his position etc. after all If
you came in just on part of his message he would have to repeat himself
for you

and you would have stand by and not assist him

I am prepared at once to assisit

"assist"

Not unless the message was by voice.

I can read faster than I can speak if there is any delay it is amtter
of less than a second once contact is established

Indeed since the program I have has memories for sending caned messages
that one I can send by hitting key f1

"canned"

Unless, of course, you meant you strike the mesaages with a stick
before you send them...?!?!

to say something is "canned" meaning prepared is a clearly understood
by any one using thier brain

But that's NOT what I was addressing.

cuting your crudeness

if that wasn't what you were addressing then you were just being rude
again

the word you refuse to say, the answer to the question of when you
worked those out of band hams did you know they were out of band or
not. Not were you responible to know or any other evasion.

Why, Mark, is that an "evasion"...?!?!

It remains the point. He wasn't required to know.

it was never the point

Sure it was.

Was he required to know the OTHER station's operating limits, and
WAS he, by his Tanzanian license, restricted from communicating with
them.

It's the WHOLE point!

it never was the point

The point was DID he know not wether he was required to

If he was NOT required to know there was STILL no violation since
his licensing authority didn't deem it important enough to address in
the first place THEY didn't deem it a violation!

wrong simply wrong

Nope. Simply nope.

If he knew they were out of band he was wrong

Where is the law or regulation that established his error?

asked and answered

that he was not required to know does not that fact

Where is the law or regualtion that establishes his error?

asked and answered

you dance and dance avoiding this question

In either case, he's "in the clear".

Dave had NO OBLIGATION to know who was in or out of the bands per
THIER administration's requiremments.

None under US law...None under Tanzanian law...None under
International law.

more evasion

It's not "evasion".

It's a matter or complying with laws and regulations.

A question even YOU said was moot!

it is evasion
since it has nothing to do with wether the operation was legal or not

It wasn't illegal, knucklehead! That's the WHOLE point! There
was NO standing regulation that addressed it in the first place!

indeed there is but it is matter of Law, you may not knowingly aid
another in the comission of a crime

WHAT CRIME?

asked and answered

cuting out the rest of you mindless drivel