wrote

If something is worth
writing, it's worth writing clearly.

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr
the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat
ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll
raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey
lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

73, de Hans, K0HB

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
cut
dis dat


Len, we could apply the null hypothesis. It could have been a
disgruntled NCTA trying to make the PCTA look bad. But there's two
problems with that hypothesis:

a. The NCTA have nothing to be disgruntled about except a quarter
century of arbitrary and unnecessary government regulation, and

and right Now I can't see how NCTA can be disgruntled the only
bothering me now is chopping at the bit wiating for it to be over

Even my non Ham freinds have noticed the improvement in my often
somewhat dower expression
and dared asked me to explain

that and I have have found myself breaking into song on the repeater
stuff like that

Stop right there. Even the slightest upturn at the corner of your
mouth might be mistaken as gloating.

b. The PCTA make themselves look bad without any help.

OTOH they do even better by just making em SEE happy folks

They'll form support groups to try to cope.

roillng on the folor luaghnig my ass off

Ceehrs,
Blil, KNU2K

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote

If something is worth
writing, it's worth writing clearly.

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht
oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the
frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses
and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn
mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

73, de Hans, K0HB

wrote:
From: on Tues 16 Aug 2005 16:33


wrote:

All you EXTRA MORSEMEN ought to be PROUD of a fellow EXTRA, N9KKY,
David G. Brink, now listed under WT Docket 05-235 in the ECFS as
received on 8 August 2005 and added by the FCC on 15 August 2005.
A one-page scrawled hand-printed and very shaky written name
signature dated (by the sender) as 31 July 2005, a Sunday. No
doubt that Sunday featured some slightly excessive imbibing prior
to scrawling this magnificent missive.

Len, we could apply the null hypothesis. It could have been a
disgruntled NCTA trying to make the PCTA look bad. But there's two
problems with that hypothesis:

a. The NCTA have nothing to be disgruntled about except a quarter
century of arbitrary and unnecessary government regulation, and

b. The PCTA make themselves look bad without any help.

Heh heh heh...I agree on both counts!

Quod erat demonstrandum.

end nul


Eternal Truth: CW gets through when everything else will.

an old friend wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

Nope but it isn't worth my time to compose if people aren't going to bother
reading it. If I'm not going to take the time to do it reasonably well, I'm
not going to bother at all.

Well it is your choice but frankly I skip any message that takes extra
effort to decipher. I keep my spell checker and grammar checker turned
on
at all times despite the fact that I received straight A's throughout
elementary school, high school, and college in all the English classes
(and
related classes) that I took. Even with these aids turned on, I take
time
to look through my message and make sure that it is as clear as possible.
I
want people to read what I've written. Otherwise why bother to write
anything?

I agree 100% with Dee's ideas expressed above. If something is worth
writing, it's worth writing clearly.

When are you going to start writng clearly yourself?

BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! !
! !

You're such a card, Markie! Always the comedian!

This doesn't mean we're all Shakespeares. It does mean we can at least
do what we can to use correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and
capitalization.

Ok

He says "ok", but my money's on "But I won't do a darned thing
about it".

An analogy:

Suppose there are a group of hams who regularly QSO on VHF or UHF FM.
Although they use different rigs, all have signals with "good audio" -
clean, crisp, clear, easy to listen to and understand.

Then a newcomer shows up, with a signal that has really poor audio.
Muffled, distorted, very unclear. Not weak, off-frequency or
over-deviating,
just not clear. Varies from 'requires a careful listen' to 'completely
impossible to understand'.

Fortunately it is discovered that the problem lies in the microphone
being used by the newcomer. It's the original that came with the rig,
which is no longer made. Nothing wrong with the rig itself, it's the
mike which is the problem.

But the newcomer refuses to replace the microphone. Says it's too much
trouble, costs too much money, and a new mike wouldn't be as easy to
use as the old one. Plus he doesn't think his audio is all that bad in
the first place.

Newcomer finally says that if the group can't understand him, it's
*their* problem, not his, and he shouldn't be expected to spend money,
time and effort to get a new microphone for his rig.

How should the group respond?

One you you try analogy that is valid

It's absolutely valid.

you could also be man enough to say what you mean

Seem's pretty straight forward to me.

For example to addmto your analogy

"addmto"...?!?!

That's not even close to being a "word".

It is only those that disgree with the newcomers views that find him so
impossible to understand

I don't always agree with Jim and it made perfect sence to me.

It it also truns out not to be his mike but his voice that has problem

"turns"

and of course tell get off the air till you can fix your voice

and of course Ham operators are so accepting

Sure they are...Unless you're blatantly lying or deceiving.

Like you, Lennie and Brainless.

Steve, K4YZ

K0HB:

Thanks, I learned something I didn't know, worked well for me!

John

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 00:04:09 +0000, KØHB wrote:


wrote

If something is worth
writing, it's worth writing clearly.

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr
the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat
ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll
raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey
lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

73, de Hans, K0HB

K4YZ wrote:
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

Nope but it isn't worth my time to compose if people aren't going to bother
reading it. If I'm not going to take the time to do it reasonably well, I'm
not going to bother at all.

Well it is your choice but frankly I skip any message that takes extra
effort to decipher. I keep my spell checker and grammar checker turned
on
at all times despite the fact that I received straight A's throughout
elementary school, high school, and college in all the English classes
(and
related classes) that I took. Even with these aids turned on, I take
time
to look through my message and make sure that it is as clear as possible.
I
want people to read what I've written. Otherwise why bother to write
anything?

I agree 100% with Dee's ideas expressed above. If something is worth
writing, it's worth writing clearly.

When are you going to start writng clearly yourself?

BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! !
! !

You're such a card, Markie! Always the comedian!

Not realy but you can tell yourself that lie

Jim wanders on and on to the point no one is quite sure what his point
is


This doesn't mean we're all Shakespeares. It does mean we can at least
do what we can to use correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and
capitalization.

Ok

He says "ok", but my money's on "But I won't do a darned thing
about it".

which is of course the same thing


An analogy:

Suppose there are a group of hams who regularly QSO on VHF or UHF FM.
Although they use different rigs, all have signals with "good audio" -
clean, crisp, clear, easy to listen to and understand.

Then a newcomer shows up, with a signal that has really poor audio.
Muffled, distorted, very unclear. Not weak, off-frequency or
over-deviating,
just not clear. Varies from 'requires a careful listen' to 'completely
impossible to understand'.

Fortunately it is discovered that the problem lies in the microphone
being used by the newcomer. It's the original that came with the rig,
which is no longer made. Nothing wrong with the rig itself, it's the
mike which is the problem.

But the newcomer refuses to replace the microphone. Says it's too much
trouble, costs too much money, and a new mike wouldn't be as easy to
use as the old one. Plus he doesn't think his audio is all that bad in
the first place.

Newcomer finally says that if the group can't understand him, it's
*their* problem, not his, and he shouldn't be expected to spend money,
time and effort to get a new microphone for his rig.

How should the group respond?

One you you try analogy that is valid

It's absolutely valid.

nope it isn't


you could also be man enough to say what you mean

Seem's pretty straight forward to me.

For example to addmto your analogy

"addmto"...?!?!

That's not even close to being a "word".

It is only those that disgree with the newcomers views that find him so
impossible to understand

I don't always agree with Jim and it made perfect sence to me.

It it also truns out not to be his mike but his voice that has problem

"turns"

and of course tell get off the air till you can fix your voice

and of course Ham operators are so accepting

Sure they are...Unless you're blatantly lying or deceiving.

Not lying or decieving you are lying and decieving in claiming to know
the medcial state of a person you have never met

You know this since you are an LPN


Like you, Lennie and Brainless.

Steve, K4YZ

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dee Flint" wrote

But why be so stubborn about using a spell checker? Is your ego more
important than your message?

In defense of Mark......

On several ocassions here he has noted that his interface to rrap is via
Google. Google doesn't provide a spell checking service. Get out of his
case already!

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

Normally I would have not commented except for the fact that he has also
made the point several times that he is deliberately choosing not to in
order to spite people. Even with Google, one could compose in a word
processor and then cut and paste. Or a person could at least read through
it a couple of times before hitting send.

However, it doesn't particularly bother me as I exercise my option not to
read the garbled ones. If he wishes to waste his time writing stuff that
people won't read, that's his prerogative.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee:

I like it when the girl plays hard to get, then acquiesces in the end,
been movies made about that yanno!!! tongue-in-cheek

John

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:59:32 -0400, Dee Flint wrote:


"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dee Flint" wrote

But why be so stubborn about using a spell checker? Is your ego more
important than your message?

In defense of Mark......

On several ocassions here he has noted that his interface to rrap is via
Google. Google doesn't provide a spell checking service. Get out of his
case already!

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

Normally I would have not commented except for the fact that he has also
made the point several times that he is deliberately choosing not to in
order to spite people. Even with Google, one could compose in a word
processor and then cut and paste. Or a person could at least read through
it a couple of times before hitting send.

However, it doesn't particularly bother me as I exercise my option not to
read the garbled ones. If he wishes to waste his time writing stuff that
people won't read, that's his prerogative.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
"K=D8HB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dee Flint" wrote

But why be so stubborn about using a spell checker? Is your ego more
important than your message?

In defense of Mark......

On several ocassions here he has noted that his interface to rrap is via
Google. Google doesn't provide a spell checking service. Get out of his
case already!

Ty Hans (trying to save Bandwidth by checking you both at once


Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

Normally I would have not commented except for the fact that he has also
made the point several times that he is deliberately choosing not to in
order to spite people. Even with Google, one could compose in a word
processor and then cut and paste. Or a person could at least read through
it a couple of times before hitting send.

I could double or triple the time involved

and again iif you aren't interested in reading posts feel free to
ignore them

You might not be my target audeince


However, it doesn't particularly bother me as I exercise my option not to
read the garbled ones. If he wishes to waste his time writing stuff that
people won't read, that's his prerogative.


=20
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE