dxAce wrote:

Smokey wrote:


If you want easy...and most of the CW whiners do...why don't you just hook
your laptop up to your DSL line and stay the hell off the air?

Jeez, you've got a pathetic joke for an exam now with canned questions to
memorize and no code to learn. Too bad you're not still in your mother's
womb so you don't have to feed yourselves. Though you have deluded
yourselves into believing you are "hams," you are hardly believable when you
wear that title. The only reason you have been able to slip through into the
dumbed-down requirements and some sort of fcc "license" sham is because your
appliance manufacturers that make your rigs and the charlatans like the arrl
are selling out the hobby so they can sell you things.

It's ALL ABOUT THE MONEY and you no-coder idiots have fallen for it.

As for traditional, genuine "hams, we may be from the "Stone Age," but once
the dinosauers became extinct the pristine landscape took on pollution and
overcrowding. You simpletons have all drank the Kool-Aid and cannot see that
you are parties to the eventual elimination of ham radio.

Thank God for "stone age hams," for at least there is someone still around
that knows something about the avocation.


Amen.

dxAce
Michigan
USA



"J. D. B." wrote in message
...

John,

Just get on digital modes. Don't worry about CW. Digital is where the
fun is and the copy is much better.

A buddy of mine in St. Louis and I experimented with low power and
various digital modes last night on 40 meters. CW was marginal. The
best was DominoEX with FEC - just about 100% all the time and it also
has a second channel to display additional information.

CW can be fun at times, but maybe it's not your thing. Let the
stone-age hams continue with CW, and move up and on to the digital modes.

MultiPSK, while a bit cluttered and ugly, is a great program you can
use. MixW is cleaner looking and very good, but not as many
capabilities in the program.

Move on and start having fun.

JDB

JOHN D wrote:


I got nothing against CW, but being kept out of amateur radio for 40+

years

cus I had difficulty learning the code, sucks.
Finally, I got enough right to barely pass the 5 wpm test. Still can't

find

anybody slow enough for me to copy on the air.
If I ever get good enough to use it, I'll try a few homebrew transmitter
projects.

I expect there are some technically competent people who might be

interested

in amateur radio, but have no interest in learning code.
John




Lighten up. There's room for everyone. I love CW but I have no
illusions about it's ultimate capabilities. It's just FUN!
Looking forward to experimenting with digital, too. I'd do more SSB if
only I knew what to say. hihi

John
AB8WH

Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:49:00 GMT, (Hymie)
wrote:

Very well put. Every mode is useful, important and valuable in different
situations. What's unfortunate, is that the only modes the anti-CW crowd
wants and supports are "Lazy Mode" and "Retard mode"

Even those who tout digital modes - they want to buy an interface and
software and "be" on digital. Then they wonder why the signal they're
hearing, that sounds just like the digital mode they use, doesn't work
on their setup. Maybe because a PSK program won't decode SSTV?

Reminds me of the GPRS "exerts" who can't understand why changing the
"code" on their radios doesn't eliminate the interference from the guy
next door.

The anti-CW crowd wants no code and a written test you can memorize
the answers to. It's their "right" to be on the air, isn't it? Even
if they need 2 more clues to be totally clueless?

There's a world of difference between technical electronics knowledge
and ability to decipher code. One has absolutely nothing to do with the
other. FWIW, I don't even have a ham license anymore. I don't care
about the code, whether it lives or dies. If you enjoy brass pounding,
then do it.

Just don't equate that ability with another that is not even slightly
related.

jak

Proof:


"an_old_friend" wrote in
ups.com:

it is our right and everybody else right that any restriction to our
access to public spectrum be "neccisary and proper" (one of 3 clauses
in the constitution that give the power to regulate the airwave to the
govet at all) otherwise the 10 reserving all right and power to the
sates or the people applies modifing that is the thrid place where the
consititution of US touches on this issue mby making the constitution
and the TREATIES made the supreme law of the land

according the Govt lost the POWER to impose Morse Code test on the ARS
unless it can be justified under some other powere of the Constitution

I find it interesting that the ProCode tes crowd has such disrespect
for that document

"J. D. B." wrote in
:

Sorry Blow Code, but you cannot turn back the hands of time. The 13 & 20
WPM tests are gone forever. And soon, the CW testing requirement will
be eliminated completely. It's the will of the majority. It's
evolution. You can whine, cry and carry on all you want about the CW
testing requirement. It is going the way of the buggy whip, the Ford
Model-T, dinosaurs, the carrier pigeons, and a host of other old,
outdated, and unnecessary things of the past. Good Bye and Good
Riddance.

Spoken like a true appliance operator.


If there is any crying and whining after CW is gone, it will be by phonies
wondering why their bands sound like CB.

SC

jawod wrote in :

Slow Code wrote:
"RHF" wrote in
ups.com:


JB - Spoken like a True Red and White
{Blue-in-the-Face} Canadian ~ RHF
.
.
. .




Kanadians are more Red... Commie Red.

slow code is lo-co


LOL, Good one jawod. Did you come up with that all by yourself
or did you have to copy & paste one of Markie's spelling mistakes.

SC

Slow Code wrote:
jawod wrote in :
slow code is lo-co


LOL, Good one jawod. Did you come up with that all by yourself
or did you have to copy & paste one of Markie's spelling mistakes.
you are loco

SC

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:55:28 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

There's a world of difference between technical electronics knowledge
and ability to decipher code.

Considering that someone with absolutely no knowledge of electronics
can memorize enough to pass the test in about 8 hours, there's no
longer any real test of anything but the ability to memorize.

FWIW, I don't even have a ham license anymore.

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:55:28 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

There's a world of difference between technical electronics knowledge
and ability to decipher code.

Considering that someone with absolutely no knowledge of electronics
can memorize enough to pass the test in about 8 hours, there's no
longer any real test of anything but the ability to memorize.
whta is needed and why?

FWIW, I don't even have a ham license anymore.

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

nope he has full standing he is an american that means the FCC is
suposed serve not the ARS but the people of the USA.

the problem with you procoders is that you think the ARS owns the
bandwidth not the poeple of the USA

Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:55:28 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

There's a world of difference between technical electronics knowledge
and ability to decipher code.

Considering that someone with absolutely no knowledge of electronics
can memorize enough to pass the test in about 8 hours, there's no
longer any real test of anything but the ability to memorize.

FWIW, I don't even have a ham license anymore.

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once, at 15 years old; and I've picked up a fair amount
of electronics knowledge as well...proving that one has little to do
with the other.

jak

jakdedert wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:55:28 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

There's a world of difference between technical electronics knowledge
and ability to decipher code.

Considering that someone with absolutely no knowledge of electronics
can memorize enough to pass the test in about 8 hours, there's no
longer any real test of anything but the ability to memorize.

FWIW, I don't even have a ham license anymore.

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once, at 15 years old; and I've picked up a fair amount
of electronics knowledge as well...proving that one has little to do
with the other.
you still do don't let this bozo tell you otherwise (unless you are an
ilgeal alien or something)

jak