Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #431   Report Post  
Old August 20th 06, 04:41 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?

From: an old friend on Sat, Aug 19 2006 2:18 pm

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


Mark, Just ignore them.


Hey, "Slow," you might want to check your message headers
a bit more carefully. I am not Mark. Neither am I a "mark"
for con games. :-)


it seems that Slowcode think I am some secret maniolator (or is just
realy stupid about programing jammer bots


He seems CONFUSED. Maybe that's a result of hearing all
that beeping morse code? :-)

He sent his "reply" to me TWICE... tsk,tsk :-)


"Slow," I've been involved in radio for 53 years. Most of that time
as a professional. As a part of that, I once "worked" a station
ON the moon. No bounce needed. Quarter million mile DX.
Can you top that as an amateur? :-)


I csn about match that Lenn not quite but close


Noooooo. I worked a STATION on the moon, namely one of the
ALSEP (Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package). Sent a
command to the SWS (Solar Wind Spectrometer) part, got the
response back on earth. Two-way. The ALSEPs are now
silent, nobody can work them. :-)




  #435   Report Post  
Old August 20th 06, 06:34 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?


wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Had you wanted to be "civil" about it, you could have simply
acknowledged your mistake, stopped trying to build a Mt. Everest
out of a teaspoon of sand, and gone on with life. You did not.
You have MANUFACTURED a dispute, insulted your challengers, and
implied a number of things, all without any referencible data.

Very Robesonesque.


Hello Brian,

This "dispute manufacturing" technique probably predates Robeson
by centuries... :-)

Anyway, it is an old, old technique of computer-modem comms and
was seen on ARPANET back before the first BBSs existed.

It's a way of bluff by the "manufacturer" to get around actually
replying to some challenge made by others. That's usually
accompanied by the manufacturer's veiled or outright personal
insults levelled against the challenger. Robeson uses the latter
more than the former.



His, "Sorry Hans, MARS IS Amateur Radio." would make a good,
quick, clean case study for some grad student of psychology. It has
all of the elements of that pathology and google serves it up in
seconds.


Quite true, Brian. Those of us who were here 1 to 2 years ago
had an eyefull of his continuous - but faulty - efforts to "tell" us
all about His fantasy of things. :-)

Mainly it was his abject refusal to back down when faced with
definitive directives by the government (DoD) in regard to the
Military Affiliate Radio System. Weeks went by without his
admitting that the Directive existed. His final communication
on the subject would NOT openly admit to error but was laced
with more personal insults on his challengers. Sad.





  #436   Report Post  
Old August 20th 06, 07:26 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?


wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 03:10:22 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

wrote:

Here's a suggestion: Drop the "outraged" act and start
thinking about the SUBJECT, not your own emotionalism.


Are you prepared to address the SUBJECT, Len? The subject is: "If you
had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?"

Go for it.

I will address it

certianly not

I myself with now skill at the mode could save a life if it came to
that


Mark, caution on Heil and his - usual - attempt at misdirection by
manufacturing a dispute over personalities. Heil does this
repeatedly as a means of attempting to discredit and humiliate
his "opponents."

This whole 500+ message thread was started by the usual
imaginative pipe-dream of morse code "saving lives" (as opposed
to any other mode) thereby "justifying" its existance as an
AMATEUR radio license test.

In the USA the amateur radio service is NOT specifically or
mainly involved in "life-saving" activities. The Public Safety
sub-parts of the PLMRS (Private Land Mobile Radio Service)
(non-amateur) define that. A look into Part 1 of Title 47 C.F.R.
will show that - for the safety of life - ANY mode of communication
on ANY part of the EM spectrum by ANYONE can be used for
the purposes of safety of life.

The "argument" over hypothetical scenarios formulated by someone
biasing their "proposed" condition is a pointless exercise. No one
can foresee the future clearly or definitively.

The morse code test was originally instituted in amateur radio
licensing testing after such testing was begun by the first
federal radio regulating agency in the USA. It was there because
that agency felt it was necessary for their radio-regulating
purposes (it was, essentially, the ONLY mode for amateurs at
the time). Morse code testing has remained in the USA
regulations concerning below-30-MHz amateur radio privileges
ever since the FCC was created in 1934...principally at the
lobbying of the ARRL to pacify their old-time membership.

Well before the WRC-03 beginning, the IARU had already taken
a position that morse code testing was NOT essential to obtaining
an amateur radio license. The ARRL refused to go along with that
position (it was the ARRL against the world). The ARRL still
refuses to take sides long after WRC-03 was finished, saying
(obliquely) that amateurs must obey regulations [in the USA]; good
words but they don't take any side in the code test v. no code test
issue.

That morse code skill is NOT considered essential to safety of life
should be evident on some international regulations (both via WRC
and with individual nations' radio regulations): Those radio
services
designated as Public Safety (as in medical as well as police and
fire services) do NOT require testing for morsemanship. The new
(relatively, since 1999) GMDSS (designed-specified by international
maritime SOLAS community) requires NO morsemanship skills or
demonstration of same to call for help at sea. The old 500 KHz
international distress and safety frequency (and morsemanship needs
to use it) were eliminated. The United States Coast Guard
announced (some years ago) that it had stopped monitoring 500
KHz. International airspace communications is carried out on HF
using voice modes (agreement by ICAO, a UN body like the ITU).

The long-time pro-coders' arguments to preserve code testing in last
year's FCC NPRM Comment period had only these essential
arguments to preserve it: Ability to communicate with the least
transmitter power; some kind of 'unbreakable' system to thwart
terrorists; some fancied that amateur (CW) communications would
be the 'only' possible means available during emergencies. All of
those are invalid and were shown as such by Replies to Comments.
All that was left was the EMOTIONALISM of the long-timers having
to take the test, their rising to the 'top' of the amateur ranking
by
means of that demonstrated ability, and a refusal to change from
their self-righteous views on amateur radio. Some long-timers
achieved rank-position-title-privileges under old rules (that were
lobbied for by ARRL) that gave the most privileges to morsemen;
they fear loss of 'prestige' and privilege if the morse code test
goes
away, yet are too proud to admit their fear (which is almost
palpable in some of these messages).

As a counterpoint to elimination of the code test, many of the more
'vocal' pro-coders have taken their 'side' to rather severe (and
highly misplaced) lengths. They accuse the 'no-coders' of
everything
from homosexuality to perversion to unpatriotic activies to
bestiality.
Most of the personal-insult pro-coder group use pseudonyms on
newsgroups, possibly afraid of revealing their true identity; none
the
less these 'anony-mousies" behave in immature fashion, more like
middle-school males trying to assert their machismo even though
they try to hide via anonymity.

---

Heil, a pro-coder, tries to misdirect things by attempting to make a
flame war about personalities:

How do you know how many see Al as an arbiter? How many do you believe
think you'd make a good arbiter in discussions of amateur radio?


"Arbeit macht frei" - sign over one of the entrances to Auschwitz.

["work sets you free"]

Let's everyone WORK for that amateur radio license!!! :-)




  #437   Report Post  
Old August 20th 06, 09:55 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,554
Default If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?


wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Had you wanted to be "civil" about it, you could have simply
acknowledged your mistake, stopped trying to build a Mt. Everest
out of a teaspoon of sand, and gone on with life. You did not.
You have MANUFACTURED a dispute, insulted your challengers, and
implied a number of things, all without any referencible data.

Very Robesonesque.

Hello Brian,

This "dispute manufacturing" technique probably predates Robeson
by centuries... :-)

Anyway, it is an old, old technique of computer-modem comms and
was seen on ARPANET back before the first BBSs existed.

It's a way of bluff by the "manufacturer" to get around actually
replying to some challenge made by others. That's usually
accompanied by the manufacturer's veiled or outright personal
insults levelled against the challenger. Robeson uses the latter
more than the former.



His, "Sorry Hans, MARS IS Amateur Radio." would make a good,
quick, clean case study for some grad student of psychology. It has
all of the elements of that pathology and google serves it up in
seconds.


Quite true, Brian. Those of us who were here 1 to 2 years ago
had an eyefull of his continuous - but faulty - efforts to "tell" us
all about His fantasy of things. :-)


Little Billy Beeper had him pegged - he's nuts.

Mainly it was his abject refusal to back down when faced with
definitive directives by the government (DoD) in regard to the
Military Affiliate Radio System.


Such complete ignorance of MARS, yet somehow, he claims that he was the
Assistant NCOIC of a NMC MARS Station on Okinawa. Simply unbeleivable.

Weeks went by without his
admitting that the Directive existed. His final communication
on the subject would NOT openly admit to error but was laced
with more personal insults on his challengers. Sad.



Accusations and insults. Whichever grad student locks on to him first
is one lucky SOB. All the work is done.

  #439   Report Post  
Old August 20th 06, 10:57 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,554
Default If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?


wrote:
From: on Thurs, Aug 10 2006 8:48 pm
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner, rec.radio.swap


Al Klein wrote:
On 9 Aug 2006 19:14:54 -0700, wrote:


You couldn't be more wrong. If there were practical exams for SSB, FM,
AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc,
then it would be CRYSTAL clear that a Morse Code exam is valid.


However, there are no such practical exams for the other modes. So
there need be no exam for Morse Code, either.


That's my point - there's no test any longer. For anything more than
the ability to memorize answers.


Lots of memorization was required in your day. It's only a bad thing
in 1992 to present. I think I get your drift...


Selective amnesia. "No one had to memorize anything" prior 1992.
Not in grade school, not in college, not in industry, not in
real life. Strange perception...


Selective amnesia...

With the advent of the No-Code Technician license, memorization became
a bad, bad thing.

Ummm? There's no Morse Code test anymore?


The International Morse Code test for United States amateur
radio license classes General and Extra have NEVER GONE AWAY.

That is especially true in the perception of the ARRL which
still manages to insert the "necessities" for morsemanship
in nearly everything it publishes. It's been six decades
since Hiram Percy became ultimate DX but they still keep on
with their demand that all [US] amateurs be proficient in
that old mode.


Most issues of QST have a minimum of at least one walk down memory
lane, usually with a key or keyer in one hand.

The Conditional was whatever class was being tested for, but not at an
FCC office. It had nothing to do with the class, only with the
location.


What current exam? Memorizing answers and writing them down isn't a
test.


So what is it that you fear?


Klein fears CHANGE and, perhaps, feelings of obsolescence.


I think everyone has some of that to one degree or another. It's
unhealthy to allow that fear to paralyze you.

Someone who has been a regular worker in electronics (radio is a
subset of electronics) ought to damn well know and recognize
that the state of the art in electronics has been CONSTANTLY
changing. It's sometimes a chore to keep up, whether it be
1950 or 2000 or any time in-between.


There will be new challenges before us tomorrow, but we won't know
about them. We will still be arguing if a morse code exam is
necessary.

You'd probably be weeded out pretty quickly.


I doubt it - if I couldn't pass an Extra theory exam - a real one, not
the nonsense that passes for one these days - I'd lose my job in a
second.


Mmmm. I see. You are a careerist in the electronics industry and it
****es you off that hobbyists have equal "status" as you in amatuer
radio. I've run across a lot of that in the past 20 years...


I've run across a lot of that my entire life. :-)

I think Klein wants recognition as a "professional amateur" or
"amateur professional." I'm not sure which...


He's a professional whiner.

What if you addressed what I said when you answer me? Your dishonest
tactics are transparent.


You're the one that forgot the circuit, not me. Get ****ed at your own
self.


When in doubt of an effective reply, these Fundamentalist
Morseodists
must resort to some form of denigration. Sigh, they never learn...


My dishonest, transparent tactics...

Odd, saying what you mean and meaning what you say have become
dishonest.

Quit putting words in my mouth. I wasn't complaining to anyone, and
we weren't discussing remembering 50 year old tests.


Correct. "WE" weren't discussing it. YOU were. YOU were discussing
how you can't draw what you can't remember.


This is an indicator that Klein isn't used to computer-modem
communications. He isn't looking beyond his own screen and
understanding that others are separated from it in time and space.
"He" was obviously talking about "old days" of "His." He is not
considering that others do not share his viewpoints.


I regret to inform Mr Klein that I do not agree with him.

Considering the Type of Oscillator and "names," he has put
Names as somehow "essential" to the circuit. NO SUCH THING.
An oscillator is simply an amplifier of just-barely-past-unity
gain with positive feedback. The Names were tacked on by
academics long, long ago as IDENTIFICATION of the general form
of amplification-with-positive-feedback.


I'm surprised that Klein allows any feedback in his oscillator
circuits.

One can build a Colpitts oscillator, make it work, and continue
calling it a Hartley. Won't make a bit of difference to the
circuit...electrons don't give a damn about human labels. They
work by THEIR laws, not humans' with their imperative labels.

By the way, on a quick bit of checking, I've got text references
to about 11 different oscillator forms, not just two (with his
unknown third type)...and I'm not counting free-running multi-
vibrators which are also very much an "oscillator."


Talk of any kind of vibrator might draw inuendo from robesin.

Maybe we should have one - show the ability to put a clean PSK signal
on the air. Show the ability to interpret a waterfall display. Show
the ability to tell the difference between various digital modes. The
bands would be pretty QRM-free.


YES!!!


[ no... ]


Huh? Lets let the FCC tell us that it is impractical to have everyone
take mode exams. Or lets let the council of VECs tul us the same
thing.

If you are ever going to save your beloved Morse Code test, this is the
only way you're going to do it.


The only way to "save his beloved morse code test" is to have the
ARRL exercise some BETTER brainwashing than it has been doing for
decades. The League is still trying to use its old persuasion
and, so far, hasn't been able to get memberships from the 3/4 of
all licensed US radio amateurs who are NOT ARRL members...


If the league pushes the morse testing issue too hard, it will become
obvious to the 25% that are members.

I think it is you who don't know where you're going with this
discussion. It's gone beyond your having grief over your favorite mode
to actually having to think about the future of the service.
Conggrats. Another couple of years of RRAP tutoring and you just might
become a rational being.


I disagree, Brian. Klein is a MORSEMAN. They don't change.
They are rooted in old days long gone, brainwashed early into
thinking that morsemanship is "essential" to "best" radio
communication. It isn't...easily proved by ALL the OTHER
radio services giving up on morse code as a mode (if they
had it once) or never requiring it since a radio service began.


Actuarial tables abound to deal with that kind of thinking.

Who said that? We absolutely NEED relevant exams. That is my whole
argument!


So you're in favor of exams that test knowledge of theory? "Draw the
schematic of ..."? "Explain why long path 2400 bps is impossible on
14 MHz"? That kind of relevance?


Sure. But you have to ask yourself one question. Can the average VE
administer such an exam? If not, can your average GS-7 FCC employee
administer such an exam? If you set up an exam that only an engineer
can administer, then your government isn't going to accept it. So be
realistic in your zeal.


Klein hasn't considered the simple fact that, by law, the VEs
do NOT have to be trained test-adminsters. They are simply
VOLINTEERS who have the requisite license class and GIVE OF
THEIR OWN TIME to adminster tests. VEs are accountable only
to the FCC in that volunteer testing. VEs' only "penalty"
in mis-administering an amateur test is a reduction in license
class or forteiture of their amateur license.

Klein and his "tests aren't like they were in 'my' time"
bitchers and moaners HAD their chance to keep privatization
in testing from happening long ago. Legal means to stop it
by NPRM Commentary didn't make their case. Privatization
happened for BOTH amateur and commercial licenses. Now
their whine is long past its time and has turned to vinegar.


Yep. Testing must become more "legitimate" for hobbyists than for
professionals.

Or the "pick the answer with the resistor like we showed you in the
example" kind of relevance?


The exam can be anything your VEC wants it to be. We learned this when
the ARRL went from administering a Morse Code Exam at 5WPM to
administering a Farnsworth Exam at 13-15WPM.


True enough, Brian, but expect ten kinds of flak from the
other morsepersons in here on that... :-)


Quack, Quack! Water off a duck's back.

The VEC can LEGALLY generate a Question Pool with ONE HUNDRED
times the minimum required number of questions. With electronic
transmittal over the Internet the Question Pool can be updated
within 24 hours to ALL VE groups.


But everytime the NCVEC solicits for questions and participants for the
QP revisions, guys like Klein are silent; absent.

Say the FCC requires a minimum of 50 questions on a written
test element. If the VEC QPC generates the Question-Answer
pool with FIVE THOUSAND QUESTIONS (and answers), it should be
obvious that mere "memorization" sufficient to pass that
written test element is out of the question. Anyone who CAN
memorize that prodigious amount is already gifted as an eidetic
and those are extremely rare among humans.


Klein will claim that all are eidetic, and the new QP is unfair.

What all that concentration on the "written tests" is about is
just a DIVERSION to keep from replying on the singular morse
code test continuation. The morsemen just haven't been able
to come up with sufficently-valid reasons to keep the morse
test (other than the emotional ones) so they smoke-screen by
bringing up the writtens. Old tactic of theirs.


Old and tired.

How do you draw a schematic


Memorization.


Correct.

and explain the functions of parts by
memorizing answers?


Memorization.


Correct again.

You can't explain phase shift by memorizing "10k"
or "coil".


You can't memorize the def of phase shift?

C'mon, aren't you supposed to be in the industry?


We don't know WHERE, Brian, or for WHOM. :-)


Sounds like Jim.

I used radios in the military. I never used a CW key in the military.
I never jammed another operator, although Brandywine asked me to reduce
power once.


But you had to learn how to use the radios.


I did?


They just gave you a radio and said "use it"?


On/Off and PTT. What else is there???


[ ahem..."volume" and "squelch" to name two... :-) ]

Oh, yeh, a magnetic compass and a chart where the satellite is.


Darn you "kids!" Weren't any of those newfangled gizmos
like "satellites" when I was in the Army. :-)


1957. The Russians. Sputnik. CW beacon signal on 20M.

And I wasn't born yet.

But the technilogy was worthwhile and moved forward - without morse
code.

The AN/PRC-8 backpack VHF transceivers (one of which I wore
in PIP Training) also had VFO frequency control along with a
built-in "crystal calibrator." Nothing like the "channel
selection" of a later synthesized AN/PRC-25 (also FM on VHF).

Interesting engineering feat with that VFO control over a
military temperature and vibration environment. Copied from
the old SCR-300 "walkie-talkie" of WW2, devised by Motorola
(also FM on VHF). But, I digress, that was Practical Theory
as applied by professional engineering, used by professional
military people...didn't have the majesty of AMATEURISM and
all its nobility (and class distinctions).


Now we've got FM repeater satellites getting kicked out by the dozens.

Hams today don't - they
memorize a few answers, buy equipment and get on the air - with no
understanding of what they're doing, and no desire to learn.


Then it hasn't changed much since you were first licensed.


When I was licensed you had to show an understanding of theory, by
answering questions that were more than just multiple choice from a
published answer pool.


Yes, you had to memorize paragraphs instead of multiple choices. Big
deal.


Good grief, all that crying and wailing over Test Privatization!
Maybe we should take up a collection to send him some Kleenex?


Robesin will interpret that as some kind of sexual inuendo.

Seems to me that COLLEGE-level course tests that I took had a
LOT of memorization. Maybe we should all slam the academic
world for doing the same "memorization?" Hey, why not, all
those who failed college level courses can get a Wailing Wall!


Bill Gates at the wailing wall?

My state drivers' license testing is done from multiple-choice
and that requires MUCH memorization of the applicable laws.
While the CA DMV does not publish the EXACT answers, the have
lots and lots of examples, not only well-publicized but available
free in little booklets at each DMV office. Maybe Klein wants
me to take an ME degree course in automotive engineering just
to drive our Malibu MAXX? :-)


I sure hope he doesn't answer that question.

You may, but I can see from many of the comments that have been posted
here that a lot of people don't. They don't want to learn, they want
to get on the air. Period.


W3RV didn't wait to get a ham license before operating! He just wanted
to get on the air. Period.


Point?


All you wonderful OF's taking trips down memory lane forget that some
of your brother hams were bootleggers.

It's only the unwashed No-code Techs that operate illegally. Hi!!!
What a stinking load.


Brian, if you check out the "official" history of the ARRL
you will find out that they BEGAN in trying to circumvent
the commercial telegram system with a relaying of messages
past the commercial boundaries and FEES. If that were
reported today, the journalists would call it "hacking."


Oh, oh.

If you must retain a Morse Code Exam, then you must
also administer practical exams for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY
(which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc.


I have no problem with that.


Then go for it.

It is the ONLY legitimate recourse you have for retaining the Morse
Code exam.

Best of luck.


I hope he tries it. I'm anxious to find out how much hostility
he will engender from his fellow amateurs who are VEs...how they
have to spend many more hours (of their own time) in testing
each license applicant (separately). Ought to go over like a
concrete balloon...


Forced learning of Morse Code...

Trained as an EE. Spent years designing RF circuitry, then went into
digital design. "Is", not yet "was" - I'm still alive.


Are you drawing a pension from it? "Was."

Are you drawing a paycheck from it? "Is."

And it's so typical for Old Timers to forget that not everyone in the
ARS are CAREERIST PROFESSIONALS. Bitching and Moaning about how
everyone else doesn't know as much as them.


Klein has yet to define his own label, whether it is "professional
amateur" or "amateur professional." He seems undecided.

I'm one of the (chronological) Olde Fahrts in this group but I
pray to God that I won't ever get as bad as some of them with
their retro attitudes and fixations with modes of their long-
ago youth, the ultra importance of CLASS and RANK. Geez.

You'd think that some of them regard amateur radio like the
USMC! ["the few, the ultra proud (of morsemanship)"]


I'm just a beginner. Passed my Novice Exam in November 1986.

Let's have a test that
shows whether the testee knows anything.


Remember that you are handsomely compensated for your professional
knowledge. Amateur Radio is a non-compensated hobby.


Some of these Olde Fahrts seem to think their amateurism is on
some kind of "higher plane" than ordinary, plebian, work.
They be BETTER than the pros and keep reinforcing each other
with that pipe-dream. After all, the ARRL keeps reminding
them of their greatness, their "service to their country"
(by having their hobby). To hear them talk the nation would
immediately fall apart without these federally-licensed
hobbyists!


Don't know if you've heard yet, but the ARRL and robesin announced that
MARS and TSA have an agreement for armageddon communications.

We'll have to get Mr. Webster to work coming up with a better
definition of the hobby. Is it "professional amateurism" or
"amateur professionalism?" I opt for the latter but others
may differ.

Beep, beep...



Didit.

  #440   Report Post  
Old August 20th 06, 11:50 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,124
Default If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? - Mark, Just ignore them.

"an old friend" wrote in
oups.com:


wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 03:10:22 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:


As a counterpoint to elimination of the code test, many of the more
'vocal' pro-coders have taken their 'side' to rather severe (and
highly misplaced) lengths. They accuse the 'no-coders' of
everything
from homosexuality to perversion to unpatriotic activies to
bestiality.
Most of the personal-insult pro-coder group use pseudonyms on
newsgroups, possibly afraid of revealing their true identity; none
the
less these 'anony-mousies" behave in immature fashion, more like
middle-school males trying to assert their machismo even though
they try to hide via anonymity.

---

Heil, a pro-coder, tries to misdirect things by attempting to make a
flame war about personalities:


he is better than Robeson but that is saying little

How do you know how many see Al as an arbiter? How many do you
believe think you'd make a good arbiter in discussions of amateur
radio?


"Arbeit macht frei" - sign over one of the entrances to Auschwitz.

["work sets you free"]

yes I know

Let's everyone WORK for that amateur radio license!!! :-)

indeed







Mark, Just ignore them.

They only tease you because of the stupid things you say when you
follow up. Just ignore them and they'll give up.

Stop giving them reasons to tease you. It only makes you look
more stupid.

Take a break from the radio groups for a while, Maybe work on your
moon bounce some more.

SC


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Persuing a Career in Electronics, HELP! Justin Homebrew 18 August 1st 03 07:02 AM
Bonafied Proof of LIFE AFTER DEATH -- Coal Mine Rescue Ed Conrad Shortwave 0 July 6th 03 12:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:02 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017