Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

I could support that.

SC

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:50:10 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly:


I could support that.

I could not.

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...

I could support that.

SC

Even if the no-code ticket was made 6 months or 2 years
in active length it would not matter one bit. Amateur radio
in the public eye is unknown and your average young person
is far more interested in the Internet, online video, instant text
messaging and cellphones. There are too many commercially
available technologies, which are far cheaper I may add, than
amateur radio which while a curosity is still a functionally and
technologically obsolete pursuit. Sorry but that's the truth.

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

No support.

"Slow Code" wrote in message nk.net...

I could support that.

SC

--

SeeYaa:) Harbin Osteen KG6URO

When American Citizens with dual citizenship pledges allegiance
to the flag, to which flag do they pledge allegiance too?

-

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Get a life......
"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...

I could support that.

SC

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...

I could support that.

SC

I dont support crossposting retards NoLoad.

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

The hobby is dead because of all these old ham geriatrics stuck on
code. No one in the real world gives a **** about code.
Slow Code wrote:
I could support that.

SC

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Douche Bag wrote:
The hobby is dead because of all these old ham geriatrics stuck on
code. No one in the real world gives a **** about code.

not dead dispite the efforts folks like the arrl and slow code to kill
it

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

On 8 Sep 2006 19:28:20 -0700, "Douche Bag"
wrote:

The hobby is dead because of all these old ham geriatrics stuck on
code. No one in the real world gives a **** about code.
Slow Code wrote:
I could support that.

SC

Code is dead - along with anything else that requires skill, practice, or
a little bit of effort.

The folks who want to do away with code should at least learn it and
try it - they might find it to be (gasp) enjoyable. Personally, I could
support doing away with no-code licensing altogether. I realize it won't
happen, but I gotta think that if I managed to learn Morse code, then so
can "they". The only thing no-code licensing accomplished in this neck of
the woods was to move the CB mentality from 11 to 2 meters.

--
-fb-

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

funkbastler wrote:
... I gotta think that if I managed to learn Morse code, then so
can "they".

I'm sure that drivers licenses applicants can
learn to use buggy whips on their horseless
carriages, but should they be required to?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

"etagg" wrote in
:

Get a life......


Get a real license.

Sc

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

funkbastler wrote in
:

On 8 Sep 2006 19:28:20 -0700, "Douche Bag"
wrote:

The hobby is dead because of all these old ham geriatrics stuck on
code. No one in the real world gives a **** about code.
Slow Code wrote:
I could support that.

SC

Code is dead - along with anything else that requires skill, practice,
or a little bit of effort.

The folks who want to do away with code should at least learn it and
try it - they might find it to be (gasp) enjoyable. Personally, I could
support doing away with no-code licensing altogether. I realize it
won't happen, but I gotta think that if I managed to learn Morse code,
then so can "they". The only thing no-code licensing accomplished in
this neck of the woods was to move the CB mentality from 11 to 2 meters.


There is no arguing that. KB9RQZ is living proof.

SC

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Only if the buggy whip conveys useful information to the "horseless carrage"
as it did in the case of the horse.

As CW still conveys information as it did in the beginnings of radio the
anology does not hold water...

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
om...
funkbastler wrote:
... I gotta think that if I managed to learn Morse code, then so
can "they".

I'm sure that drivers licenses applicants can
learn to use buggy whips on their horseless
carriages, but should they be required to?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Fred Hambrecht wrote:
Only if the buggy whip conveys useful information to the "horseless carrage"
as it did in the case of the horse.

We could probably modify vehicles to respond to
lashes from a buggy whip and eliminate the
accelerator.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 21:12:44 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:

funkbastler wrote:
... I gotta think that if I managed to learn Morse code, then so
can "they".

I'm sure that drivers licenses applicants can
learn to use buggy whips on their horseless
carriages, but should they be required to?

No, but it darned sure wouldn't hurt to make sure they could drive
something with a standard transmission. Never know when the ol'
grind-o-crunch automatic is gonna give out and ya has to use
something more reliable.

--
-fb-

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 22:19:21 GMT, Slow Code wrote:



There is no arguing that. KB9RQZ is living proof.


Well, I don't know KB9RQZ - but I'll say thay he's entitled to have
and express his opinions, same as you and I, whether you or I agree
with him or not.

Y'all try to stay away from the ad hominem stuff now - it never convinces
anybody of anything. Just ****es 'em off.

--
-fb-

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

In article ,
says...
On 8 Sep 2006 19:28:20 -0700, "Douche Bag"
wrote:

The hobby is dead because of all these old ham geriatrics stuck on
code. No one in the real world gives a **** about code.
Slow Code wrote:
I could support that.

SC

Code is dead - along with anything else that requires skill, practice, or
a little bit of effort.

The folks who want to do away with code should at least learn it and
try it - they might find it to be (gasp) enjoyable. Personally, I could
support doing away with no-code licensing altogether. I realize it won't
happen, but I gotta think that if I managed to learn Morse code, then so
can "they". The only thing no-code licensing accomplished in this neck of
the woods was to move the CB mentality from 11 to 2 meters.



I took the code test (novice 5WPM) back in 73 in high school, and had
the totally worthless (to me) Novice ticket for 2 years or whatever it
was. I spent a lot of time practicing CW, back then and also about 10
years ago, and can't seem to get past 7-8WPM, so I gave up on it, the
sound of it annoys me anyway. It wasn't worth the stress it caused me to
work HF. of course, since I DID pass the 5WPM test, I can be a general
now. But, the interest has passed. I have a 2M mobile and an HT, but if
I buy an HF rig, it's going to be to listen, but not to other hams,
that's as boring as it gets. If I want to hear about hip replacements,
and stuff like that, I can visit the folks at the assisted living place
my mom's in.

I don't care about HF anymore, the code requirement outlasted my
interest in HF. I wanted to be on HF from the time I was a little kid to
about age 40 or so. No longer. I have my other hobbies now, guns, PCs,
home theater, and dogs. Not much time or budget left for ham radio.

Just because you and I were forced to learn it does it mean a new ham
should. It's an obsolete mode in most respects, handy in a certain type
of emergency, but of little other use, except communicating with other
people using it. Nobody's stopping them. Nobody should have to learn it
either.

But it's funny, the people I hear, both on HF and 2M and 440 causing all
the real problems are people who didn't get a no code license,
supposedly don't have a "CB mentality", yet do many of the things you
can hear on 11 meters all the time, keying up on top of other hams,
harassing hams, ignoring calls, etc, based on their call sign timeframe
(Thinking if the ham was ticketed after xx-xx-1990 or whatever, they are
a "hamster", etc). Seems like the code makes you this way, or maybe
getting old does.

I would gladly take the "CB mentality" over the stuff the so-called
"good hams" pull.

BDK

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

funkbastler wrote:
No, but it darned sure wouldn't hurt to make sure they could drive
something with a standard transmission.

Would you have 1000 people learn to drive a standard
transmission even though only one person out of those
1000 people benefits from it? The cost/benefit ratio
is extremely high.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:47:59 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:

funkbastler wrote:
No, but it darned sure wouldn't hurt to make sure they could drive
something with a standard transmission.

Would you have 1000 people learn to drive a standard
transmission even though only one person out of those
1000 people benefits from it? The cost/benefit ratio
is extremely high.

(I'll go ya one better - make EVERYBODY drive a standard - or a Harley -
and save some oil. Outlaw automatics!)

Ok then - same goes for satellite communications, fast/slow scan
television, packet, EME, and so on. Lots of applicants will never
use those modes, but the questions are on the test, so you
better learn the material.

K2FRD (I think) proposed what I thought was the best solution to
the Morse code issue - keep it as part of the test, but don't
keep it as a show-stopper. I think it would be fair, at least for
the higher grade licenses, to throw it in there with all the other
modes you may never use.... have it on the test, let the applicant
earn some points from it if they can, but don't send 'em home
disappointed if they don't.

--
-fb-

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. net...
funkbastler wrote:
No, but it darned sure wouldn't hurt to make sure they could drive
something with a standard transmission.

Would you have 1000 people learn to drive a standard
transmission even though only one person out of those
1000 people benefits from it? The cost/benefit ratio
is extremely high.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Someone skilled in driving a vehicle with a manual transmission and actually
using it can reap a number of performance benefits. These include improved
gas mileage, better passing performance, better performance in hilly
terrain, etc. If people were required to learn how to drive vehicles with
manual transmissions, more of them might actually choose to drive such
vehicles.

Dee, N8UZE

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Dee Flint wrote:
Someone skilled in driving a vehicle with a manual transmission and actually
using it can reap a number of performance benefits. These include improved
gas mileage, better passing performance, better performance in hilly
terrain, etc. If people were required to learn how to drive vehicles with
manual transmissions, more of them might actually choose to drive such
vehicles.

Riding a bicycle has even more benefits so force everyone
to pass a bicycle riding exam.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
funkbastler wrote:

... I gotta think that if I managed to learn Morse code, then so
can "they".

I'm sure that drivers licenses applicants can
learn to use buggy whips on their horseless
carriages, but should they be required to?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Try as I might, my V6 won't respond to the buggy whip. Kind of like my
Novice experience on 40M CW.

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Slow Code wrote:
I could support that.

SC

I support licensing for life.

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:06:00 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:

Riding a bicycle has even more benefits so force everyone
to pass a bicycle riding exam.

Only if they want to ride a bicycle.

--
-fb-

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

wrote:
I support licensing for life.

Do you have something against dead people?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

funkbastler wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:06:00 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:
Riding a bicycle has even more benefits so force everyone
to pass a bicycle riding exam.

Only if they want to ride a bicycle.

Absolutely not. It doesn't matter if they want to ride
a bicycle or not. Simply knowing how to ride a bicycle
would be good for them. And if they discovered they
liked it enough to actually ride a bicycle, it would
not only benefit them but also benefit the environment.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

From: Cecil Moore on Sun, Sep 10 2006 7:06 am

Dee Flint wrote:
Someone skilled in driving a vehicle with a manual transmission and actually
using it can reap a number of performance benefits. These include improved
gas mileage, better passing performance, better performance in hilly
terrain, etc. If people were required to learn how to drive vehicles with
manual transmissions, more of them might actually choose to drive such
vehicles.

Riding a bicycle has even more benefits so force everyone
to pass a bicycle riding exam.

Cecil, bicycles (and most motorcycles) need smooth
roadways; it is hard to operate "CW" while mobile and
off-road on a bike.

Now HORSEBACK mobile is the same on-road or off-road. No
gasoline or oil needed nor "gear shifting." Horses can
make "new models" all by themselves, keep themselves
"powered up" without the aid of stations like Exxon, 76,
Shell, or Sinclair. The US Army even had a 'horse
mobile' radio set (1943) to talk while the troop was on the
move. :-)

Everybody ought to learn to "sit" a horse and guide it. :-)

---

Dee seems to have little experience in long-haul driving,
or even short-haul automotive transport. I learned to
drive in a '39 Ford sedan. The first three autos I owned
were manual trans, a Plymouth two-door (came out west in
it), a '53 Austin-Healey roadster (manual trans went
kaput while downshifting on a freeway off-ramp back in
'60), and a Brit very compact station wagon. A whole
lotta NONSENSE to do the clutch-gearshift thing on all
those manual transmission vehicles even if it was easy
for me. NO "performance increase" whatsoever of manual
versus automatic.

Buying a new 2005 Chevy Malibu MAXX with its better
engine system computer allowed us to get 32.7 MPG
(based on both fuel tank filling receipts AND the
Driver Information Center display of MPG) for a 1,900
mile round trip up to Washington state and back in
July this year. That's without using the Cruise
Control (which my wife likes but I don't, driving
over 90% of the time). About 2 1/2 MPG better than
the Chevy Cavalier wagon for the same distance the
year before. MAXX had done almost as good MPG in
September last year on a much longer distance to
Wisconsin, again doing about 2 1/2 MPG better than
the Cavalier over the same route the year before that.

The engine computers keep getting better and better,
some even compensating for the bad habits of some
drivers using the almost-universal automatic. Why
anyone would prefer using a manual or automatic in
stop-and-go city traffic can be summed up as
RATIONALIZATION or braggadoccio by manual trans
owners. Besides, operating "CW" in stop-and-go city
traffic will seriously cut down one's morsemanship
speed with a manual trans. Unless one has a third
hand... :-)

Cell phone coverage is growing, growing, growing.
My wife used the cell for all kinds of calls while
we were moving in MAXX through several states, even
checking her e-mail on AOL! Without any skill at
morsemanship whatsoever, she "worked" her sister
in WA state from the parking lot of a restaurant in
Amana, IA, using the cell phone. :-)

Hmmmm. One out of three Americans has a cell phone
now. Yet, Blowcode contends "everyone has to learn"
morsemanship to have a backup skill in comms? :-)

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
I support licensing for life.

Do you have something against dead people?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

I am against the dead horses these morseman beat over and over.

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:22:12 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:

funkbastler wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:06:00 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:
Riding a bicycle has even more benefits so force everyone
to pass a bicycle riding exam.

Only if they want to ride a bicycle.

Absolutely not. It doesn't matter if they want to ride
a bicycle or not. Simply knowing how to ride a bicycle
would be good for them. And if they discovered they
liked it enough to actually ride a bicycle, it would
not only benefit them but also benefit the environment.

You are absolutely right! Why didn't I think of that? One caveat,
however - they'll also have to pass a Morse code test with their
bicycle horn. (I forget now - is this so they can drive a car or
use the microwave oven?) This is too silly.

--
-fb-

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

So are you saying that CW no longer works? Not to be judgmental, but your an
idiot.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 18:35:14 -0400, "Fred Hambrecht"
wrote:
in the begining it conveyed data other radio radio services as well as
the ars today it does not
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Fred Hambrecht wrote:
So are you saying that CW no longer works? Not to be judgmental, but your an
idiot.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 18:35:14 -0400, "Fred Hambrecht"
wrote:
in the begining it conveyed data other radio radio services as well as
the ars today it does not
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

Even if spelled correctly [you're, not your] Fred is definitely NOT
saying his thing with civility. :-)

Freddie, Mark was saying that - IN THE BEGINNING - ALL radio
services used morse code...and the first US radio regulating
agency wanted all to show competency in this common mode
so that the agency to communicate with all users. That era has
long since passed into oblivion. Just ain't no other radio services
using manual morse code for communications now.

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Cecil Moore wrote in
om:

funkbastler wrote:
... I gotta think that if I managed to learn Morse code, then so
can "they".

I'm sure that drivers licenses applicants can
learn to use buggy whips on their horseless
carriages, but should they be required to?


They should if they want to be good back seat drivers.

SC

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Dee Flint wrote:


Someone skilled in driving a vehicle with a manual transmission and actually
using it can reap a number of performance benefits. These include improved
gas mileage, better passing performance, better performance in hilly
terrain, etc. If people were required to learn how to drive vehicles with
manual transmissions, more of them might actually choose to drive such
vehicles.

Dee, N8UZE


Not all of those statements are always true. As fond as I am of manual
transmissions, sometimes automatics have the advantage. A hydraulic
torque converter with a manually controlled "automatic" transmission is
better at drag racing than a manual gearbox under many conditions.

This is less true under road race conditions where the lower torque
needed to be handled by the transmission allows the newer style "manual"
transmissions to change gears in milliseconds. The secret is 2
transmissions, one for the odd gears, one for the even, and 2 clutches,
you are literally in 2 gears at the same time for a short period of
time. Takes a lot of computer control. That's one way to do it, there
are others.

The landscape is very blurred nowadays concerning what is a manual and
what is an automatic transmission, with "manuals" in modern race cars
being more automatic than "automatics" in non-race cars.

And the state of CW vs digital is about the same. Except CW can always
be beat if your PC works. You just need to select the correct mode.

tom
K0TAR

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:

I support licensing for life.

Do you have something against dead people?

Is that some kind of Robesin-like inuendo?

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Slow Code wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:

Slow Code wrote:

I could support that.

SC

I support licensing for life.

Whimp!

SC

Whimp???

I'll thumb wrestle you for it.

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

"Tom Ring" wrote in message
.. .
Dee Flint wrote:


Someone skilled in driving a vehicle with a manual transmission and
actually using it can reap a number of performance benefits. These
include improved gas mileage, better passing performance, better
performance in hilly terrain, etc. If people were required to learn how
to drive vehicles with manual transmissions, more of them might actually
choose to drive such vehicles.

Dee, N8UZE

Not all of those statements are always true. As fond as I am of manual
transmissions, sometimes automatics have the advantage. A hydraulic
torque converter with a manually controlled "automatic" transmission is
better at drag racing than a manual gearbox under many conditions.


Never said they were always true. And most of us do not put racing
equipment in our personal, daily use street vehicles.

This is less true under road race conditions where the lower torque needed
to be handled by the transmission allows the newer style "manual"
transmissions to change gears in milliseconds. The secret is 2
transmissions, one for the odd gears, one for the even, and 2 clutches,
you are literally in 2 gears at the same time for a short period of time.
Takes a lot of computer control. That's one way to do it, there are
others.

The landscape is very blurred nowadays concerning what is a manual and
what is an automatic transmission, with "manuals" in modern race cars
being more automatic than "automatics" in non-race cars.


Again this does not affect the ordinary driver.

And the state of CW vs digital is about the same. Except CW can always be
beat if your PC works. You just need to select the correct mode.

tom
K0TAR

That last statement is a fallacy. The digital modes are wiped out by
conditions that will still permit CW to be used. Even SSB can sometimes be
used when conditions wipe out the digital. I have repeatedly said and now I
am emphasizing: EVERY MODE HAS ITS UNIQUE ADVANTAGES AND UNIQUE
DISADVANTAGES. It seems that people wish to deny that whatever mode they
don't want to deal with has any advantages whatsoever. They also wish to
attribute magic properties to whatever is their favorite mode. Both points
of view are foolish.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Tom Ring wrote:
And the state of CW vs digital is about the same. Except CW can always
be beat if your PC works. You just need to select the correct mode.

PACTOR II works for me when I cannot even hear the signal.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Dee Flint wrote:


That last statement is a fallacy. The digital modes are wiped out by
conditions that will still permit CW to be used. Even SSB can sometimes be
used when conditions wipe out the digital. I have repeatedly said and now I
snip
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



Wrong. There are digital modes that handle every distortion type that
exists. You just have to pick the correct one.

tom
K0TAR

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Dee Flint wrote:
The digital modes are wiped out by
conditions that will still permit CW to be used.

CW is wiped out by conditions that will still permit
PACTOR II to be used, e.g. I cannot hear any signals
at all on an apparently dead band and a friend in
Germany pops up on the screen.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com