It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 

If an amateur had to relay a through a country and the amateurs didn't
know each other language they still could have passed it by CW and the
message could have been delivered to someone that could read it. Not no
more.

When things start failing communication wise worldwide, amateur radio
might be all there is to relay messages, and the ITU just removed one of
the legs of a three leg stool.

SC

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 

No kidding "Chicken Little?"

Charlie-AD5TH (20wpm Extra Class-1995)
www.ad5th.com



"Slow Code" wrote in message
link.net...
If an amateur had to relay a through a country and the amateurs didn't
know each other language they still could have passed it by CW and the
message could have been delivered to someone that could read it. Not no
more.

When things start failing communication wise worldwide, amateur radio
might be all there is to relay messages, and the ITU just removed one of
the legs of a three leg stool.

SC

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 

Dont top post. Blow Code hates that!



On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 20:30:17 -0500, "Charlie" wrote:

No kidding "Chicken Little?"

Charlie-AD5TH (20wpm Extra Class-1995)
www.ad5th.com



"Slow Code" wrote in message
hlink.net...
If an amateur had to relay a through a country and the amateurs didn't
know each other language they still could have passed it by CW and the
message could have been delivered to someone that could read it. Not no
more.

When things start failing communication wise worldwide, amateur radio
might be all there is to relay messages, and the ITU just removed one of
the legs of a three leg stool.

SC

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 

What do you mean don't top post???eh??

And why does anyone care anything about some twit named blowcode??

Charlie-AD5TH (20wpm ExtraClass-1995)
www.ad5th.com

"john" wrote in message
...
Dont top post. Blow Code hates that!



On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 20:30:17 -0500, "Charlie" wrote:

No kidding "Chicken Little?"

Charlie-AD5TH (20wpm Extra Class-1995)
www.ad5th.com



"Slow Code" wrote in message
thlink.net...
If an amateur had to relay a through a country and the amateurs didn't
know each other language they still could have passed it by CW and the
message could have been delivered to someone that could read it. Not no
more.

When things start failing communication wise worldwide, amateur radio
might be all there is to relay messages, and the ITU just removed one of
the legs of a three leg stool.

SC

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 

Charlie wrote:
What do you mean don't top post???eh??

And why does anyone care anything about some twit named blowcode??

Charlie-AD5TH (20wpm ExtraClass-1995)
www.ad5th.com

"john" wrote in message
...
Dont top post. Blow Code hates that!



On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 20:30:17 -0500, "Charlie" wrote:

No kidding "Chicken Little?"

Charlie-AD5TH (20wpm Extra Class-1995)
www.ad5th.com



"Slow Code" wrote in message
thlink.net...
If an amateur had to relay a through a country and the amateurs didn't
know each other language they still could have passed it by CW and the
message could have been delivered to someone that could read it. Not no
more.

When things start failing communication wise worldwide, amateur radio
might be all there is to relay messages, and the ITU just removed one of
the legs of a three leg stool.

SC






Charlie, R U into mutual jacking on ATV??

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 

"Slow Code" wrote in message
link.net...
If an amateur had to relay a through a country and the amateurs didn't
know each other language they still could have passed it by CW and the
message could have been delivered to someone that could read it. Not no
more.

When things start failing communication wise worldwide, amateur radio
might be all there is to relay messages, and the ITU just removed one of
the legs of a three leg stool.

The pro-code arguments seem to be getting sillier and sillier.

I am a know-coder. I enjoy it. CW is my primary mode. I encourage others to
join in. I do not believe for one minute that CW is going to save the
world. I am not sure the FCC should be requiring it while not testing for
the various digital modes or message handling - seems inconsistent



SC

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:00:50 -0400, "Gerry"
wrote:


"Slow Code" wrote in message
hlink.net...
If an amateur had to relay a through a country and the amateurs didn't
know each other language they still could have passed it by CW and the
message could have been delivered to someone that could read it. Not no
more.

When things start failing communication wise worldwide, amateur radio
might be all there is to relay messages, and the ITU just removed one of
the legs of a three leg stool.

The pro-code arguments seem to be getting sillier and sillier.

I am a know-coder. I enjoy it. CW is my primary mode. I encourage others to
join in. I do not believe for one minute that CW is going to save the
world. I am not sure the FCC should be requiring it while not testing for
the various digital modes or message handling - seems inconsistent



SC

Jerry, I am a 20 wpm extra and I used to agree with some of the things
Slow Code was saying BUT, after all the BS he has created on the
newsgroups I am starting to change my opinion. His constant bullcrap
on here makes me sick. Its ok to state your opinion and move on but he
has a real problem. I mean posting every day in rec.radio.swap for
Christ sake. For someone so worried about people doing the right thing
he is the worst example.

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:00:50 -0400, "Gerry"
wrote:

world. I am not sure the FCC should be requiring it while not testing for
the various digital modes or message handling - seems inconsistent

It's consistent with dropping requirements all around. Broadcast
stations no longer need licensed personnel on duty (that's been the
case for a few decades now), you can repair two-way radios without
being licensed and you can operate on the ham bands without having to
really pass any test.

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 

wrote:
till you can explain what value knowing the name has you can begin to
convince me that you went a through a test as realavant as mine

The licensing hierarchy (and the morse code debate) isn't about value, it's
about status. It's about having a chip on your shoulder that says "I'm better
than you".

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 

Diamond Dave wrote:
Good for you! It's not often that someone would come right out and admit that a
radop that can copy high speed CW is better than himself, but you did.
Congrats!

could I have the honor of knowing your call sign?