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?

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

Slow Code wrote:
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.

What can be passed by CW that cannot be passed by voice???

Adhere to the ICAO's phonetic alphabet, and there need be no
bi-lingualism nor a CW requirement.

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.

Dear Slow, air traffic controllers don't use Morris Code, and they
communicate with foreign speakers JUST FINE!

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

wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
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.

What can be passed by CW that cannot be passed by voice???
any traffic to be passed by many OT station can only be passed by CW
since they rfuse to use that new fangled device the microphone even to
save lives

Adhere to the ICAO's phonetic alphabet, and there need be no
bi-lingualism nor a CW requirement.

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.

Dear Slow, air traffic controllers don't use Morris Code, and they
communicate with foreign speakers JUST FINE!

but SC can't speak to anybody on air and he neds code testing to allow
him more person to berate

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

From: on Sat, Oct 14 2006 4:01 pm


Slow Code wrote:
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.

What can be passed by CW that cannot be passed by voice???

Adhere to the ICAO's phonetic alphabet, and there need be no
bi-lingualism nor a CW requirement.

Since 1955 for international civil aviation. It's taken
from the NATO approved phonetic alphabet which came out
earlier the same year. I remember it well since I had to
learn the "new" phonetic alphabet in a hurry while in the
Army then. :-)

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.

Dear Slow, air traffic controllers don't use Morris Code, and they
communicate with foreign speakers JUST FINE!

Ever since 1955 the worldwide common language for civil
aviation communications on airways has been English
spoken as well as (now) data. That includes pilots as
well as controllers, even in and over their native
country; a non-English speaking country MAY use their
native language but the civil airways can have many
nations' aircraft in it.

Blowcode is just another troll who has his head up his
ass in regards to radio communications. That head just
hasn't been aware of what happened in radio for a half
century.

The ITU didn't "just remove" anything. The ITU-R made
the code test for an amateur license with below-30-MHz
privileges OPTIONAL to each administration. In 2003.
THREE years ago, not "just now." :-)

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

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
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.

What can be passed by CW that cannot be passed by voice???
any traffic to be passed by many OT station can only be passed by CW
since they rfuse to use that new fangled device the microphone even to
save lives

Adhere to the ICAO's phonetic alphabet, and there need be no
bi-lingualism nor a CW requirement.

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.

Dear Slow, air traffic controllers don't use Morris Code, and they
communicate with foreign speakers JUST FINE!

but SC can't speak to anybody on air and he neds code testing to allow
him more person to berate

He's just another grumpy old ham.

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

wrote:
From: on Sat, Oct 14 2006 4:01 pm


Slow Code wrote:
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.

What can be passed by CW that cannot be passed by voice???

Adhere to the ICAO's phonetic alphabet, and there need be no
bi-lingualism nor a CW requirement.

Since 1955 for international civil aviation. It's taken
from the NATO approved phonetic alphabet which came out
earlier the same year. I remember it well since I had to
learn the "new" phonetic alphabet in a hurry while in the
Army then. :-)

It took me about 20 minutes during a mid-shift to learn it.

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.

Dear Slow, air traffic controllers don't use Morris Code, and they
communicate with foreign speakers JUST FINE!

Ever since 1955 the worldwide common language for civil
aviation communications on airways has been English
spoken as well as (now) data. That includes pilots as
well as controllers, even in and over their native
country; a non-English speaking country MAY use their
native language but the civil airways can have many
nations' aircraft in it.

Blowcode is just another troll who has his head up his
ass in regards to radio communications. That head just
hasn't been aware of what happened in radio for a half
century.

With his head up his own ass, he wouldn't need to eat his own excrement
off of another man's genitals. Maybe Robesin can give us hit ake on
that.

The ITU didn't "just remove" anything. The ITU-R made
the code test for an amateur license with below-30-MHz
privileges OPTIONAL to each administration. In 2003.
THREE years ago, not "just now." :-)

Slow is, well, slow.

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

wrote:
On 15 Oct 2006 16:24:35 -0700, wrote:
wrote:
From: on Sat, Oct 14 2006 4:01 pm
Slow Code wrote:

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.

What can be passed by CW that cannot be passed by voice???

Adhere to the ICAO's phonetic alphabet, and there need be no
bi-lingualism nor a CW requirement.

Since 1955 for international civil aviation. It's taken
from the NATO approved phonetic alphabet which came out
earlier the same year. I remember it well since I had to
learn the "new" phonetic alphabet in a hurry while in the
Army then. :-)

It took me about 20 minutes during a mid-shift to learn it.

not it took that long or maybe a bit longer but nothing like the time
I have wasted on Morse

It took me about 7 weeks and lots of hours to get to about 10 words per
minute. I couldn't get past that, so I got the consolation prize...
Technician.

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.

Dear Slow, air traffic controllers don't use Morris Code, and they
communicate with foreign speakers JUST FINE!

Ever since 1955 the worldwide common language for civil
aviation communications on airways has been English
spoken as well as (now) data. That includes pilots as
well as controllers, even in and over their native
country; a non-English speaking country MAY use their
native language but the civil airways can have many
nations' aircraft in it.

Blowcode is just another troll who has his head up his
ass in regards to radio communications. That head just
hasn't been aware of what happened in radio for a half
century.

With his head up his own ass, he wouldn't need to eat his own excrement
off of another man's genitals. Maybe Robesin can give us hit ake on
that.

well BB it must a tight fit so I suspect he wait to he puls out for
air

We should hear a loud "pop."

The ITU didn't "just remove" anything. The ITU-R made
the code test for an amateur license with below-30-MHz
privileges OPTIONAL to each administration. In 2003.
THREE years ago, not "just now." :-)

Slow is, well, slow.

realy slwo but according to one of post another of Sock puppets "hey
Stupid" so he is more honest the Robeson (which is truly damning with
faint praise.

He might be a former RRAPper. Can you guess which one?

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

wrote:
wrote:
On 15 Oct 2006 16:24:35 -0700, wrote:
wrote:
From: on Sat, Oct 14 2006 4:01 pm
Slow Code wrote:


Blowcode is just another troll who has his head up his
ass in regards to radio communications. That head just
hasn't been aware of what happened in radio for a half
century.

With his head up his own ass, he wouldn't need to eat his own excrement
off of another man's genitals. Maybe Robesin can give us hit ake on
that.

well BB it must a tight fit so I suspect he wait to he puls out for
air

We should hear a loud "pop."

The ITU didn't "just remove" anything. The ITU-R made
the code test for an amateur license with below-30-MHz
privileges OPTIONAL to each administration. In 2003.
THREE years ago, not "just now." :-)

Slow is, well, slow.

realy slwo but according to one of post another of Sock puppets "hey
Stupid" so he is more honest the Robeson (which is truly damning with
faint praise.

He might be a former RRAPper. Can you guess which one?

I'll go with Mark and say it is a current RRAPer...a pro-coder who
is wrapped too tight...either Jimmie Noserve or that Waffen SS guy.

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

On 16 Oct 2006 16:12:35 -0700, "
wrote:


wrote:
wrote:
On 15 Oct 2006 16:24:35 -0700, wrote:
wrote:
From: on Sat, Oct 14 2006 4:01 pm
Slow Code wrote:


Blowcode is just another troll who has his head up his
ass in regards to radio communications. That head just
hasn't been aware of what happened in radio for a half
century.

With his head up his own ass, he wouldn't need to eat his own excrement
off of another man's genitals. Maybe Robesin can give us hit ake on
that.

well BB it must a tight fit so I suspect he wait to he puls out for
air

We should hear a loud "pop."

The ITU didn't "just remove" anything. The ITU-R made
the code test for an amateur license with below-30-MHz
privileges OPTIONAL to each administration. In 2003.
THREE years ago, not "just now." :-)

Slow is, well, slow.

realy slwo but according to one of post another of Sock puppets "hey
Stupid" so he is more honest the Robeson (which is truly damning with
faint praise.

He might be a former RRAPper. Can you guess which one?

I'll go with Mark and say it is a current RRAPer...a pro-coder who
is wrapped too tight...either Jimmie Noserve or that Waffen SS guy.


Does anybody know Slow Codes call? Thanks

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

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

" wrote in
oups.com:


wrote:
wrote:
On 15 Oct 2006 16:24:35 -0700, wrote:
wrote:
From: on Sat, Oct 14 2006 4:01 pm
Slow Code wrote:


Blowcode is just another troll who has his head up his
ass in regards to radio communications. That head just
hasn't been aware of what happened in radio for a half
century.

With his head up his own ass, he wouldn't need to eat his own
excrement off of another man's genitals. Maybe Robesin can give us
hit ake on that.

well BB it must a tight fit so I suspect he wait to he puls out for
air

We should hear a loud "pop."

The ITU didn't "just remove" anything. The ITU-R made
the code test for an amateur license with below-30-MHz
privileges OPTIONAL to each administration. In 2003.
THREE years ago, not "just now." :-)

Slow is, well, slow.

realy slwo but according to one of post another of Sock puppets "hey
Stupid" so he is more honest the Robeson (which is truly damning with
faint praise.

He might be a former RRAPper. Can you guess which one?

I'll go with Mark and say it is a current RRAPer...a pro-coder who
is wrapped too tight...either Jimmie Noserve or that Waffen SS guy.



And you haven't changed a bit either Len. You should be taking part in
the more technical groups and not arguing policy with pro-coders, or are
you hoping to be the second No-Code Extra after Markie?

SC

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

Slow Code is a disgrace to Amateur Radio!




On 16 Oct 2006 16:12:35 -0700, "
wrote:


wrote:
wrote:
On 15 Oct 2006 16:24:35 -0700, wrote:
wrote:
From: on Sat, Oct 14 2006 4:01 pm
Slow Code wrote:


Blowcode is just another troll who has his head up his
ass in regards to radio communications. That head just
hasn't been aware of what happened in radio for a half
century.

With his head up his own ass, he wouldn't need to eat his own excrement
off of another man's genitals. Maybe Robesin can give us hit ake on
that.

well BB it must a tight fit so I suspect he wait to he puls out for
air

We should hear a loud "pop."

The ITU didn't "just remove" anything. The ITU-R made
the code test for an amateur license with below-30-MHz
privileges OPTIONAL to each administration. In 2003.
THREE years ago, not "just now." :-)

Slow is, well, slow.

realy slwo but according to one of post another of Sock puppets "hey
Stupid" so he is more honest the Robeson (which is truly damning with
faint praise.

He might be a former RRAPper. Can you guess which one?

I'll go with Mark and say it is a current RRAPer...a pro-coder who
is wrapped too tight...either Jimmie Noserve or that Waffen SS guy.

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

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
On 15 Oct 2006 16:24:35 -0700, wrote:
wrote:
From: on Sat, Oct 14 2006 4:01 pm
Slow Code wrote:


Blowcode is just another troll who has his head up his
ass in regards to radio communications. That head just
hasn't been aware of what happened in radio for a half
century.

With his head up his own ass, he wouldn't need to eat his own excrement
off of another man's genitals. Maybe Robesin can give us hit ake on
that.

well BB it must a tight fit so I suspect he wait to he puls out for
air

We should hear a loud "pop."

The ITU didn't "just remove" anything. The ITU-R made
the code test for an amateur license with below-30-MHz
privileges OPTIONAL to each administration. In 2003.
THREE years ago, not "just now." :-)

Slow is, well, slow.

realy slwo but according to one of post another of Sock puppets "hey
Stupid" so he is more honest the Robeson (which is truly damning with
faint praise.

He might be a former RRAPper. Can you guess which one?

I'll go with Mark and say it is a current RRAPer...a pro-coder who
is wrapped too tight...either Jimmie Noserve or that Waffen SS guy.

Robesin is absent. Lots of uniques showing up. Maybe we need to run
RRAP through a contest logging program.

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

Slow Code wrote:
" wrote in
oups.com:


wrote:
wrote:
On 15 Oct 2006 16:24:35 -0700, wrote:
wrote:
From: on Sat, Oct 14 2006 4:01 pm
Slow Code wrote:


Blowcode is just another troll who has his head up his
ass in regards to radio communications. That head just
hasn't been aware of what happened in radio for a half
century.

With his head up his own ass, he wouldn't need to eat his own
excrement off of another man's genitals. Maybe Robesin can give us
hit ake on that.

well BB it must a tight fit so I suspect he wait to he puls out for
air

We should hear a loud "pop."

The ITU didn't "just remove" anything. The ITU-R made
the code test for an amateur license with below-30-MHz
privileges OPTIONAL to each administration. In 2003.
THREE years ago, not "just now." :-)

Slow is, well, slow.

realy slwo but according to one of post another of Sock puppets "hey
Stupid" so he is more honest the Robeson (which is truly damning with
faint praise.

He might be a former RRAPper. Can you guess which one?

I'll go with Mark and say it is a current RRAPer...a pro-coder who
is wrapped too tight...either Jimmie Noserve or that Waffen SS guy.

And you haven't changed a bit either Len. You should be taking part in
the more technical groups and not arguing policy with pro-coders, or are
you hoping to be the second No-Code Extra after Markie?

SC

Mad Dog Deignan of the infamous RF Commandos?

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

john wrote in
:

Slow Code is a disgrace to Amateur Radio!




Thanks John.

I'm glad you enjoy my policy posts.

SC

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

Slow Code is the kind of guy that everybodys hates on the air. He is
the Jammer because no one listens to him.


On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:10:59 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

john wrote in
:

Slow Code is a disgrace to Amateur Radio!




Thanks John.

I'm glad you enjoy my policy posts.

SC

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

This code argument really gets old. I passed the General 13WPM code. Bidg
deal. Yeah, I like to use CW, but do I think people need to be tested on
CW? Heck NO! Let's end this antiquated test. It's a modern era. If you
want to learn it -fine, but don't push your old and outdated beliefs on
anyone else.

JDB

wrote:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:37:42 -0500, Glen Overby
wrote:

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".
well the procoders like to rpetend it is about value
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

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

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:50:44 GMT, "Chris"
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:23:46 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:


Chris wrote:
If you've never programmed in assembly language, don't talk to me
about being a real programmer.

Real programmers plugged diodes into a matrix to
execute their programs.

Nope. That's hardware manipulation,
no that is prgraming indeed it is basis of all prgraming

but you have to try and distrot and twist any line of logic till
bleeds
.......

So, Mark. Besides being a Colonel and a geophysicist, you are now an
electronics engineer as well?

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

wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:50:44 GMT, "Chris"
wrote:


On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:23:46 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:


Chris wrote:

If you've never programmed in assembly language, don't talk to me
about being a real programmer.

Real programmers plugged diodes into a matrix to
execute their programs.

Nope. That's hardware manipulation,

no that is prgraming indeed it is basis of all prgraming

but you have to try and distrot and twist any line of logic till
bleeds
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


If you want to get into esoteric terms consider:

The man who uses a plotting board to calculate artillery elevations and
azimuths is called a "COMPUTER".


Dave N

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

Chris wrote:
... machines like the IBM 650 were
considered to be a waste of valuable man hours to set up, ...

Blasphemy! The IBM 650 was the first computer
I ever programmed - in 1958 at Texas A&M.
Bi-Quinary (like an abacus) with a magnetic drum
and tons of air-conditioning to cool the hundreds
of dual triodes.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com