| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
October 10th 06, 02:08 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
#2
October 10th 06, 02:30 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#3
October 10th 06, 02:58 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#4
October 10th 06, 04:19 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#5
October 10th 06, 06:24 AM
posted to alt.usenet.kooks,rec.radio.cb,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?? |
|
#6
October 10th 06, 01:00 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#7
October 10th 06, 01:37 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#8
October 10th 06, 09:13 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#9
October 10th 06, 11:37 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
|
|||
|
|||
|
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". |
|
#10
October 28th 06, 03:35 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
|
|||
|
|||
|
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/ |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
