Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old November 8th 06, 04:26 AM posted to rec.radio.scanner
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 3
Default My Take on CW

The need for CW has been waining for many years now and technology has
eliminated a need for it. Why do we still need CW? How many Hams still
use CW? I think technical knowledge far outweighs the CW requirement.
If it's eliminated, more people will PROBABLY take the test, however,
you must also understand that it takes a lot of money to set up a proper
station, and an operator that's devoted to the hobby. I don't think you
will see a lot of folks running out purchasing $1000 Yaesu's and
Kenwoods to get on the air if CW is eliminated. The FCC eliminated the
requirement for a fricken CB license (KABE 1356) long ago and you sure
don't see folks yapping away on CB's. They have cell phones now to
communicate and GPS' to know where they are going. I have a couple
GMRS/FRS radios and even paid the $80 FCC license fee. I believe in
being legal. It doesn't pay to get caught and fined.

Therefore, if CW is eliminated, I do not think it will harm Ham Radio
one bit. Things change with time. There won't even be an exam to talk
on Ham frequencies in the future either. You young folks may see that
happen. The cost of equipment will keep those that only want to screw
around away from the hobby, believe me. Cost is one of the reasons I
haven't got a ticket. I had a good friend of mine that had a Technician
Class license (WB7RFL Tom Buckner, deceased) that was willing to teach
me what I needed to know. However, the sheer cost of equipment kept me
out of it. Anyone looking for a couple Cobra CB's? One is SSB.

Besides, what are all of you Ham operators afraid of? Sure you had to
take the CW test and passed. Like I said, things change with time. Take
a young person interested in the hobby and teach them the proper way to
operate and pass the exam. QRT.

  #2   Report Post  
Old November 8th 06, 12:10 PM posted to rec.radio.scanner
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 48
Default My Take on CW

Who cares! CW doesn't belong in a SCANNER group. Discuss it in a more
appropriate group; there are MANY of them, and this is not one of them!


"ToeJam" stuck his ToeJammed bigfoot up his ass and
wrote in message ...

The need for CW has been waining for many years now and technology has
eliminated a need for it. Why do we still need CW? How many Hams still
use CW? SNIP


  #3   Report Post  
Old November 8th 06, 03:11 PM posted to rec.radio.scanner
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 3
Default My Take on CW

PowerHouse Communications wrote:
Who cares! CW doesn't belong in a SCANNER group. Discuss it in a more
appropriate group; there are MANY of them, and this is not one of them!


"ToeJam" stuck his ToeJammed bigfoot up his ass and
wrote in message ...

The need for CW has been waining for many years now and technology has
eliminated a need for it. Why do we still need CW? How many Hams still
use CW? SNIP



You could have fooled me. From what I see here, there are more Ham
related postings than Scanner postings. Are you jummping all over the
other folks that are posting Ham related material too? Or did you just
get up on the wrong side of the bed? I'm not new to Usenet and don't
normally post off topic material, but when I see more postings
concerning a subject not related to the newsgroup, I figure maybe folks
gyrated from scanners to Ham. So don't go preaching to me with your
****ty attitude. You could have phrased your response a bit kinder
instead of being an asshole about it. I'll lurk and see how you
personally deal with the other Ham related postings. And FWIW, Scanners
are strongly related to Ham radio, always have been and always will be.

  #4   Report Post  
Old November 9th 06, 12:45 AM posted to alt.radio.scanner,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,124
Default My Take on CW

ToeJam wrote in :

The need for CW has been waining for many years now and technology has
eliminated a need for it. Why do we still need CW? How many Hams still
use CW? I think technical knowledge far outweighs the CW requirement.
If it's eliminated, more people will PROBABLY take the test, however,
you must also understand that it takes a lot of money to set up a proper
station, and an operator that's devoted to the hobby. I don't think you
will see a lot of folks running out purchasing $1000 Yaesu's and
Kenwoods to get on the air if CW is eliminated. The FCC eliminated the
requirement for a fricken CB license (KABE 1356) long ago and you sure
don't see folks yapping away on CB's. They have cell phones now to
communicate and GPS' to know where they are going. I have a couple
GMRS/FRS radios and even paid the $80 FCC license fee. I believe in
being legal. It doesn't pay to get caught and fined.

Therefore, if CW is eliminated, I do not think it will harm Ham Radio
one bit. Things change with time. There won't even be an exam to talk
on Ham frequencies in the future either. You young folks may see that
happen. The cost of equipment will keep those that only want to screw
around away from the hobby, believe me. Cost is one of the reasons I
haven't got a ticket. I had a good friend of mine that had a Technician
Class license (WB7RFL Tom Buckner, deceased) that was willing to teach
me what I needed to know. However, the sheer cost of equipment kept me
out of it. Anyone looking for a couple Cobra CB's? One is SSB.

Besides, what are all of you Ham operators afraid of? Sure you had to
take the CW test and passed. Like I said, things change with time. Take
a young person interested in the hobby and teach them the proper way to
operate and pass the exam. QRT.



You're just Lazy.

Good ops aren't lazy ops.

SC
  #5   Report Post  
Old November 12th 06, 10:09 PM posted to alt.radio.scanner,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 11
Default slow crapathon conitues

Had to learn CW in 1956. Last time I used it was 1956.
Al

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 00:45:43 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

ToeJam wrote in :

The need for CW has been waining for many years now and technology has
eliminated a need for it. Why do we still need CW? How many Hams still
use CW? I think technical knowledge far outweighs the CW requirement.





  #6   Report Post  
Old November 12th 06, 10:25 PM posted to alt.radio.scanner,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 74
Default slow crapathon conitues


"Allan9" wrote in message
...
Had to learn CW in 1956. Last time I used it was 1956.
Al

I had to learn CW in 1972. Last time I used it was 1972.

H.J.


  #7   Report Post  
Old November 14th 06, 12:55 AM posted to alt.radio.scanner,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,124
Default slow crapathon conitues

"honestjohn" wrote in
:


"Allan9" wrote in message
...
Had to learn CW in 1956. Last time I used it was 1956.
Al

I had to learn CW in 1972. Last time I used it was 1972.

H.J.



When was the last time you two used you're brains, 56 & 72?

SC
  #8   Report Post  
Old November 14th 06, 04:21 AM posted to alt.radio.scanner,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 11
Default slow crapathon conitues

That wasn't necessary.
Al

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


"Allan9" wrote in message
...
Had to learn CW in 1956. Last time I used it was 1956.
Al

I had to learn CW in 1972. Last time I used it was 1972.

H.J.



When was the last time you two used you're brains, 56 & 72?

SC



  #9   Report Post  
Old November 14th 06, 03:33 PM posted to rec.radio.scanner
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 48
Default My Take on CW


"ToeJam" wrote in message
...
PowerHouse Communications wrote:
Who cares! CW doesn't belong in a SCANNER group. Discuss it in a more
appropriate group; there are MANY of them, and this is not one of them!


"ToeJam" stuck his ToeJammed bigfoot up his ass and
wrote in message ...

The need for CW has been waining for many years now and technology has
eliminated a need for it. Why do we still need CW? How many Hams still
use CW? SNIP



You could have fooled me. From what I see here, there are more Ham related
postings than Scanner postings. Are you jummping all over the other folks
that are posting Ham related material too? Or did you just get up on the
wrong side of the bed? I'm not new to Usenet and don't normally post off
topic material, but when I see more postings concerning a subject not
related to the newsgroup, I figure maybe folks gyrated from scanners to
Ham. So don't go preaching to me with your ****ty attitude. You could
have phrased your response a bit kinder instead of being an asshole about
it. I'll lurk and see how you personally deal with the other Ham related
postings. And FWIW, Scanners are strongly related to Ham radio, always
have been and always will be.


No offense, but I don't see the other HAM related postings... All that
off-topic crap is filtered out by my newsreader... Sorry, I didn't mean to
make you feel like I was singling you out, I just don't see the other crap,
there for I don't have a need to "deal" with it...



  #10   Report Post  
Old November 15th 06, 05:47 PM posted to rec.radio.scanner
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 3
Default My Take on CW - for Powerhouse

PowerHouse Communications wrote:
"ToeJam" wrote in message
...

PowerHouse Communications wrote:

Who cares! CW doesn't belong in a SCANNER group. Discuss it in a more
appropriate group; there are MANY of them, and this is not one of them!


"ToeJam" stuck his ToeJammed bigfoot up his ass and
wrote in message ...

The need for CW has been waining for many years now and technology has
eliminated a need for it. Why do we still need CW? How many Hams still
use CW? SNIP


You could have fooled me. From what I see here, there are more Ham related
postings than Scanner postings. Are you jummping all over the other folks
that are posting Ham related material too? Or did you just get up on the
wrong side of the bed? I'm not new to Usenet and don't normally post off
topic material, but when I see more postings concerning a subject not
related to the newsgroup, I figure maybe folks gyrated from scanners to
Ham. So don't go preaching to me with your ****ty attitude. You could
have phrased your response a bit kinder instead of being an asshole about
it. I'll lurk and see how you personally deal with the other Ham related
postings. And FWIW, Scanners are strongly related to Ham radio, always
have been and always will be.



No offense, but I don't see the other HAM related postings... All that
off-topic crap is filtered out by my newsreader... Sorry, I didn't mean to
make you feel like I was singling you out, I just don't see the other crap,
there for I don't have a need to "deal" with it...




No offense taken. And yes, if you turn your filer off or use another
reader, you will see a flood of HAM related material here, more so than
scanners. It actually took me by surprise to see so much. I usually
try to stay on topic on Usenet but with this newsgroup, it's hard to
tell what the on topic discussion should be about. Later.


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



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017