Is a contact with a no-code ham a real QSO?
 

Papa Dog wrote in
:

In article . net,
says...


Thanks for posting that chuck. I've never broken any of those on the
air or on usenet. Maybe now Markie and everyone else will see why CW
is important.

Thanks again and Keep up the good work.

73 de Slow Code




You need to read them again SC. You break them daily on usenet. You're
not considerate. You're down right unfriendly to some and You're about
unprogressive as they come.

73

Chris


You think that's bad? Wait until HF sounds 11 meters and you can't find a
decent contact anywhere. You'll see I was right.

I crawled out of my hole around restructuring time. Then the ARRL and FCC
screwed ham radio. I went back in my hole again. Now the FCC and it
appears with the blessings of the ARRL is planning to toss CW all
together. I come out of my hole to fight for the integrity of ham radio
once again, but when the R&O comes out eliminating CW, I'll crawl back
into my hole again. Leaving you and everyone else the problem of trying to
deal with poor behavior and operating practice on the bands. The result
of dumbing down licensing.

Outcome based education doesn't work, what makes you think outcome based
licensing will?

SC

Is a contact with a no-code ham a real QSO?
 

Papa Dog wrote in
:

In article . net,
says...
Phil Wheeler wrote in
:

AC7PN wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
Or is it like talking to someone on CB?

SC

The answer is "yes it is a real contact" and so far as you were
communicating with some one using a radio it also is "like talking
to someone on CB."

Dude, your arrogance is showing.


I would have said ignorance ;)

73, Phil W7OX


Don't tell me You want to dumb down ham radio now as well. Where have
all the communicators gone?

SC


Any 12 year old can learn code in 2 weeks. Getting rid of it would not
dumb down Ham radio at all. Code is a good thing to know. Whether you
use it or not is a personal preference. I think programming you're own
software to send code yourself and building your own radio is a lot more
technical than learning code.

73

Chris


But people don't want to be skilled at anything anymore. They don't want
to make an effort to learn CW, they may not make an effort to learn other
things to advance themselves technically either.

SC

when you going to stop welching on your bets SC?
 

On 10/6/06 5:36 PM, in article ,
" wrote:

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 00:32:12 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

when you going to stop welching on your bets SC?
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

Your home-page is a piece of filth.

PLEASE don't try to pass yourself off as being a good representative of ham
radio.

Is a contact with a no-code ham a real QSO?
 

In article et,
says...
Papa Dog wrote in
:

In article . net,
says...


Thanks for posting that chuck. I've never broken any of those on the
air or on usenet. Maybe now Markie and everyone else will see why CW
is important.

Thanks again and Keep up the good work.

73 de Slow Code




You need to read them again SC. You break them daily on usenet. You're
not considerate. You're down right unfriendly to some and You're about
unprogressive as they come.

73

Chris


You think that's bad? Wait until HF sounds 11 meters and you can't find a
decent contact anywhere. You'll see I was right.

I crawled out of my hole around restructuring time. Then the ARRL and FCC
screwed ham radio. I went back in my hole again. Now the FCC and it
appears with the blessings of the ARRL is planning to toss CW all
together. I come out of my hole to fight for the integrity of ham radio
once again, but when the R&O comes out eliminating CW, I'll crawl back
into my hole again. Leaving you and everyone else the problem of trying to
deal with poor behavior and operating practice on the bands. The result
of dumbing down licensing.

Outcome based education doesn't work, what makes you think outcome based
licensing will?

SC

You still won't acknowledge your poor behavior that really hurts your
cause.

Chris

Is a contact with a no-code ham a real QSO?
 

In article . net,
says...
Papa Dog wrote in
:

In article . net,
says...
Phil Wheeler wrote in
:

AC7PN wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
Or is it like talking to someone on CB?

SC

The answer is "yes it is a real contact" and so far as you were
communicating with some one using a radio it also is "like talking
to someone on CB."

Dude, your arrogance is showing.


I would have said ignorance ;)

73, Phil W7OX


Don't tell me You want to dumb down ham radio now as well. Where have
all the communicators gone?

SC


Any 12 year old can learn code in 2 weeks. Getting rid of it would not
dumb down Ham radio at all. Code is a good thing to know. Whether you
use it or not is a personal preference. I think programming you're own
software to send code yourself and building your own radio is a lot more
technical than learning code.

73

Chris


But people don't want to be skilled at anything anymore. They don't want
to make an effort to learn CW, they may not make an effort to learn other
things to advance themselves technically either.

SC

If a 12 year old can learn it I don't consider it much of a technical
skill. Nothing at all technical about CW. Building a transmitter, now
that takes somw technical know how.

Chris

Is a contact with a no-code ham a real QSO?
 

Papa Dog wrote in
:

In article et,
says...
Papa Dog wrote in
:

In article . net,
says...


Thanks for posting that chuck. I've never broken any of those on
the air or on usenet. Maybe now Markie and everyone else will see
why CW is important.

Thanks again and Keep up the good work.

73 de Slow Code




You need to read them again SC. You break them daily on usenet.
You're not considerate. You're down right unfriendly to some and
You're about unprogressive as they come.

73

Chris


You think that's bad? Wait until HF sounds 11 meters and you can't
find a decent contact anywhere. You'll see I was right.

I crawled out of my hole around restructuring time. Then the ARRL and
FCC screwed ham radio. I went back in my hole again. Now the FCC and
it appears with the blessings of the ARRL is planning to toss CW all
together. I come out of my hole to fight for the integrity of ham radio
once again, but when the R&O comes out eliminating CW, I'll crawl back
into my hole again. Leaving you and everyone else the problem of trying
to deal with poor behavior and operating practice on the bands. The
result of dumbing down licensing.

Outcome based education doesn't work, what makes you think outcome
based licensing will?

SC

You still won't acknowledge your poor behavior that really hurts your
cause.

Chris


You choosing to disagree with a pro-coder doesn't constitute poor behavior
on my part. How's your code practice coming along? Are you going to
stick with it, or are you going to be one of them un-skilled hams.

SC

Is a contact with a no-code ham a real QSO?
 

Papa Dog wrote in
:

In article . net,
says...
Papa Dog wrote in
:

In article . net,
says...
Phil Wheeler wrote in
:

AC7PN wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
Or is it like talking to someone on CB?

SC

The answer is "yes it is a real contact" and so far as you were
communicating with some one using a radio it also is "like
talking to someone on CB."

Dude, your arrogance is showing.


I would have said ignorance ;)

73, Phil W7OX


Don't tell me You want to dumb down ham radio now as well. Where
have all the communicators gone?

SC


Any 12 year old can learn code in 2 weeks. Getting rid of it would
not dumb down Ham radio at all. Code is a good thing to know.
Whether you use it or not is a personal preference. I think
programming you're own software to send code yourself and building
your own radio is a lot more technical than learning code.

73

Chris


But people don't want to be skilled at anything anymore. They don't
want to make an effort to learn CW, they may not make an effort to
learn other things to advance themselves technically either.

SC

If a 12 year old can learn it I don't consider it much of a technical
skill. Nothing at all technical about CW. Building a transmitter, now
that takes somw technical know how.

Chris


Well if it's not a problem to learn, let's keep the requirement and raise
it to 13WPM. It's a bit boring doing code at 5 words per minute, and at
13 WPM you can copy someones call for help almost three times as fast.

SC

If two no-code hams contact each other on CB, is that a realQSO?
 

No kids...this whole code thing and the watering down of the test is simply
a matter dividing and conquering so "they" can come in and tell us that our
numbers don't justify the spectrum. Then...pfssssst!!!...there goes one band
after another.

If any of the no coders had any balls they'd be asking the fcc for real
testing and redevelop the hobby into what it used to be instead of the inane
weekend contesting and buffoons sitting there are sideband comparing which
rigs have the most features.


Nah, the spectrum has moved up to SHF, no one in govt or industry gives
a rat's ass about the spectrum below 30 MHz.

[Thanks for the cross posting. I need the publicity] :)

--
god bless

http://www.Hello-Radio.Com

http://home.xandros.com/products/home/home_edition.html

Is a contact with a no-code ham a real QSO?
 

"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...
Papa Dog wrote in
:

In article . net,
says...
Papa Dog wrote in
:

In article . net,
says...
Phil Wheeler wrote in
:

AC7PN wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
Or is it like talking to someone on CB?

SC

The answer is "yes it is a real contact" and so far as you were
communicating with some one using a radio it also is "like
talking to someone on CB."

Dude, your arrogance is showing.


I would have said ignorance ;)

73, Phil W7OX


Don't tell me You want to dumb down ham radio now as well. Where
have all the communicators gone?

SC


Any 12 year old can learn code in 2 weeks. Getting rid of it would
not dumb down Ham radio at all. Code is a good thing to know.
Whether you use it or not is a personal preference. I think
programming you're own software to send code yourself and building
your own radio is a lot more technical than learning code.

73

Chris


But people don't want to be skilled at anything anymore. They don't
want to make an effort to learn CW, they may not make an effort to
learn other things to advance themselves technically either.

SC

If a 12 year old can learn it I don't consider it much of a technical
skill. Nothing at all technical about CW. Building a transmitter, now
that takes somw technical know how.

Chris


Well if it's not a problem to learn, let's keep the requirement and raise
it to 13WPM. It's a bit boring doing code at 5 words per minute, and at
13 WPM you can copy someones call for help almost three times as fast.

SC

Name one real/valid/probable scenario for this. Let me guess, you crash land
on the moon, have only a D-cell battery, some wire, a butter knife, happen
to find some crystals, some silicon, somehow beyond your knowledge or
abilities, manage to build a transmitter, and send your SOS back to Earth.
Is that about right? Nah, you'd die trying to make it iambic.

Is a contact with a no-code ham a real QSO?
 

In article . net,
says...

Well if it's not a problem to learn, let's keep the requirement and raise
it to 13WPM. It's a bit boring doing code at 5 words per minute, and at
13 WPM you can copy someones call for help almost three times as fast.

SC


Have you been on a marine vessel or plane in the past 20 years? They
don't have a code key. They'll be calling Mayday on voice.

Chris