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want to learn it -fine, but don't push your old and outdated beliefs on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

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

"Chris" wrote in
:

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 00:30:14 GMT, Opus- wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:51:34 +0000 (UTC), "Chris"
spake thusly:

It's all about proving that you value a ham license so much that
you'll do some hard work to get it, much like a recruit going through
boot camp.

Code has nothing to do with "value". A recruit going thru boot camp is
a laughable analogy.

We're talking about U.S. regulations. It's kind of odd that a
Canadian would worry that much about them.


The Canadian's screwed up their country, now they're looking around for
another one to screw up.

SC