Just listen to CB if you want to know what ham radio will sound like.
 

We need to keep the CW requirement and increase it. We shouldn't let ham
radio get dumbed down again.

SC

crapthon goes on
 

wrote:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:37:55 GMT, Slow Code wrote:



We need to keep the CW requirement and increase it. We shouldn't let ham
radio get dumbed down again.

More important is that Extras at least should have to prove they can
solder, troubleshoot, and use test equipment do determine if a radio
operator is or is not in compliance.

crapthon goes on
 

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On 24 Nov 2006 12:42:00 -0800, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:

More important is that Extras at least should have to prove they can
solder, troubleshoot, and use test equipment do determine if a radio
operator is or is not in compliance.

------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------

I couldn't resist. :-)

Exactly how does one use solder to determine if a radio operator is or
is not in compliance?

Made my day.

Bill, W6WRT

crapthon goes on
 

Bill Turner wrote:
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On 24 Nov 2006 12:42:00 -0800, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:

More important is that Extras at least should have to prove they can
solder, troubleshoot, and use test equipment do determine if a radio
operator is or is not in compliance.

------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------

I couldn't resist. :-)

Exactly how does one use solder to determine if a radio operator is or
is not in compliance?

Made my day.


There is this thing called a comma. We have three things he

1. Solder.
2. Troubleshoot.
3. Use test equipment to determine if a radio operator is, or is not,
in compliance.

Three separate activities.

crapthon goes on
 

maybe its not solder - he probably ment weld aluminum!

"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On 24 Nov 2006 12:42:00 -0800, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:

More important is that Extras at least should have to prove they can
solder, troubleshoot, and use test equipment do determine if a radio
operator is or is not in compliance.

------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------

I couldn't resist. :-)

Exactly how does one use solder to determine if a radio operator is or
is not in compliance?

Made my day.

Bill, W6WRT

crapthon goes on
 

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On 24 Nov 2006 13:56:16 -0800, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:

There is this thing called a comma. We have three things he

1. Solder.
2. Troubleshoot.
3. Use test equipment to determine if a radio operator is, or is not,
in compliance.

Three separate activities.

------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------

The way you have it written conjoins all three activities into one,
which is applied to determining if the radio operator, etc, etc.

Here's a better way:

"More important is that Extras at least should have to prove they can
solder, troubleshoot, and in addition, use test equipment do determine
if a radio operator is or is not in compliance.

There are some other styles that could be used too, but just stinging
together words separated by commas is begging for misinterpretation.
Perhaps you were absent that day.

"Unambiguous" is one of my favorite words. :-)

Bill, W6WRT
shoulda been a lawyer

Just listen to CB if you want to know what ham radio will sound like.
 

Slow Code wrote:
We need to keep the CW requirement and increase it. We shouldn't let ham
radio get dumbed down again.

SC

We should have the examiners measure the size of prospective HAM's
dicks. That would get us back to the basics here that you've been
preaching about.

Just listen to CB if you want to know what ham radio will sound like.
 

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:37:55 GMT, Slow Code wrote:



We need to keep the CW requirement and increase it. We shouldn't let ham
radio get dumbed down again.

SC
++++++++++
And we should just read your posts if we want to know what ham radio
will be like if irrelevancy is a required subject.

Just listen to CB if you want to know what ham radio will sound like.
 

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

Slow Code wrote:
We need to keep the CW requirement and increase it. We shouldn't let ham
radio get dumbed down again.

SC

------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------

I agree. At least 100 wpm for Novice/Tech and something really hard
for General and up. Don't laugh, it's been done.

Also, lets have them memorize the Baudot code, demodulate PSK31 by ear
(no computers allowed) and launch at least one satellite into orbit.
They should be required to build an oscillator from a crystal set,
erect a 200 foot tower all by themselves and change the tubes in a
1500 watt amplifier while it is running at full output.

Hams today are a bunch of weenies.

Bill, W6WRT
who passed the 20 wpm test by about .001 wpm

Just listen to CB if you want to know what ham radio will sound like.
 

Joe Bloe wrote in :

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:37:55 GMT, Slow Code wrote:



We need to keep the CW requirement and increase it. We shouldn't let
ham radio get dumbed down again.

SC

And we should insist they learn Swahili, Tasmanian, and in all
honesty, speak in binary proficiently. . . Well, one has to learn how
to beat upon a railroad track with a rock for CODE, might as well take
in the more simple aspects as well, huh?

My computer does CODE better and faster than you can `Slow. . . So,
what does that make you then? A Slacker or just a stupid agitator?

There is NO NEED for anybody to learn CODE. Not unless they WANT
to. What the hell does CODE have to do with SSTV? Or Packet? OR
Phone? There, I gave you THREE aspects of communications via "HAM"
that harbors Absolutely NO use of LEARNING CODE in any way, form, or
shape. Can you truefuly offer me as many NEEDFULL aspects of HAM
Radio which demands the use of Code?

Absolutely NOT!

In that regard, your very "hobby" denounces Your insistence upon
CODE, as a requirement, as arcade and dusty as a dead rat's fart.

We are NOT living in the 1920's any more `Slow. . . It DOESN"T
MATTER ANY MORE if People can beat on a railroad track with a rock or
not. NO ONE HAD THE **** WE HAVE TODAY, THEN! Hells bells `Slow, I
said it before and I'll state it again. The Damn CELL PHONE is
Cheaper and BETTER at communication than any silly HAM station in the
world! And it doesn't take no bloody HAM license to use it, ether.
Just a simple bank account.. . No wait. . Not even that in some
cases. Just a wad of dollars in your grubby little fist will suffice,
and there's No waiting on Sun Spots ether!

Honestly Slow, its people like you who make me want to sell my radio
station for a 1911 colt. . . They don't do CODE ether, but its damn
good with Binary!



I know you're right, Requiring good operators will kill the service.

Hams just want to be appliance operators these days and they don't want
license exams that will interfere with them getting to those appliances
even though it means being less skilled. I don't see anyone modernizing
like everyone says is happening. They just get their licenses and grab a
microphone. What percentage of hams have a computer connected to a
radio? Probably less than 30%. Hams don't want to modernize. Guess we
just have live with inferior operators on the bands from here on out.
Then again, maybe hams shouldn't be required to be knowledgable or have
skills. Requiring skills and knowledge is too old skool. Everything must
be outcome based these days, even licensing. It ain't like we have to
help out in emergencies or anything. It's Quantity, not quality. We need
more hams even if they aren't skilled.

SC

Just listen to CB if you want to know what ham radio will sound like.
 

"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...


We need to keep the CW requirement and increase it. We shouldn't let ham
radio get dumbed down again.

SC

It doesn't take a damn bit of knowlege of electronics, radio, propagation or
regulations to learn cw.
So how is cw gonna prevent the dumbing down of ham radio.
Why are you not stressing a need for better testing for technical
competentcy to prevent the dumbing down?
There are a lot of engineers, technicians and hobbyists who allready know
electronics who might be interested amateur radio, but don't have time or
interest to fool around learning code. Once licenced some, maybe many, of
these people would develope an interest in cw.

Just listen to CB if you want to know what ham radio will sound like.
 

"JOHN D" wrote in message
news:4exbh.8880$Kw2.30@trndny05...

"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...


We need to keep the CW requirement and increase it. We shouldn't let ham
radio get dumbed down again.

SC

It doesn't take a damn bit of knowlege of electronics, radio, propagation
or
regulations to learn cw.
So how is cw gonna prevent the dumbing down of ham radio.
Why are you not stressing a need for better testing for technical
competentcy to prevent the dumbing down?
There are a lot of engineers, technicians and hobbyists who allready know
electronics who might be interested amateur radio, but don't have time or
interest to fool around learning code. Once licenced some, maybe many, of
these people would develope an interest in cw.



I personally know of very good 2 way radio techs - one who won't go for a
ham license because of the code - the other has acquired his NO-Code Tech,
but won't go any higher because he "doesn't" want to fool with the code. So,
Code "may" be keeping out some otherwise good operators. CW alone - isn't
"dumbing" down - ham. It's the "STUPID MANUALS". With them, you don't "need"
electronics, just the ability to learn a few "one liner" answers. Almost
amounts to a mouse in a maze smelling cheese to direct it. PUT SOME TEETH
back into the "THEORY". Some of the bozos I've met - can't tell the
difference from a fuse and a resistor. That is pathetic.

If you "choose" "just" to BS - CB is the way - and it too "can" be a good
hobby, if you don't have to contend with a lot of the same CRAP - of
everyone splattering, constantly saying Audio, keying up just to **** people
off, and so on. IF you choose to "LEARN" - Ham "can" be the way. But then
again, even at this point, I know some CBers who know more than many No
Coders - or even Extras for that matter. There "are" some "serious" CBers
out there who "get into" their equipment - knowledge wise. They have a
"desire" to learn. There again, they won't go ham BECAUSE of the code. It is
a two sided coin - but regardless - both CB AND HAM - have a lot of "nice"
folks and a lot of idiots - who - "could" be better operators if they tried.
These Ham tests - do "not" test the "psychological" make up of people.

Code is ok - but it's not the salvation of the world - and certainly not the
Ham hobby.

Still again - SC has "YET" to show proof of a license to back up his claims.
People need to "ignore" him and move on.

Just listen to CB if you want to know what ham radio will sound like.
 

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

Slow Code:


We need to keep the CW requirement and increase it. We shouldn't let ham
radio get dumbed down again.

------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------

People have only so much time and energy to spend on ham radio or
anything else. Spending hours on CW is truly dumb when they could be
spent on aspects of the hobby that are really important.

Bill, W6WRT

Just listen to CB if you want to know what ham radio will soundlike.
 

Bill Turner wrote:
People have only so much time and energy to spend on ham radio or
anything else. Spending hours on CW is truly dumb when they could be
spent on aspects of the hobby that are really important.

Knowing how to operate and apply EZNEC is a magnitude
more useful to me than Morse Code.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Just listen to CB if you want to know what ham radio will sound like.
 

"Radiosrfun" wrote in
:

"JOHN D" wrote in message
news:4exbh.8880$Kw2.30@trndny05...

"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...


We need to keep the CW requirement and increase it. We shouldn't let
ham radio get dumbed down again.

SC

It doesn't take a damn bit of knowlege of electronics, radio,
propagation or
regulations to learn cw.
So how is cw gonna prevent the dumbing down of ham radio.
Why are you not stressing a need for better testing for technical
competentcy to prevent the dumbing down?
There are a lot of engineers, technicians and hobbyists who allready
know electronics who might be interested amateur radio, but don't have
time or interest to fool around learning code. Once licenced some,
maybe many, of these people would develope an interest in cw.



I personally know of very good 2 way radio techs - one who won't go for
a ham license because of the code - the other has acquired his NO-Code
Tech, but won't go any higher because he "doesn't" want to fool with the
code. So, Code "may" be keeping out some otherwise good operators. CW
alone - isn't "dumbing" down - ham. It's the "STUPID MANUALS". With
them, you don't "need" electronics, just the ability to learn a few "one
liner" answers. Almost amounts to a mouse in a maze smelling cheese to
direct it. PUT SOME TEETH back into the "THEORY". Some of the bozos I've
met - can't tell the difference from a fuse and a resistor. That is
pathetic.

If you "choose" "just" to BS - CB is the way - and it too "can" be a
good hobby, if you don't have to contend with a lot of the same CRAP -
of everyone splattering, constantly saying Audio, keying up just to ****
people off, and so on. IF you choose to "LEARN" - Ham "can" be the way.
But then again, even at this point, I know some CBers who know more than
many No Coders - or even Extras for that matter. There "are" some
"serious" CBers out there who "get into" their equipment - knowledge
wise. They have a "desire" to learn. There again, they won't go ham
BECAUSE of the code. It is a two sided coin - but regardless - both CB
AND HAM - have a lot of "nice" folks and a lot of idiots - who - "could"
be better operators if they tried. These Ham tests - do "not" test the
"psychological" make up of people.

Code is ok - but it's not the salvation of the world - and certainly not
the Ham hobby.

Still again - SC has "YET" to show proof of a license to back up his
claims. People need to "ignore" him and move on.


Tnx, 73, Good luck on the code test.

SC

Just listen to CB if you want to know what ham radio will sound like.
 

"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...


We need to keep the CW requirement and increase it. We shouldn't let ham
radio get dumbed down again.

SC Ham
radio was dumb enough to let you in. Can't get any dumber.

Just listen to CB if you want to know what ham radio will sound like.
 

"tools" wrote in :


"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...


We need to keep the CW requirement and increase it. We shouldn't let
ham radio get dumbed down again.

SC Ham
radio was dumb enough to let you in. Can't get any dumber.


Ever hear a no-code on the repeater that you'd just like to take a cattle
prod to?

SC

Just listen to CB if you want to know what ham radio will sound like.
 

"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...
"tools" wrote in :


"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...


We need to keep the CW requirement and increase it. We shouldn't let
ham radio get dumbed down again.

SC Ham
radio was dumb enough to let you in. Can't get any dumber.


Ever hear a no-code on the repeater that you'd just like to take a cattle
prod to?

SC No