Brian Hill wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once

But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once.

proving that one has little to do with the other.

And that you have little to do with this conversation.

You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone
sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but it's
just the sign of the times.
Indeed I understand the points of the CW crwod but I simply reject the
ntotions that merits of CW merit the strangle hold it has

after all I can do even EME without knowing a BIT of Morse did so last
night

BH

On 24 Jul 2006 16:42:15 -0700, "
wrote:

after all I can do even EME

I sincerely doubt that. You probably couldn't even figure the loss on
an EME path.

Al Klein wrote:
On 24 Jul 2006 16:42:15 -0700, "
wrote:

after all I can do even EME

I sincerely doubt that. You probably couldn't even figure the loss on
an EME path.
doubt it all you like

figure the path with any precison no, but I am can use the various
charts to know know I need to contact various types of stations


theseday 100w a 13b2 a preamp and you are able to pick up the larger
stations, and they can hear you

why do Ineed to be figure the path loss when I can determine the
parameters for sucess.

I honestly don't care how much of the signal islost along the way

I care wether a readble signal reach the otherside