I changed the header subject to better reflect the discussion.

Unfortunately we lose the thread that way: I think here is where it
departed:
"raypsi" wrote in message
...
On Sep 3, 2:54 pm, Michael Black wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, raypsi wrote:
Hey Gary,

Rocks aren't cheap ...
I know the real reason crystals took a back seat, and it's not what anybody
thinks
happened.

73 OM

n8zu

now even the Extra Class is code free.

As is the free memorization EC exam. No real electronic knowledge
required to pass.

And no experience necessary.

Typewriters, VCRs and CW are all obsolete by todays
technical standards. Some still use them because like
you and I they like to. That doesn't make them less old
technology. (Think horse/buggy analogy)

So obsolete means there is no commercial or consumer application that
immediately comes to mind, or does it mean that it is fun to do???

So the word "obsolete" is a subjective word reflecting your own usage.
Could something be obsolete if it was old but was better suited to your
application? Or does that make your application obsolete? Is the
automobile obsolete because of air travel? Is rail transportation obsolete
because of trucks? Does obsolete most often refer to something you don't
want someone else to use? Is the word "obsolete" obsolete because too many
definitions have become attatched to it?

OK WHICH DIGITAL do you use.
Head copy.
how are you going to make the contact that is gone in 60 seconds
I'm not. I prefer CW ragchewing. Different strokes...

Bingo! Now what of the guy that has called CQ two or three times and goes
away?
Head copy is the only way to pounce on the contact before they QSY or
someone else picks them up.

It means YOUR BRAIN might not be obsolete after all!!

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, AJ Lake wrote:


I changed the header subject to better reflect the discussion.

If it's off-topic enough that you know to change the subject,
then take it elsewhere.

I should have posted last night before all the other carpetbaggers
came out of the woodwork, but foolishly hesitated.

You have no history here, yet you pounce the minute someone posts
about CW, someone who has been here a long time. And then a bunch
of others suddenly appear, even though they don't post about building
amateur radio equipment here.

There is rec.radio.amateur.policy and rec.radio.amateur.misc and
even rec.radio.amateur.moderated where you can have your debates
to your heart's content. And surely you and the other carpetbaggers
would fit in better there, since you don't have anything to say
about building radios.

This is not the first time you pouncers have landed here. The last
time I remember it happening, the one idiot even cross-posted his
reply to rec.radio.amateur.antennas, even though the topic fit
neither newsgroup. I didn't read the newsgroup for a month after
that, even though I've been reading and posting here for over a decade.

It's idiots like you that kill the newsgroups, seeing offtopic posts
as perfectly fine, while those who want to talk about what the newsgroup
is about slowly disappear.

Keep the trash out of here, you and the other carpetbaggers.

Michael VE2BVW

Tim Shoppa wrote:

The controversy in the 70's was the Technician license, a ticket that
required no code,

Interestingly in the 50s the Technician (and Novice) was given
by mail. And any ham friend could give you the code test.
Anyone else could proctor your exam and certify that you
were honest. However I'm sure it won't surprise you to learn
that there were many Techs who never took a code
test and had open book exams.

I always wondered why if the Tech was an experimenters
license as the FCC claimed it was, why they required a code
test.

The Tech was a very popular license, especially in the
late 50s when we had the best sun spot peak on
record. I had a modest Globe Scout 680 with about
20W out on 6 meters to a 5 element Taco beam
up about 30' , AM of course. The Rx was a war surplus
BC455 (7$ brand new mail order) and an International
Crystal 6 meter converter. The Tx was crystal controlled
so you called CQ and then tuned the lower band for
an answer. The band was open stateside every day
and my state count on 6M was in the 40s before
I got my General and moved to 10M which was even
better. DX openings were often and my country count
was in the 50s. That was indeed a fun time...

Michael Black wrote:

If it's off-topic enough that you know to change the subject,
then take it elsewhere.

Ah, another net cop with no delete key.

You have no history here, yet you pounce the minute someone posts
about CW, someone who has been here a long time.

I've been in these groups since the early 90s. I used to identify
but had a bad experience with a net cop.

And then a bunch
of others suddenly appear, even though they don't post about building
amateur radio equipment here.

Off topic happens. Heck they're talking God stuff in the
antenna group. Why aren't you complaining there?
And who's it hurt anyway? It's not like this place is
flooded with posts every day.

There is rec.radio.amateur.policy

Right. The kooks have taken over rrap with their profanity and
other sick stuff. That was a fun group some years back

It's idiots like you that kill the newsgroups

No I think the name calling and net cops are the ones who drive
people away, so keep it up and you will get your wish. In the
meantime just be cool and the thread will die a natural
death, they always do...

"JB" wrote:

So the word "obsolete" is a subjective word reflecting your own usage.

Yes the word obsolete is very subjective. And it "obsolete" means different
things to different people. My posts here are my *opinion*. You have stated
that you have a different opinion. We have a discussion. That makes
it interesting and is why we are all here.

Head copy is the only way to pounce on the contact before they QSY or
someone else picks them up.

Yes for contest or DX operation. But for relaxing CW operation a
computer can do just fine. Some of my recent QSOs
have been with people who admittedly don't know CW and
are using a computer. I don't mind as we are both having
fun.

It means YOUR BRAIN might not be obsolete after all!!

My brain is becoming very obsolete in recent years,
very scary...

Michael Black wrote:

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, AJ Lake wrote:

I changed the header subject to better reflect the discussion.


If it's off-topic enough that you know to change the subject,
then take it elsewhere.

snip

And surely you and the other carpetbaggers
would fit in better there, since you don't have anything to say
about building radios.

Au contraire mon ami; most of the replies include descriptions of homebrew
efforts relating to license classes and FWIW, I recognize most of the
respondents as previous posters to this N.G. I for one have appreciated
this discussion.

Regards,

Michael

"AJ Lake" wrote in message
...
Michael Black wrote:


[snip]

There is rec.radio.amateur.policy

Right. The kooks have taken over rrap with their profanity and
other sick stuff. That was a fun group some years back

It's idiots like you that kill the newsgroups

No I think the name calling and net cops are the ones who drive
people away, so keep it up and you will get your wish. In the
meantime just be cool and the thread will die a natural
death, they always do...

rec.radio.amateur.policy was destroyed almost single-handedly by one
individual. Although others made it somewhat of a sewer, he put it into the
coffin and drove the nails and buried it. I've deleted that newsgroup from
my list entirely as it is completely useless now.

Tim Shoppa wrote:
[snip]
The controversy in the 70's was the Technician license, a ticket that
required no code, as a way to get some CB'ers to take notice. I myself
came to ham radio in the 70's but had no interest in anything having
to do with Technician privileges. I know many other hams who did come
in that way in the 70's, 80's, etc.

Tim N3QE

The original Technician license required passing of a 5wpm receiving &
sending Morse test.

73,
Bryan WA7PRC

Bryan wrote:
Tim Shoppa wrote:
[snip]
The controversy in the 70's was the Technician license, a ticket that
required no code, as a way to get some CB'ers to take notice. I myself
came to ham radio in the 70's but had no interest in anything having
to do with Technician privileges. I know many other hams who did come
in that way in the 70's, 80's, etc.

Tim N3QE

The original Technician license required passing of a 5wpm receiving &
sending Morse test.

73,
Bryan WA7PRC



I concur from experience in 1982 when I got my Tech license. I had to
take the 5WPM code test at the FCC office. We had the same HF
privileges as Novices and could operate on any frequency above 50.000
MHz. I can't recall, but I "THINK" the first code-free Tech licenses
did not have HF privileges. Now that there is no code requirement for
any class, I think Techs have some HF privileges again...a bit confusing

Scott
N0EDV

Scott wrote:

I think Techs have some HF privileges again...a bit confusing

I was happy when they gave the Technician Class License HF CW privileges
because I thought that it would help the sagging numbers found on
the CW bands. Currently they have the same CW privileges as the General
Class on 80, 40, and 15M HF bands.

I hang mainly on 80 and 40 CW and average a couple of QSOs a day. To this
date I have yet to contact a Tech. (I check QRZ.com when making entries in
my computer log.) So at this point it doesn't seem to have increased CW
activity as much as I had hoped.

BTW using the internet makes QSOs even more interesting. QRZ.com often has
blurbs and photos of the guy you just talked to. Also using Google Maps you
can pinpoint his location, and often using Google Streets you can even see a
photo of his house. Amazing.