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

wrote:
On 20 Oct 2006 19:40:43 -0700, wrote:


Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

What can be passed by CW that cannot be passed by voice???

A Morse Code exam.

(exraneous newsgroups removed)

Dave K8MN

Sorry Dave, but you're wrong. The Morse Exam uses audio, not actual
on-the-air transmissions. I guess you're just not VE material.

indeed if the test were based on air use it might even be possible to
ctruct a rational for keeping the test although it would be rough to
justify why it is was the only mode so tested but one might make a
stab at it

If you have to "send by hand and receive by ear" over the air without
the license you're testing for, you'd be llike W3RV bypassing all the
testing and regulatory material and just getting on the air without a
license. And we wouldn't want that, would we?

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

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

He might be a former RRAPper. Can you guess which one?

I'll go with Mark and say it is a current RRAPer...a pro-coder who
is wrapped too tight...either Jimmie Noserve or that Waffen SS guy.

I'll sidestep your rude and insulting remarks

Are you sure those aren't "goose steps?"

to advise you what I've
told others he I post as no one but myself in usenet. The same
cannot be said for you, Avery.

Dave K8MN

Quitefine and Darktower made a big splash a while back. Do you
remember or do you choose to ignore that FACT?

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

wrote:
On 20 Oct 2006 19:51:24 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
On 20 Oct 2006 19:40:43 -0700, wrote:


Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

What can be passed by CW that cannot be passed by voice???

A Morse Code exam.

(exraneous newsgroups removed)

Dave K8MN

Sorry Dave, but you're wrong. The Morse Exam uses audio, not actual
on-the-air transmissions. I guess you're just not VE material.

indeed if the test were based on air use it might even be possible to
ctruct a rational for keeping the test although it would be rough to
justify why it is was the only mode so tested but one might make a
stab at it

If you have to "send by hand and receive by ear" over the air without
the license you're testing for, you'd be llike W3RV bypassing all the
testing and regulatory material and just getting on the air without a
license. And we wouldn't want that, would we?

You are right that doesn't work but it is closer to a valid arguement
for code testing than anything proposed by the ProCoder in my memerory.

Slow Code doesn't know code.

Although one could do the practice and exam on vhf but then they
would still have to deal with the codeless techs in their specrum

It would just be too awful for them to share spectrum with the unwashed
and the unworthy.

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

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

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

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

What can be passed by CW that cannot be passed by voice???
A Morse Code exam.

(extraneous newsgroups removed)

Dave K8MN

Sorry Dave, but you're wrong. The Morse Exam uses audio, not actual
on-the-air transmissions. I guess you're just not VE material.

Passed=obtaining a passing grade

Good luck@

Now you claim the VE gives your score in a CW transmission?

Keep digging.

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

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

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

Slow Code wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:


wrote:
On 20 Oct 2006 19:51:24 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
On 20 Oct 2006 19:40:43 -0700, wrote:


Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

What can be passed by CW that cannot be passed by voice???

A Morse Code exam.

(exraneous newsgroups removed)

Dave K8MN

Sorry Dave, but you're wrong. The Morse Exam uses audio, not
actual on-the-air transmissions. I guess you're just not VE
material.

indeed if the test were based on air use it might even be possible
to ctruct a rational for keeping the test although it would be rough
to justify why it is was the only mode so tested but one might make
a stab at it

If you have to "send by hand and receive by ear" over the air without
the license you're testing for, you'd be llike W3RV bypassing all the
testing and regulatory material and just getting on the air without a
license. And we wouldn't want that, would we?

You are right that doesn't work but it is closer to a valid arguement
for code testing than anything proposed by the ProCoder in my memerory.

Slow Code doesn't know code.


Wrong.

You do you like to get everything wrong all the time?

SC

You do?

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

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

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
He might be a former RRAPper. Can you guess which one?
I'll go with Mark and say it is a current RRAPer...a pro-coder who
is wrapped too tight...either Jimmie Noserve or that Waffen SS guy.
I'll sidestep your rude and insulting remarks

Are you sure those aren't "goose steps?"

to advise you what I've
told others he I post as no one but myself in usenet. The same
cannot be said for you, Avery.

Dave K8MN

Quitefine and Darktower made a big splash a while back. Do you
remember or do you choose to ignore that FACT?

Why? Were they Len too?

Dave K8MN

The stuff on Comedy Central is much funnier.

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.
 

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.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.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.
 

From: Chris on Sat, Oct 28 2006 9:51 am

Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived. This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Nov 4, 9:51 am).

[Hmmm...its as if "Chris" doesn't want to be identified as
"Slow Code"...can't say I blame him]

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.

I never took "boot camp." I took BASIC TRAINING in the Army.
There we learned how to "close with the enemy and destroy him."

Does that mean you think a ham license is some permission to
go out and destroy others?

If you've never programmed in assembly language, don't talk to me
about being a real programmer.

Ah, but *I* have done working Assembler for 6800s, 6502s,
8051s, and, lately, some Microchip PICs...in addition to
FORTRAN 77 and various dialects of BASIC, ADA (the
government's Pascal).

The "real" programmers I know can do high-level and well
as low-level programming. None of them can design and
build a working computer, though. I have.

If you've never passed a Morse code
exam, don't talk to me about being a real ham.

Wouldn't dream of it. :-)

A ham is defined as "the butchered meat of swine." :-)

Ah, but YOU 'define' a "real ham" as one who does
morse code radiotelegraphy!

Strange, but the FCC (the agency that grants those licenses)
doesn't think so. In fact, Part 97 Title 47 C.F.R. doesn't
even mention the word "ham." But, YOU are a "real" one?

If you are a "real" ham, WHAT IS YOUR CALL?

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.
 

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.

If you've never programmed in assembly language, don't talk to me
about being a real programmer. If you've never passed a Morse code
exam, don't talk to me about being a real ham.

THAT is the snot-nosed attitude that I have been talking about. An
attitude that makes ham worthless.

(I see you like to "toppsot" -- something Mark Morgan doesn't like at
all. Keep up the good work.)

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 14:35:19 GMT, JDB wrote:
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.

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

After Mark changed the Subject line again, he said....

"obviously moirse fails to improve your abilitesi as an all round comicator"

As Roger would say, "Oh, the irony."

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