I was licenced in 1967 at the age of 11. Went through incentive
licensing and all that then got my 20wpm extra at age 16 so dont
preach or talk down ro me. Is it Slow Code or No Balls I get that
mixed up?


On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:59:07 +0000 (UTC), (Slow Code)
wrote:


On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:58:57 -0500, john wrote:

Slow Code you are pathetic. I think everyone on here is starting to
realize it. You are the jammer on the local repeater and you get on hf
and jam people because you cant have your way with the code

And you know this how? Apparently, you are psychic (or maybe
psychotic).

requirements. Face it nobody in the world cares what you think about
it. You make zero dirrerence in this world. Too chicken to post your
call because if you did you know what would happen. You have ruined

Er, "John," I don't recall you ever posting your call anywhere. I
guess it's because if you did, you know what would happen (and only
*you* know, because you haven't told the rest of us about what would
happen). Why don't you go first? Pot, kettle, black and all that
stuff.

Actually, don't bother. You're probably a no-code tech at best or
else don't have a license at all, which would explain your anger with
other hams who have higher class licenses. Undoubtedly, we make you
feel inferior, and you can't stand the pain of it all.

Oh well; at least you did temporarily learn how to bottom post. Keep
on reading news.answers, and keep your chin up. Keep telling yourself
"I'm NOT inferior."

SC

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:00:50 -0400, "Gerry"
wrote:

world. I am not sure the FCC should be requiring it while not testing for
the various digital modes or message handling - seems inconsistent

It's consistent with dropping requirements all around. Broadcast
stations no longer need licensed personnel on duty (that's been the
case for a few decades now), you can repair two-way radios without
being licensed and you can operate on the ham bands without having to
really pass any test.

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".

(Slow Code) wrote in
ink.net:


On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 07:37:52 -0500, john wrote:

Jerry, I am a 20 wpm extra and I used to agree with some of the things
Slow Code was saying BUT, after all the BS he has created on the
newsgroups I am starting to change my opinion. His constant bullcrap
on here makes me sick. Its ok to state your opinion and move on but he
has a real problem. I mean posting every day in rec.radio.swap for
Christ sake. For someone so worried about people doing the right thing
he is the worst example.

Well, at least I educated you about top posting, and you are almost
doing things the correct way now. I suppose that I should begin
teaching you and others about TRIMMING your followups in order to make
your posts easier to read. It's all there in the news.answers FAQs
too, but lots of people haven't read the material.

The full content of all previous posts doesn't need to be quoted,
because people have threaded newsreaders and can go back to read
earlier posts without your help. Also, you'll save on that precious
downloading time of which some of you spoke. People like Len Anderson
and Dave Heil really need to learn how to TRIM their followups if they
want anyone to read them.

I'll be checking back from time to time to see how you are doing. It
looks to me like you're progressing well. There's definitely hope for
you, so keep your chin up.


ROFL!

Harassing people that top post. When you're finished here, see if you can
do something about Markie's spelling.

Tnx, 73

de Slow Code

john wrote in
:

I was licenced in 1967 at the age of 11. Went through incentive
licensing and all that then got my 20wpm extra at age 16 so dont
preach or talk down ro me. Is it Slow Code or No Balls I get that
mixed up?


Why are you so concerned about my balls? Are you gay?

Stay away from me you pervert!

SC

Diamond Dave wrote:
Good for you! It's not often that someone would come right out and admit that a
radop that can copy high speed CW is better than himself, but you did.
Congrats!

could I have the honor of knowing your call sign?

Yep, it was a mistake.

But it's over and done - more than 3 years ago.

What could be done to change it back? The time to stop the change is
long gone.

Slow Code wrote:
If an amateur had to relay a through a country and the amateurs didn't
know each other language they still could have passed it by CW and the
message could have been delivered to someone that could read it. Not no
more.

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

Adhere to the ICAO's phonetic alphabet, and there need be no
bi-lingualism nor a CW requirement.

When things start failing communication wise worldwide, amateur radio
might be all there is to relay messages, and the ITU just removed one of
the legs of a three leg stool.

Dear Slow, air traffic controllers don't use Morris Code, and they
communicate with foreign speakers JUST FINE!

wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
If an amateur had to relay a through a country and the amateurs didn't
know each other language they still could have passed it by CW and the
message could have been delivered to someone that could read it. Not no
more.

What can be passed by CW that cannot be passed by voice???
any traffic to be passed by many OT station can only be passed by CW
since they rfuse to use that new fangled device the microphone even to
save lives

Adhere to the ICAO's phonetic alphabet, and there need be no
bi-lingualism nor a CW requirement.

When things start failing communication wise worldwide, amateur radio
might be all there is to relay messages, and the ITU just removed one of
the legs of a three leg stool.

Dear Slow, air traffic controllers don't use Morris Code, and they
communicate with foreign speakers JUST FINE!

but SC can't speak to anybody on air and he neds code testing to allow
him more person to berate

From: on Sat, Oct 14 2006 4:01 pm


Slow Code wrote:
If an amateur had to relay a through a country and the amateurs didn't
know each other language they still could have passed it by CW and the
message could have been delivered to someone that could read it. Not no
more.

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

Adhere to the ICAO's phonetic alphabet, and there need be no
bi-lingualism nor a CW requirement.

Since 1955 for international civil aviation. It's taken
from the NATO approved phonetic alphabet which came out
earlier the same year. I remember it well since I had to
learn the "new" phonetic alphabet in a hurry while in the
Army then. :-)

When things start failing communication wise worldwide, amateur radio
might be all there is to relay messages, and the ITU just removed one of
the legs of a three leg stool.

Dear Slow, air traffic controllers don't use Morris Code, and they
communicate with foreign speakers JUST FINE!

Ever since 1955 the worldwide common language for civil
aviation communications on airways has been English
spoken as well as (now) data. That includes pilots as
well as controllers, even in and over their native
country; a non-English speaking country MAY use their
native language but the civil airways can have many
nations' aircraft in it.

Blowcode is just another troll who has his head up his
ass in regards to radio communications. That head just
hasn't been aware of what happened in radio for a half
century.

The ITU didn't "just remove" anything. The ITU-R made
the code test for an amateur license with below-30-MHz
privileges OPTIONAL to each administration. In 2003.
THREE years ago, not "just now." :-)