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want to learn it -fine, but don't push your old and outdated beliefs on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