RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)
-   -   It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement. (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/106695-mistake-itu-eliminate-cw-requirement.html)

Slow Code October 10th 06 03:08 AM

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

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.

SC

Charlie October 10th 06 03:30 AM

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 
No kidding "Chicken Little?"

Charlie-AD5TH (20wpm Extra Class-1995)
www.ad5th.com



"Slow Code" wrote in message
link.net...
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.

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.

SC




john October 10th 06 03:58 AM

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 
Dont top post. Blow Code hates that!



On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 20:30:17 -0500, "Charlie" wrote:

No kidding "Chicken Little?"

Charlie-AD5TH (20wpm Extra Class-1995)
www.ad5th.com



"Slow Code" wrote in message
hlink.net...
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.

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.

SC




Charlie October 10th 06 05:19 AM

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 
What do you mean don't top post???eh??

And why does anyone care anything about some twit named blowcode??

Charlie-AD5TH (20wpm ExtraClass-1995)
www.ad5th.com

"john" wrote in message
...
Dont top post. Blow Code hates that!



On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 20:30:17 -0500, "Charlie" wrote:

No kidding "Chicken Little?"

Charlie-AD5TH (20wpm Extra Class-1995)
www.ad5th.com



"Slow Code" wrote in message
thlink.net...
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.

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.

SC







[email protected] October 10th 06 07:24 AM

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

Charlie wrote:
What do you mean don't top post???eh??

And why does anyone care anything about some twit named blowcode??

Charlie-AD5TH (20wpm ExtraClass-1995)
www.ad5th.com

"john" wrote in message
...
Dont top post. Blow Code hates that!



On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 20:30:17 -0500, "Charlie" wrote:

No kidding "Chicken Little?"

Charlie-AD5TH (20wpm Extra Class-1995)
www.ad5th.com



"Slow Code" wrote in message
thlink.net...
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.

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.

SC






Charlie, R U into mutual jacking on ATV??


Gerry October 10th 06 02:00 PM

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

"Slow Code" wrote in message
link.net...
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.

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.


The pro-code arguments seem to be getting sillier and sillier.

I am a know-coder. I enjoy it. CW is my primary mode. I encourage others to
join in. I do not believe for one minute that CW is going to save the
world. I am not sure the FCC should be requiring it while not testing for
the various digital modes or message handling - seems inconsistent



SC




john October 10th 06 02:37 PM

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:00:50 -0400, "Gerry"
wrote:


"Slow Code" wrote in message
hlink.net...
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.

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.


The pro-code arguments seem to be getting sillier and sillier.

I am a know-coder. I enjoy it. CW is my primary mode. I encourage others to
join in. I do not believe for one minute that CW is going to save the
world. I am not sure the FCC should be requiring it while not testing for
the various digital modes or message handling - seems inconsistent



SC


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.

Slow Code October 10th 06 03:06 PM

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

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.

SC

john October 10th 06 03:58 PM

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



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
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
the newsgroups with your BS and soon you will be in everyones kill
file and fade away. Then you will just come up with another name like
No Balls or something. My suggestion to everyone is ignore this loser
from now on and let him get back to kerchunking repeaters and throwing
carriers on people on hf. You know thats the kind of trash he is.




On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:06:56 +0000 (UTC), (Slow Code)
wrote:


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.

SC



Slow Code October 10th 06 06:59 PM

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

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

john October 10th 06 07:10 PM

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



Al Klein October 10th 06 10:13 PM

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

Glen Overby October 11th 06 12:37 AM

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 
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 October 11th 06 02:44 AM

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

Slow Code October 11th 06 02:44 AM

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

Glen Overby October 11th 06 05:53 PM

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

[email protected] October 12th 06 12:22 AM

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


[email protected] October 15th 06 01:01 AM

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

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!


an_old_friend October 15th 06 05:40 AM

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

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


[email protected] October 15th 06 10:31 PM

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 
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." :-)


[email protected] October 16th 06 01:19 AM

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

an_old_friend wrote:
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


He's just another grumpy old ham.


[email protected] October 16th 06 01:24 AM

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

wrote:
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. :-)


It took me about 20 minutes during a mid-shift to learn it.

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.


With his head up his own ass, he wouldn't need to eat his own excrement
off of another man's genitals. Maybe Robesin can give us hit ake on
that.

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." :-)


Slow is, well, slow.


[email protected] October 16th 06 02:09 PM

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

wrote:
On 15 Oct 2006 16:24:35 -0700,
wrote:
wrote:
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. :-)


It took me about 20 minutes during a mid-shift to learn it.


not it took that long or maybe a bit longer but nothing like the time
I have wasted on Morse


It took me about 7 weeks and lots of hours to get to about 10 words per
minute. I couldn't get past that, so I got the consolation prize...
Technician.

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.


With his head up his own ass, he wouldn't need to eat his own excrement
off of another man's genitals. Maybe Robesin can give us hit ake on
that.


well BB it must a tight fit so I suspect he wait to he puls out for
air


We should hear a loud "pop."

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." :-)


Slow is, well, slow.


realy slwo but according to one of post another of Sock puppets "hey
Stupid" so he is more honest the Robeson (which is truly damning with
faint praise.


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


[email protected] October 17th 06 01:12 AM

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

wrote:
wrote:
On 15 Oct 2006 16:24:35 -0700,
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Sat, Oct 14 2006 4:01 pm
Slow Code wrote:



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.

With his head up his own ass, he wouldn't need to eat his own excrement
off of another man's genitals. Maybe Robesin can give us hit ake on
that.


well BB it must a tight fit so I suspect he wait to he puls out for
air


We should hear a loud "pop."

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." :-)

Slow is, well, slow.


realy slwo but according to one of post another of Sock puppets "hey
Stupid" so he is more honest the Robeson (which is truly damning with
faint praise.


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.


john October 17th 06 02:27 AM

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 
On 16 Oct 2006 16:12:35 -0700, "
wrote:


wrote:
wrote:
On 15 Oct 2006 16:24:35 -0700,
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Sat, Oct 14 2006 4:01 pm
Slow Code wrote:



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.

With his head up his own ass, he wouldn't need to eat his own excrement
off of another man's genitals. Maybe Robesin can give us hit ake on
that.

well BB it must a tight fit so I suspect he wait to he puls out for
air


We should hear a loud "pop."

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." :-)

Slow is, well, slow.


realy slwo but according to one of post another of Sock puppets "hey
Stupid" so he is more honest the Robeson (which is truly damning with
faint praise.


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.



Does anybody know Slow Codes call? Thanks


Slow Code October 17th 06 02:40 AM

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 
wrote in
oups.com:


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!



Right. Pilots and ATC have to pass tests too. Do you think it would
be good if their tests were dumbed down?

SC



Slow Code October 17th 06 02:40 AM

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 
" wrote in
oups.com:


wrote:
wrote:
On 15 Oct 2006 16:24:35 -0700,
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Sat, Oct 14 2006 4:01 pm
Slow Code wrote:



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.

With his head up his own ass, he wouldn't need to eat his own
excrement off of another man's genitals. Maybe Robesin can give us
hit ake on that.

well BB it must a tight fit so I suspect he wait to he puls out for
air


We should hear a loud "pop."

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." :-)

Slow is, well, slow.


realy slwo but according to one of post another of Sock puppets "hey
Stupid" so he is more honest the Robeson (which is truly damning with
faint praise.


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.




And you haven't changed a bit either Len. You should be taking part in
the more technical groups and not arguing policy with pro-coders, or are
you hoping to be the second No-Code Extra after Markie?

SC

john October 17th 06 03:43 AM

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 
Slow Code is a disgrace to Amateur Radio!




On 16 Oct 2006 16:12:35 -0700, "
wrote:


wrote:
wrote:
On 15 Oct 2006 16:24:35 -0700,
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Sat, Oct 14 2006 4:01 pm
Slow Code wrote:



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.

With his head up his own ass, he wouldn't need to eat his own excrement
off of another man's genitals. Maybe Robesin can give us hit ake on
that.

well BB it must a tight fit so I suspect he wait to he puls out for
air


We should hear a loud "pop."

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." :-)

Slow is, well, slow.


realy slwo but according to one of post another of Sock puppets "hey
Stupid" so he is more honest the Robeson (which is truly damning with
faint praise.


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.



[email protected] October 18th 06 02:51 AM

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

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
On 15 Oct 2006 16:24:35 -0700,
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Sat, Oct 14 2006 4:01 pm
Slow Code wrote:



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.

With his head up his own ass, he wouldn't need to eat his own excrement
off of another man's genitals. Maybe Robesin can give us hit ake on
that.

well BB it must a tight fit so I suspect he wait to he puls out for
air


We should hear a loud "pop."

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." :-)

Slow is, well, slow.


realy slwo but according to one of post another of Sock puppets "hey
Stupid" so he is more honest the Robeson (which is truly damning with
faint praise.


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.


Robesin is absent. Lots of uniques showing up. Maybe we need to run
RRAP through a contest logging program.


[email protected] October 18th 06 02:56 AM

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

Slow Code wrote:
" wrote in
oups.com:


wrote:
wrote:
On 15 Oct 2006 16:24:35 -0700,
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Sat, Oct 14 2006 4:01 pm
Slow Code wrote:



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.

With his head up his own ass, he wouldn't need to eat his own
excrement off of another man's genitals. Maybe Robesin can give us
hit ake on that.

well BB it must a tight fit so I suspect he wait to he puls out for
air

We should hear a loud "pop."

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." :-)

Slow is, well, slow.

realy slwo but according to one of post another of Sock puppets "hey
Stupid" so he is more honest the Robeson (which is truly damning with
faint praise.

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.


And you haven't changed a bit either Len. You should be taking part in
the more technical groups and not arguing policy with pro-coders, or are
you hoping to be the second No-Code Extra after Markie?

SC


Mad Dog Deignan of the infamous RF Commandos?


K4YZ October 18th 06 02:53 PM

More Brain Bouncing Blindly
 

, better known as Brian P Burke, N0IMD
wrote:

Robesin is absent.


Who's "Robesin"...?!?!

Lots of uniques showing up.


Nothing unique about you, Brain...Liars and creeps have been around
for centuries. You
re in "good company".

Maybe we need to run RRAP through a contest logging program.


Would love to have one...Then could cull you, Morkie and Lennie
with greater ease.

Steve, K4YZ


Dave Heil October 18th 06 11:52 PM

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


Slow Code October 19th 06 02:10 AM

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 
john wrote in
:

Slow Code is a disgrace to Amateur Radio!




Thanks John.

I'm glad you enjoy my policy posts.

SC


Thats Right_ 20wpm October 19th 06 03:24 AM

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 
Slow Code is the kind of guy that everybodys hates on the air. He is
the Jammer because no one listens to him.


On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:10:59 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

john wrote in
:

Slow Code is a disgrace to Amateur Radio!




Thanks John.

I'm glad you enjoy my policy posts.

SC



[email protected] October 19th 06 04:50 AM

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 
From: Dave Heil on Wed, Oct 18 2006 9:52pm


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 to advise you what I've
told others he I post as no one but myself in usenet.


Hmmm...that alone makes you "rude and insulting." Tsk, tsk.

Who is "the red-hatted monkey?"

Who is "the old organ-grinder?"

Who is "Jimmie Noserve?"

Who is "the Waffen SS guy?"

The same cannot be said for you, Avery.


My name is NOT "Avery."

Where do you find this "Avery?" Have you seen this "Avery"
on some Internet service provider? Lately? In the last
year? [other than the Avery Company which makes lots and
lots of labels and other office supplies]

Why are you being so rude and insulting in your remarks?

Who cares? You WILL be rude and insulting every time
someone writes anything against your opinions! :-)





Dave Heil October 19th 06 06:50 PM

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

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


A Morse Code exam.

(exraneous newsgroups removed)

Dave K8MN

[email protected] October 19th 06 07:28 PM

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

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

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


A Morse Code exam.

wrong again I believe you can indeed pass a CW test by voice that is
speaking out the letter for somebody to write down

but the quesion was taken out of context dave the Code test is not a
message

(exraneous newsgroups removed)

Dave K8MN



[email protected] October 21st 06 12:34 AM

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

My name is NOT "Avery."


Yet you have posted here under the screen names "Avery Fine" and "Avery
Fineman".

Then you denied ever using the screen name "Avery Fine".

Where do you find this "Avery?" Have you seen this "Avery"
on some Internet service provider? Lately? In the last
year? [other than the Avery Company which makes lots and
lots of labels and other office supplies]


You've posted here under at least seven different screen names, Len.
I've lost track of how many different screen names N0IMD has used. Etc.

For all anyone knows, "Slow Code" is *you*, Len, masquerading.


Slow Code October 21st 06 01:44 AM

It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
 
wrote in
ups.com:

wrote:

My name is NOT "Avery."


Yet you have posted here under the screen names "Avery Fine" and "Avery
Fineman".

Then you denied ever using the screen name "Avery Fine".

Where do you find this "Avery?" Have you seen this "Avery"
on some Internet service provider? Lately? In the last
year? [other than the Avery Company which makes lots and
lots of labels and other office supplies]


You've posted here under at least seven different screen names, Len.
I've lost track of how many different screen names N0IMD has used. Etc.

For all anyone knows, "Slow Code" is *you*, Len, masquerading.



I've never been so insulted in all my life. Calling me Len. May you be
cursed with six weeks of HF QRN and your antenna tip over.

Slow Code


[email protected] October 21st 06 04:40 AM

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

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.



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com