| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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?? |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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". |
It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
|
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 |
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? |
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. |
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! |
It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
|
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." :-) |
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.
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? |
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. |
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 |
It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
|
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 |
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. |
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. |
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? |
More Brain Bouncing Blindly
|
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 |
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 |
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 |
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! :-) |
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: 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 |
It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.
|
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 |
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 03:28 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com