What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

In article .net,
says...
wrote in
oups.com:


wrote:
On 13 Oct 2006 07:59:20 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
wrote:
You may
not agree with their suggested solutions, but you'd have to agree
that we have a problem. Right?
notice you have gotten no reply


Having waited almost a week for a reasonable response...

The silence is telling. I believe you are right, he doesn't care..

indeed and it gets worse I am sure he believes the solution is worse
than the problem because it does not promote cw forever

Slow Code is only here to troll. He's a fan of CW, but not a big
enough fan to actually defent the continued testing of Morse Code with
any valid reasoning.


You see no value in being effective communicators,

The most effective communication is plain english!

73

Chris

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Slow Code is a disgrace to Amateur Radio!




On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:41:18 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

wrote in
roups.com:


wrote:
On 13 Oct 2006 07:59:20 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
wrote:
You may
not agree with their suggested solutions, but you'd have to agree
that we have a problem. Right?
notice you have gotten no reply


Having waited almost a week for a reasonable response...

The silence is telling. I believe you are right, he doesn't care..

indeed and it gets worse I am sure he believes the solution is worse
than the problem because it does not promote cw forever

Slow Code is only here to troll. He's a fan of CW, but not a big
enough fan to actually defent the continued testing of Morse Code with
any valid reasoning.


Here's a valid reason for continued CW testing: To keep lowlifes like you
and Markie out of ham radio and off HF. You're too lazy to try to be
real hams. You see no value in being effective communicators, therefore
you're both worthless to the service and if you had to use CW to save a
life that person would die. You're both probably too lazy to use a
microphone to help save anyone too.

I'd like to see the No-code Tech class go away with a 5 wpm Tech the being
entry level to the service, or bring back a code only Novice class again.
Require 13 wpm code test for general and 20 wpm an Extra again.

People that don't like it should stay on CB. Ten-Four? This should
provide you and Markie a lot to stroke each other with. You both seem to
sing the same tune.

SC

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:45:49 -0500, john wrote:
Slow Code is a disgrace to Amateur Radio!

Let Slow Code post, and "john" comes stumbling in while stepping on
his crank, with both cap guns blazing.

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Slow Code wrote:
wrote in
oups.com:
wrote:
On 13 Oct 2006 07:59:20 -0700, wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
You may
not agree with their suggested solutions, but you'd have to agree
that we have a problem. Right?
notice you have gotten no reply


Having waited almost a week for a reasonable response...

The silence is telling. I believe you are right, he doesn't care..

indeed and it gets worse I am sure he believes the solution is worse
than the problem because it does not promote cw forever

Slow Code is only here to troll. He's a fan of CW, but not a big
enough fan to actually defent the continued testing of Morse Code with
any valid reasoning.

Here's a valid reason for continued CW testing: To keep lowlifes like you
and Markie out of ham radio and off HF. You're too lazy to try to be
real hams. You see no value in being effective communicators, therefore
you're both worthless to the service and if you had to use CW to save a
life that person would die. You're both probably too lazy to use a
microphone to help save anyone too.

I'd like to see the No-code Tech class go away with a 5 wpm Tech the being
entry level to the service, or bring back a code only Novice class again.
Require 13 wpm code test for general and 20 wpm an Extra again.

People that don't like it should stay on CB. Ten-Four? This should
provide you and Markie a lot to stroke each other with. You both seem to
sing the same tune.

SC

Why do you say I'm a low-life?

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote:
On 17 Oct 2006 17:39:19 -0700, wrote:


Slow Code wrote:
wrote in
oups.com:
wrote:
On 13 Oct 2006 07:59:20 -0700, wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
You may
not agree with their suggested solutions, but you'd have to agree
that we have a problem. Right?
notice you have gotten no reply


Having waited almost a week for a reasonable response...

The silence is telling. I believe you are right, he doesn't care..

indeed and it gets worse I am sure he believes the solution is worse
than the problem because it does not promote cw forever

Slow Code is only here to troll. He's a fan of CW, but not a big
enough fan to actually defent the continued testing of Morse Code with
any valid reasoning.

Here's a valid reason for continued CW testing: To keep lowlifes like you
and Markie out of ham radio and off HF. You're too lazy to try to be
real hams. You see no value in being effective communicators, therefore
you're both worthless to the service and if you had to use CW to save a
life that person would die. You're both probably too lazy to use a
microphone to help save anyone too.

I'd like to see the No-code Tech class go away with a 5 wpm Tech the being
entry level to the service, or bring back a code only Novice class again.
Require 13 wpm code test for general and 20 wpm an Extra again.

People that don't like it should stay on CB. Ten-Four? This should
provide you and Markie a lot to stroke each other with. You both seem to
sing the same tune.

SC

Why do you say I'm a low-life?

according to him anyone not devoted to cw is a lowlfie

That's really sad.

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote:
wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
It seems to me they want to eliminate all testing.

That's what happens when no-codes and nickle hams start running
things. Or is that ruining things?


Naw, ARRL isn't trying to do that. I haven't seen anything in their
current goals that would lead me to believe that they are trying to
send the rest of our spectrum the way of 11 meters. I may be wrong, but
I don't think the FCC would do that again (if any of the current
commissioners are students of FCC history that is) even if the ARRL
suggested it.

The numbers of Hams out there and how it's been dropping though the
more recent years is an alarming trend. With the age of the average ham
creeping higher, this hobby is set to all but die out in the USA within
a generation unless something changes.

indeed

What an inciteful response (No...I didn't mispell that...Pun
intended...)

Surely you see the problem that the ARRL is trying to address.
honestly I don't think he does
You may
not agree with their suggested solutions, but you'd have to agree that
we have a problem. Right?

notice you have gotten no reply

He didn't get a response because :

(a) His comments were concise, well written and in proper
English...Traits that make it difficult for YOU to understand or
"respond" to.

(b) Accurate and able to stand on their own merits.

Steve, K4YZ

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

according to him anyone not devoted to cw is a lowlfie

That's really sad.

...and pathetic. No one should have to go through life as a lowlfie.

(extraneous groups deleted)

Dave K8MN

So who do you think Slow Code is? Kelly? Coslo? Deignan?

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Papa Dog wrote in
:

In article .net,
says...
wrote in
oups.com:


wrote:
On 13 Oct 2006 07:59:20 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
wrote:
You may
not agree with their suggested solutions, but you'd have to
agree that we have a problem. Right?
notice you have gotten no reply


Having waited almost a week for a reasonable response...

The silence is telling. I believe you are right, he doesn't care..

indeed and it gets worse I am sure he believes the solution is worse
than the problem because it does not promote cw forever

Slow Code is only here to troll. He's a fan of CW, but not a big
enough fan to actually defent the continued testing of Morse Code
with any valid reasoning.


You see no value in being effective communicators,

The most effective communication is plain english!

73

Chris


Yes you're right, unless you're trying to pass a message through someone
that doesn't know how to speak english.

CW is a wonderful thing. Real communicators know CW and know how to use
it.

SC