|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
Slow Code wrote: wrote in oups.com: Slow Code wrote: I miss W0EX. SC In a way, so do I. I wished he wouldn't get so upset and accept that he wasn't going to change my mind. At least a difference of opinion with Dick didn't make someone a liar. He was pro-code but he wasn't trollish like me or WA8ULX were. I believe in CW, but I'm not as Ruthless as I sound. I love to toss out things and then listen to everyone gasp. ROFL. I know, I know, it's sadistic... but it's fun, and maybe some will see and figure out the point of it. SC Do you have a Ham Husband to put up your antennas? |
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
wrote in message ups.com... [snip] Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total the scores... I think you get the point. Can't tell what your point is. Those experienced with code and using only their ears and brain will beat CWGet in any contest you care to name. It doesn't do the job when there are a multitude of operators calling at the same time. Also CWGet cannot copy the average manually keyed Morse code. So whatever your point is, you didn't prove anything. I do NOT and never have believed in the arguments about "keeping out the riffraff", maintaining tradition, or the "I had to so you should to". The "dumbing down" argument is just an extension of the "keeping out the riff-raff" argument. I've never mentioned the "dumbing down" argument. My point is that there is a body of basic knowledge that all should know. The difficulty arises in determining what that basic knowledge should be. Generally, the experienced people should be the ones to define what constitutes basic knowledge. The beginners are too inexperienced to do so. It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't use any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set. I've used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been licensed. I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used smith charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I can choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it.. Please do not insult me by stereotyping like that. I happen to be a degreed engineer (B.S. in Aerospace Engineering) with 20 years of applied experience in engineering (aerospace, nuclear, mechanical and automotive fields). Should I happen to run into a need to use Ohms law and so on, I am perfectly capable of doing so. In addition, I was the one who taught the class for our club members who wished to upgrade to Extra, a class which my husband attended so that he could upgrade from General to Extra. You have ASSumed and made a donkey of yourself. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
wrote in message oups.com... wrote: Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "Chris" wrote in message Already tried it. And dismissed it. esp dimissing the abilty of the human operator of the machine to fill in the problems and correct the process As I said while it is the best that is available, it is still far below the capabilities of a human operator. Correction. ...a few human operators. indeed the PC alone far exceeds the abilties of many licensed ham operators but hat doesn't count I've tried it under a wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good signal to function. Dee, N8UZE Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary of Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through). Unrelated to my comments. You would like to think that, but without efforts from folks like Carl, Bill, Len, hans, myself and others, you would still be repeating such myths, and would never make statements such as "Not all CW signals are good." You can thank us, but that's probably not very likely. No one has said all CW signals are good. And they aren't. If they were always good, CWGet would always work, which it doesn't. The ones who tout the software solution are those who wish that it would always work. And those who dismiss the software solution think all amateur operators are superb morsemen. In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has its advantages and disadvantages. If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode. The extremists on each side don't want to hear that. Dee, N8UZE Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk. well it is a thankless job Dees coming around in her own way, but the brainwashing that she's undergone is strong. Perhaps in another decade... if there's still an amateur radio. If only she had been able to think spontaneously and resist, the brainwashing wouldn't have been so well received. You are mistaken. I've always been one to think spontaneously. Since I have personally experienced conditions where it had to be CW or turn off the radio, I advocate all hams knowing code at a basic level. To insure that they do learn it at a basic level, testing at some point in the licensing is appropriate. Before entering these news I'd never heard much discussion either way on code. My opinions on its usefulness and desireability were formed based entirely on actual operating experience. I was surprised to learn that there was a big discussion on it in the amateur community. Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total the scores... I think you get the point. What point? I do NOT and never have believed in the arguments about "keeping out the riffraff", maintaining tradition, or the "I had to so you should to". The "dumbing down" argument is just an extension of the "keeping out the riff-raff" argument. No, it isn't. The requirements for US amateur radio license have been slowly but steadily reduced for more than 25 years now. Not just the code tests but also the writtens. That's not the fault of those taking the tests. It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't use any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set. I've used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been licensed. I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used smith charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I can choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it.. Brian, do you think that using a false sexist claim is somehow going to cause you to win the debate? You lost. Besides that, Jim, I'm the one who taught the class where my OM upgraded to Extra! Dee, N8UZE |
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Slow Code wrote: Larry, Dee and Me are the only pro 'Keep the code test' people in the group anymore. SC Then the presentation of sound reasoning has been successful. No most of them have left due to the spam created by Mark Morgan, the interminable pontification of Len Anderson, the compulsive responses that some seem to feel that they must post to the spam, the vulgarity of people like Opus, the slamming that people like Slow Code do to those who licensed or will license under the current system and so on. Actually, Mark Morgan is merely the necessary balance to Robesin's postings. I read Marks posting that are responding to what I've posted and very little else that he posts. I do smaple some of Lens posting because they sometimes carry a lot of satire. What do you thik of Len characterizing you as "Miss Manners?" Opus? He/She must be posting under another name these days. Ditto K3LT, K4YZ, and N2EY. i.e. They left because it was impossible to have a good, spirited debate without things getting out of hand. OUT OF HAND??? Robesin is OUT OF MIND! Good thing you don't shoot your mouth off or you might find bricks through windows, slashed tires, or terrorized ham husbands... I only drop in occasionally to see what's happening. Mostly I don't bother to respond as it has proven to be pointless with all the bad eggs on line. Dee, N8UZE I like you're "steady as she goes" format even when I disagree with you, which I do. So who do you think "Slow Code" is? Coslo? Miccolis? Roll? Deignan? Dan, Dan the CB Radio Man? |
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
wrote in message ups.com... Dee Flint wrote: [snip] You can sit and struggle with trying to train yourself to receive 20 wpm Morse, or you can download and install CwGet and start copying the high speed CW nets immediately. There's no longer any real need for a human to be in the decoding loop, a sure sign of just how anachronistic human-decoded CW really is. Samuel Morse originally designed his code to be copied by machine, so in reality we're only catching up with what he intended to do way back in the 1800's. Already tried it. And dismissed it. Based on actually trying it. Of course! I did not form an opinion on it until I gave it a thorough workout. And if the conditions are good enough and they are going too fast for me, I'll use it to help out. But there's a lot of times it simply doesn't do the job. Isn't that kind of cheating? W0EX would inject some non-standard spacing if he knew you were pulling a stunt like that. So what? I'd simply ask him to QRS 13 so I could copy his deliberately badly sent code. I'd also chew him out for being a lid. As I said while it is the best that is available, it is still far below the capabilities of a human operator. Correction. ...a few human operators. Correction: almost any operator who works code on a semi-regular basis. My code skills are very modest. Typically I am comfortable at 13wpm to 15wpm. Higher than that is a real strain. Still I often copy better than the computer despite that. Dee, you know that's not true. There are countless present hams, former hams, and people who were denied amateur licenses based upon the Morse Code exam who actually studied Morse Code and who never got to the point where they could use morse code on a practical level. You know I've queried people here who said they had problems and "couldn't" learn code. In every case the problem came down to bad training methods or bad study habits or insufficient study time or unrealistic expectations (i.e. in the time or effort required) or a combination of any or all of them. [snip] You would like to think that, but without efforts from folks like Carl, Bill, Len, hans, myself and others, you would still be repeating such myths, and would never make statements such as "Not all CW signals are good." No I would not be repeating that myth because I never, ever said that all CW signals are good and never subscribed to that philosophy. Didn't say you did. I'm saying that if you had said something as atrocious as that 10 years ago, W0EX and K3LT would have kicked you over to the NCI Camp. Wouldn't matter to me. I have no reason to bow to any one's pressure, yours or theirs. If they were the machines would always work and they don't. EXpecially if W0EX suspected that you were using a machine. Irrelevant. The other half of the coin is that some of the anti-code types persist in the myth that "Code can always be copied by computer". Neither myth is true. So you're willing to concede that sometimes ham radio won't get through? Any ham who has sufficient operating experience on HF has experienced total radio blackouts due to solar storms. HF gets wiped out except for very local communications due to ground wave or line of sight. Any ham that denies that is a fool, inexperienced, or a liar. I've always maintained that every mode has its advantages and disadvantages. A good ham attempts to be conversant with those abilities. However the extremists on both sides don't want to hear that. You can thank us, but that's probably not very likely. Nope because you are ascribing things to me that are not true. You merely misunderstand. No you made it pretty plain that you think you are responsible for my opinions and it just isn't true. Nobody has changed my opinions as stated in the above paragraphs. You make the mistake of lumping everyone who favors code into one group. That is no more accurate than lumping the anti-code people all in one group. So Jim is wrong? Jim has never lumped all the anti-code people into one group. There are several of them whom he respects. No one has said all CW signals are good. And they aren't. [snip] And sometimes CW doesn't get through even with skilled operators. And sometimes you use CWGet to help you along when you find that your skills are lacking. So what? I've never claimed to be highly skilled. I've always said that my skills are quite modest. However, when conditions are poor, even I can beat CWGet. I'll sometimes use it when I'm too tired to focus and the signal is fast and strong. Otherwise it just doesn't do it. The rest of the time, I depend on my own skills. If CW doesn't get through with skilled operators, then it's due to bad conditions. In general, CW is a robust mode that will typically be the last mode to fail as conditions worsen. In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has its advantages and disadvantages. If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode. Depends on the conditions. One can construct scenarios where whatever mode they favor is the "best". Any one striving to be a knowledgeable ham should be converstant with those scenarios. Larry Roll had one scenarion, and in that scenario, CW was the only mode that would get through, and it would always get through. I'm sure he was experienced enough to know better but simply like to pull people's chains and/or was tired of being poked by the anit-code people. If you need an image, SST or fax are far better modes than CW. I used to hand plot RADAR image reports that I received over TTY, but those were the olden days. We've moved far beyond that now. Satellite remote sensing is digital. A seven layer image could be sent by CW, but it would take a long time. Did I not say that CW is not good for images? The "best" mode depends on the purpose of the communication and the conditions under which that communication must be sent. Glad to hear you say that. Why were you so silent on that subject when K3LT and W0EX were saying otherwise? Mostly I don't bother with people making outrageous statements. In addition, if I remember correctly, they were either no longer posting or dropping off in their posting when I started reading the newsgroups. Basically I've only heard about what they posted rather than reading the posts myself. The extremists on each side don't want to hear that. Dee, N8UZE Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk. You are exaggerating. None have stated all CW signals are good. What they have contended is that it is possible to copy a poor CW signal under conditions where you could not copy other types of signals. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE What they wouldn't claim is possible is that there are conditions where even CW wouldn't get through. Defensive knee-jerk reaction and exaggeration in response to the equally idiotic posters who claim that there is no need or use for CW in modern radio. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
wrote in message oups.com... wrote: On 28 Oct 2006 14:01:31 -0700, wrote: wrote: On 27 Oct 2006 16:43:42 -0700, wrote: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Dees coming around in her own way, but the brainwashing that she's undergone is strong. Perhaps in another decade... if there's still an amateur radio. If only she had been able to think spontaneously and resist, the brainwashing wouldn't have been so well received. thinking ability is not prised by our educational system by and large The Catholics have done a commendable job in the educational department. Realy Yep, and for far less money than the public schools operate on. i honestly have no real dat on the subject NOT being catholic and being from a religious background that frowns on Rome we have tended to avoid thier school That isn't to say that Catholics don't have a whole host of other problems. I do hope some schools are doing a better job In public schools? Rare! I mean Dee equates being able to do Morse Code (which she flasely claims based on the lies she was taught is somehow related to basis of Radio Maxwells equations to data that wtries to keep someone from hurting themselves, shows poor thinking process Dee's doing the best she can with her self-imposed handicaps. Well if you understood that garbled mess of a sentence, then my hat is off to you. Perhaps you should get a job as his interpreter. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Slow Code wrote: Larry, Dee and Me are the only pro 'Keep the code test' people in the group anymore. SC Then the presentation of sound reasoning has been successful. No most of them have left due to the spam created by Mark Morgan, I see Mark Morgan as the necessary balance in the vicious postings by Robesin. We actually have very little in common. We both claim to be amateur radio operator and military veterans. I got chopped to the US Army twice, so I know a little bit about the Army. I also got chopped to the US Navy once, and there and at service schools, and in Somalia, was fairly close to the USMC. As far as amateur radio goes, the only one of these bozos I've ever QSO'd was Heil when I was DX on Guam. the interminable pontification of Len Anderson, Yeh, well, we have Jim who served in other ways. I'm sure he has something to be proud of, too, but so far he hasn't mentioned it in other ways. the compulsive responses that some seem to feel that they must post to the spam, the vulgarity of people like Opus, I guess you conveniently forgot Dan and Bruce's postings to Kim.... Talk about not just sexist, but bonifide sexual harassment (and Jim never once chimed in to say boo).... the slamming that people like Slow Code do to those who licensed or will license under the current system and so on. He's only saying what the PCTA Extras would like to say without their callsigns attached to it. i.e. They left because it was impossible to have a good, spirited debate without things getting out of hand. I like spirited, and I like the dignity that you lend when things get spirited... I only drop in occasionally to see what's happening. Mostly I don't bother to respond as it has proven to be pointless with all the bad eggs on line. Dee, N8UZE Is an egg that's come to room temp and incubating a little bit of salmonella really all that bad? |
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
wrote: On 28 Oct 2006 15:11:43 -0700, wrote: Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Slow Code wrote: Larry, Dee and Me are the only pro 'Keep the code test' people in the group anymore. SC Then the presentation of sound reasoning has been successful. No most of them have left due to the spam created by Mark Morgan, the interminable pontification of Len Anderson, the compulsive responses that some seem to feel that they must post to the spam, the vulgarity of people like Opus, the slamming that people like Slow Code do to those who licensed or will license under the current system and so on. Actually, Mark Morgan is merely the necessary balance to Robesin's postings. I read Marks posting that are responding to what I've posted and very little else that he posts. indded as you should pity Rbeson demand so much attention He's an egomaniac log10, which I think is the legal definition of megalomaniac. I do smaple some of Lens posting because they sometimes carry a lot of satire. What do you thik of Len characterizing you as "Miss Manners?" Opus? He/She must be posting under another name these days. Ditto K3LT, K4YZ, and N2EY. i.e. They left because it was impossible to have a good, spirited debate without things getting out of hand. OUT OF HAND??? Robesin is OUT OF MIND! Good thing you don't shoot your mouth off or you might find bricks through windows, slashed tires, or terrorized ham husbands... or letter your neighboors insiting you are child molestor Are you serious??? I only drop in occasionally to see what's happening. Mostly I don't bother to respond as it has proven to be pointless with all the bad eggs on line. Dee, N8UZE I like you're "steady as she goes" format even when I disagree with you, which I do. So who do you think "Slow Code" is? Coslo? Miccolis? Roll? Deignan? Dan, Dan the CB Radio Man? Jim. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com