"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
"JJ" wrote ...

BS, the services realized that with modern technology CW is an outdated,
antiquated mode, no longer useful to them. You are living in your ham
radio
dream world too stubborn to see the truth.
__________________________________________________ ____________________

Hey JJ -- did you forget that SSB is over 60 years old? By your logic,
it's
time to shut that antiquated puppy down as well. I mean, there are MUCH
more modern modes out there, right? Or are you too stubborn to see the
truth?
Arnie - KT4ST

Arnie, in global communications, SSB has pretty much seen its day too.
Comms are now digital and via satellite for many ships. Telecommunications,
both terrestial, microwave and satellite are almost exclusively digital.
Even so, no one is asking to shut down SSB in ham radio any more
than CW is being asked to shut down. Use it all you want...the test isn't
needed to use the mode.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:

You
are (IMHO) clearly not up to the task of recruiting new hams
by proactively advocating CW use.



Just as I would have skipped learning the code if it hadn't been a licensing
requirement, too.

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:

You
are (IMHO) clearly not up to the task of recruiting new hams
by proactively advocating CW use.

Just as I would have skipped learning the code if it hadn't been a
licensing
requirement, too.

So much for your advocacy of morse to new hams.
You made my point.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Arnie Macy wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote ...

If find your comparison of yourself (and Larry) to Forest Gump to be most
appropriate :-) "Stupid is as stupid does." was the saying from the movie
... and while I don't actually think either you or Larry actually ARE
stupid, you both certainly ACT that way.
__________________________________________________ _________________________

And when did you become the expert on who and who is not intelligent, Carl?


And remember, he was mentally challenged, not stupid. Time and again,
we see the difference.


- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

Despite that, I've no doubt that it's possible for such conditions to
exist. The point that I think Larry and numerous others in the hobby
seem to be missing is that this is a diversified hobby with a lot of
different and equally interesting facets, of which CW is just one. I'm
not about to ridicule anyone because they enjoy communicating with CW.
However, I also don't think it's right to ridicule people who do not.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

John:

The only no-coders I bother to "ridicule" are those who offer the typically
inane arguments that code testing is somehow detrimental to the future
of the ARS -- usually by discouraging the involvement of computer-
literate, technically-involved young people. The truth about these
people is that they just want to get on HF phone and yak away -- and for
the most part, haven't a clue as to what's happening inside their off-the-
shelf ham radio appliance.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , JJ
writes:

Well, on behalf of my colleague Dick (that's MISTER Carroll to you, BOY!)
it's nice to know that we're providing a much needed service to the ARS!

73 de Larry, K3LT

Anyone ever tell you what a pompous ass you really are Larry?

JJ:

Oh, but of course! But this is Usenet, and, more specifically, rrap -- so
I won't take that personally, since I'm in such good company!

That's MISTER JJ to you little BOY!!

Uh, no, not quite. You see, Mr. Carroll is YOUR moral and intellectual
superior, therefore it is appropriate for you to address him in a form which
shows proper respect. You, OTOH, deserve no such consideration, since
you have not earned it through your participation in this forum.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:


You know...the claim that CW "will keep you communicating when conditions
prevent you from communicating by voice or digital modes" has been made time
and time again. Time and time again there have been requests for proof of
this claim. None has been provided.

To state something does not make it so.

Kim W5TIT

Kim, Dear, what kind of "proof" of this would you accept? You are not a
CW operator, so you are not even qualified to judge any "proof" offered.
Those of us who are proficient CW operators with adequate on-the-air
experience have certainly had this fact proven to them to their satisfaction,
but a no-coder will always claim that it isn't proven simply because they
have no way of discerning and analyzing the evidence, and they have an
agenda which would cause them to deny the outcome. So please don't
go demanding "proof" unless you're willing to place yourself in a position
to be an objective, competent arbiter of any evidence offered.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

On 12 Jul 2003 02:05:48 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

At the risk of sounding Kim-like, ROTFLMAO!!!

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Larry. I think you're in
love with her!

Omigosh, I feel my dinner coming up...BIWBAPMGO!!!
Damn, good thing I had that waste basket handy!

Were it not for the occasional usefulness of the 2-meter band to
"real" ham radio operators like you and me, I'd suggest that it be
separated from the licensing structure and just be given away to
anyone who can afford a transceiver. Of course, we've already gone
most of the way to doing just that, and we still don't see any real
growth in the numbers of licensed amateurs.

Heckuva lot of growth in the number of no-code Techs, though. So if
the total number of hams hasn't increased, the number of hams with the
other classes of license must have decreased accordingly in order to
keep up. Or are guys reverse-upgrading to Technician nowadays?

Funny thing is, most of the No-Code Techs in my club haven't upgraded
yet, in spite of the meager 5 WPM code test requirement. What a bunch
of maroons!

73 de Larry, K3LT

Now that it seems as though code testing will finally be abolished in the
ARS, let's amuse ourselves with a bit of speculation as to what this will
mean in terms of future growth in the numbers of licensed amateur radio
operators in the United States. What do you think will happen? How
much growth do you think will occur, and how fast?

I predict that there will be no significant growth in new licensees.
Now, all we need to do is define the term "significant growth." We currently
have around 600-some kilohams in the US. I'd call a five percent growth
factor, or 30,000 newly-licensed radio amateurs, to be significant. Let's
give this a year to happen. I say it won't. How say you? Keep in mind
that at this stage of the discussion, I'm just trying to establish reasonable
parameters -- so let's all weigh in and try to arrive at a consensus as to
what any future growth could be. Then we can commit to our numbers
and see who gets it right -- or at least close.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"JJ" wrote ...

Since the beginning of the use of phone in ham radio, I would be interested
to know of any disaster where ham radio was used for communications and CW
was the only means of communications that could get through. I don't mean CW
was used just because someone wanted to or because they only had CW
capabilities, but because it was the ONLY mode that could get through.
__________________________________________________ ________________________

We used it when Floyd hit in 1999. We were having a hard time getting
through on SSB, so switched over to CW and continued ops until the band
conditions improved. CW didn't "save the day", but it sure came in handy
when needed. It is still an integral part of our EMA plan. Remember, in
disaster planning, we try to use *all* of the tools available to us. Maybe
one day, the light will come on for you and you'll understand that concept.

Arnie -
KT4ST