On 22 Jul 2003 04:25:57 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

Since you have no practical on-the-air experience using CW, I don't
expect you to appreciate this, and consider you to be unqualified to
render an opinion on the subject.

On that note, we're still waiting for your opinion on eating elephant
dung - good idea or bad?

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

Kim W5TIT wrote:


What's the difference between yakking using a microphone, or yakking using a
CW key or paddle?

Functionally, not very much.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message


On 22 Jul 2003 04:25:57 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

Since you have no practical on-the-air experience using CW, I don't
expect you to appreciate this, and consider you to be unqualified to
render an opinion on the subject.

On that note, we're still waiting for your opinion on eating elephant
dung - good idea or bad?

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

John,

Many years ago one of the popular magazines (Sat Eve Post, Colliers,
Readers Digest?) had a reader-contributed feature called "The Perfect
Squelch". Your comment above would surely have been a winner!

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"They called me mad and I called them mad,
but damn them, they outvoted me!"




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

K0HB wrote:
"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message



On 22 Jul 2003 04:25:57 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:


Since you have no practical on-the-air experience using CW, I don't
expect you to appreciate this, and consider you to be unqualified to
render an opinion on the subject.

On that note, we're still waiting for your opinion on eating elephant
dung - good idea or bad?

73 DE John, KC2HMZ


John,

Many years ago one of the popular magazines (Sat Eve Post, Colliers,
Readers Digest?) had a reader-contributed feature called "The Perfect
Squelch". Your comment above would surely have been a winner!


Except for dung beetles! There was a good Nova program on them. Glad I
didn't have to do the camera work.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
Dee D. Flint wrote:

The ARRL had a new survey in the last 6 months. Half of the respondants
use
morse any where from occasionally to 100% of the time. Morse code usage
appears to be on the rise. In the past year, participation in the ARRL
Morse contests showed an increase of 20% over the previous year.
Participation in the voice contests was practically the same as last year
with virtually no growth.



If this is the case, then Morse code has a good future. No need to
worry that you
won't be able to find someone to have a QSO when you do a CQ.


Its not a problem for a couple of decades anyway. As soon as the 'flood' of
no code braindeads show up on phone...CW will be so full you can't get a
beep in.

Dan/W4NTI

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

Well, folks, there it is -- as I've been saying for years, it's all
about
getting a microphone in hand and yakking away!

Too bad you have such bad speaking skills...you might have made
a fine ham on the phone bands.

LHA

Lennie:

Actually, I do have a speech impediment. I can't drone on for hours about
nothing like all those other "fine hams" on the HF phone bands! Maybe
once I'm fully retired and living in a trailer park down in Florida, I'll
have
the
time and inclination for HF phone. Until then, I need to make better use
of my limited operating time -- and don't have nearly enough medical
problems to serve as adequate subject matter.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Gotta admit he has a point here guys and girls.

Dan/W4NTI

In article ilgate.org, "Hans
Kohb" writes:

"N2EY" wrote


35% answered "Never"
37% answered "Rarely"
27% answered "Regularly"
1% did not answer.



64% (37+27) sometimes use Morse code, according to that survey. That's a
fact,
not spin.



Facts (and spin) are in the eye of the beholder, Jim.

"Reality does not care what you believe"

Your "64%
sometimes use Morse code" is trumped by the fellow who uses the same
numbers to factually state that "72% (35+37) of the hams surveyed rarely
or never use Morse code".

How is it trumped?

Besides, the point of my post was that the original poster was way off on a
number of things.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Hans,

I might *gently* remind folks that there are no limitations on CW either )

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


"K0HB" wrote in message
news:ed9e3d3ed0c3403349a2a6882a98d900.128005@mygat e.mailgate.org...
"Joe Collins" wrote in message


....what will happen to the exclusive CW allocations....

Except in the USA, most amateurs do not labor under "sub-bands" based on
mode. As an example Canadian amateur have no such restrictions. It's a
source of continuing wonder to me that the FCC continues to arbitrarily
slice and dice the bands based on mode, license class, power levels, and
similar artificial constructs of their imagination.

73, de Hans, K0HB

PS: There are no "exclusive CW allocations" below 50MHz.



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 7/18/03

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Well, folks, there it is -- as I've been saying for years, it's all
about
getting a microphone in hand and yakking away!

73 de Larry, K3LT


What's the difference between yakking using a microphone, or yakking
using a
CW key or paddle?

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

Don't look now, but yakking into a microphone is something that anyone
can do without learning any new communications skills.


Oh, duh...I should have seen that spin coming.


Use of Morse/CW
requires the acquisition of a new, very useful comm skill (Morse code) and
the patience and initiative to develop this skill adequately to become an
efficient, effective CW operator. The content of the "yakking" may be the
same, but the difference is that the CW operator is yakking in a totally
different way, using a skill and mode which offers benefits and advantages
not found in voice modes.


Simply your opinion. The trouble with you is you truly believe everyone
else has to have your opinion, too.


Since you have no practical on-the-air experience using CW, I don't
expect you to appreciate this, and consider you to be unqualified to
render an opinion on the subject.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Uh huh. That's why you spent so much time, eh?

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Kim:

Don't look now, but yakking into a microphone is something that anyone
can do without learning any new communications skills.


Oh, duh...I should have seen that spin coming.

Kim:

That wasn't "spin" -- it was a simple statement of fact. However, I guess that

you are too intellectually immature to understand the difference.

Use of Morse/CW
requires the acquisition of a new, very useful comm skill (Morse code) and
the patience and initiative to develop this skill adequately to become an
efficient, effective CW operator. The content of the "yakking" may be the
same, but the difference is that the CW operator is yakking in a totally
different way, using a skill and mode which offers benefits and advantages
not found in voice modes.

Simply your opinion.

No, just more facts, Kim.

The trouble with you is you truly believe everyone else has to have your
opinion, too.

No, but I expect everyone else to be able to process reality in rational
manner.

Since you have no practical on-the-air experience using CW, I don't
expect you to appreciate this, and consider you to be unqualified to
render an opinion on the subject.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Uh huh. That's why you spent so much time, eh?

Typically unresponsive answer, Kim. You're out of your depth here, to a degree
which would be quite embarrassing to anyone with the emotional and
intellectual maturity to understand the concept. Your responses on virtually
any
topic at hand are uniformly childlike and devoid of any evidence of
well-reasoned
logic. For the most part, you simply parrot or show approval for things other
people say -- as if that contributed something of value to the discussion,
which
it does not. Participation in this newsgroup is way over your head, Kim --
which isn't saying much about you!

I now await one of your typically asinine replies.

73 de Larry, K3LT