"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

In article , "Joe Collins"
writes:

Now that Bruce Parens and NCI have won the CW wars, what will happen
to the exclusive CW allocations if a CW requirement is dropped?
Certainly there can be no argument for keeping the current band
structure in place, and phone operations probably ought to be spread
out into what was once exclusively reserved for CW operators. Not
only would this alleviate the congestion in the phone bands, but it
would finally and officially place CW into perspective: Just another
optional mode of operation without any exclusive rights to any
frequency.

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

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) 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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

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

That's right Larry! The problem is CW may be "semi-officially"
gone, but it's pungent aroma remains. To be honest I really do not
think it makes a difference anyway now, as what young person
in their right mind is going to consider a hobby full of tired old
white men who only shop at the dollar store and "double" time
and time again on the HF nets because they can't even HEAR
each other in the first place thru their $2000 Icom and
Yaesu HF radios? A casual tune thru 20/75/40 meters will
convince anyone of this...

Yack on boys!

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Joe Collins"
writes:

Now that Bruce Parens and NCI have won the CW wars, what will happen
to the exclusive CW allocations if a CW requirement is dropped?
Certainly there can be no argument for keeping the current band
structure in place, and phone operations probably ought to be spread
out into what was once exclusively reserved for CW operators. Not
only would this alleviate the congestion in the phone bands, but it
would finally and officially place CW into perspective: Just another
optional mode of operation without any exclusive rights to any
frequency.

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


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

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. 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.

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

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

"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

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

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

Bad. Very bad, indeed. Personally, I wouldn't do that. Your mileage
may vary.

73 de Larry, K3LT

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



Tastes like crap. So I would recommend against it......