Dave Heil wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

an_old_friend wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:


an_old_friend wrote:


Dave Heil wrote:



an_old_friend wrote:



Dave Heil wrote:




an_old_friend wrote:




K=D8HB wrote:

cut




Likewise.


more of your cuting context
I don't realy care what you knew some time ago, your remarks TOD=
AY show

you as a pretty unfeeling SoB


And so that you think SOS signals are a subject for jokes , then=
you
are sick as well as unfeeling

In addition to coming across as a complete twit, Mark, you act li=
ke one
afflicted with perpetual PMS.


well if think that SOS is good subject for a joke well

Oh no, Mark, I think that the very idea of you responding to an SOS=
sent
in morse, is a good subject of a joke.


then you are of course a sick ******* but we knew that

As I understand it, you believe me to be sick for laughing at the very
idea of someone even thinking of using a mode he claims not to be able
to use. I find it more than a little amusing. It is your fantasy so
feel free to modify it. I like the guy shouting "Ayday" too.


No stupid I think you are sick for being willing to ignore a distress
call if it were misent

Don't try to make the scenario something altogether different. We were
discussing *you* attempting to respond to a morse distress call. Now
you want to shift things around so I'm ignoring a distress call.


The subject reactions to distress call yours and mine

What?


I think you are sick for laughing at the Fact I would try to help
someone in distresss

From you own tale of your experience with trying to learn morse, you'd
be 1) incapable of recognizing that it was an emergency and 2) incapable
of understanding what help was needed.


more of your pack of lies

What lies, Mark?

your lies

You refuse to acept facts

Which facts, Mark?

any facts would dp for a start

It isn't hard to reconize SoS

Not for me, it isn't.

nor for me

Once reconized the action needed is clear, For me of course the
procedure is different I would record the signal for play back later.
Then I try ruing it though a computer decode, which should recover much
of the signal. or if not I send using the PC a sginal reequesting more
data I run it through until I have or find I can't read it with a
machine. If i can't read it then I start calling people who can read
the signal play it for them let them decode it and/or get them on the
Air to render more assistance than I can

That's one of the most stupid things I've ever read.

Trying to help people is stupid

You are sick, but we knew that

So your satement "From you own tale of your experience with trying to
learn morse, you'd be 1) incapable of recognizing that it was an
emergency and 2) incapable of understanding what help was needed.", Is
a bald faced lie,and if you had any brains you'd know that.

Sure, Mark. "OSOSOSO" and "ayday" to you.

more jokes about distress

very sick

I think your expounding at length on my HF operations from any DX s=
pot
on the earth would make a good subject for a joke.


Just comenting on your own words

"Commenting", Mark. You aren't commenting on my words. You know
nothing of DXing and precious little of my operations on 6m or any ot=
her
band.


I am comenting on your words

Indeed all I have is your words

and YOUR words make you look guilty

Okay, Mark, I'll play your game. On which particular words of mine are
you commenting?


the word you refuse to say, the answer to the question of when you
worked those out of band hams did you know they were out of band or
not. Not were you responible to know or any other evasion.

You said that you were commenting on my words. When I ask which words,
you tell me that they are the words I haven't written. That's not logica=
l=2E

more evasion

more refuseaul to answer the question put to you

Did you know when you were making the contact they were out of band

stop trying to duck the question



but then you don't respoibility for your actions

I don't repoibility?

I take full responsibility for my actions. My conscience is clear.
I still think you're a twit.


Indeed I am sure you feel no guilt at helping other break the law

I helped no others break any law unless you take the very peculiar and
totally incorrect view that by merely showing up on a band, I enticed
someone to break his country's regs. Others have attempted to correct
your mistaken perception, but you've simply ignored them.


becuase you and all of them dance around the central quetion what did
you know and when did you know it

I think you should arrange some sort of Senate Inquiry and we can all
get to the bottom of this.

then of course you are either lying or realy stupid or both


If You only learned afterward they were out of band then Find I agree
you were in the clear. If you knew before or during then it is another
matter

Perhaps you didn't understand what I wrote earlier. I don't care what
you believe. Others have attempted to correct your erroneous thinking.
Their attempts were in vain.

you dance and dance avoiding this question

Now you have me dancing. Earlier, I was guilty because of silence.
You're a twit.

silence on the issue dancing all around it

Answer the question asked
=20
=20
Dave K8MN

All you EXTRA MORSEMEN ought to be PROUD of a fellow EXTRA, N9KKY,
David G. Brink, now listed under WT Docket 05-235 in the ECFS as
received on 8 August 2005 and added by the FCC on 15 August 2005.
A one-page scrawled hand-printed and very shaky written name
signature dated (by the sender) as 31 July 2005, a Sunday. No
doubt that Sunday featured some slightly excessive imbibing prior
to scrawling this magnificent missive.

The sender is age 46 with address given as Mount Prospect, IL,
Cook County (Chicago is in Cook County). Not exactly near Indian
Territories...perhaps he just got his reservations cancelled and
is feeling angry? :-)

Tsk, tsk, tsk...all you ARRL-fearing, morse-loving EXTRAS ought
to feel sooooo PROUD to have one of your BRETHERN demonstrate
their innate "superiority" in communicating their thoughts!
Not to worry. The rest of you EXTRA morsemen can go right on
making Oh So Much FUN out of all those "not like your noble-
nesses" and picking on all with disabilities.

dis dat

wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K=D8HB wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote

show you as a pretty unfeeling SoB

So far I haven't insulted you with profane names like SoB.

And if your unfortunate medical condition prevents you from recogni=
zing satire
like my "mult" remarks, perhaps it would be best if you didn't read=
my posts. I
can't guarantee they won't distress you.

SATIRE =3D JOKE

Perhaps you should invest in a Dictionary and figure out what a
"joke" is and what "satire" is, Brain...

Perhaps you should read "Stolen Valor" and find out what happens to
people who make up war stories.

I've not told any "war stories" to be stolen, Brain.

Unlkike your "N0IMD/T5 tales...........

Steve, K4YZ

an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

From you own tale of your experience with trying to learn morse, you'd
be 1) incapable of recognizing that it was an emergency and 2) incapable
of understanding what help was needed.

more of your pack of lies

Nope.

From the archived words of Mark C. Morgan, KB9RQZ.

YOU said you COULDN'T DO IT.

Nope I said I can't when restricted to just the use of my ear

Ear...fingers...flashing lights.

You're incapable. Period.

Unless, of course, you're now changing your story and claiming you
CAN learn Morse?

nope No need to learn Morse in order to use morse

Even Jim adknowledges that

Regardless of the mehtodology, YOU won't learn...

You refuse to acept facts

You refuse to use a spellchecker.

yes I do

That makes you a voluntary idiot.

It isn't hard to reconize SoS

It is if you don't know Morse Code.

a few letter sure can't keep the whole set in my mind though

Perhaps the lack of "mind" with which to store the 26 letters and
10 numbers?

Once reconized the action needed is clear, For me of course the
procedure is different I would record the signal for play back later.
Then I try ruing it though a computer decode, which should recover much
of the signal. or if not I send using the PC a sginal reequesting more
data...(SNIP)

If you can't copy code without the computer, how are you going to
send it?

By using the computer to do so

How do you know to record one signal over another that MIGHT be a
distress signal?

I have done so many times

I bet you have.

Indeed a FD station where I was doing so may even be in Your log

Not in my log it isn't.

I run it through until I have or find I can't read it with a
machine. If i can't read it then I start calling people who can read
the signal play it for them let them decode it and/or get them on the
Air to render more assistance than I can

And by the time this has all transpired and you've spent a couple
hours banging out your dreck in RRAP due to your frustrations at not
knowing if it was a distress signal or Dave and I talking about you,
the ship has gone down with loss of life. Too bad, too...There was a
tanker only 10 miles away that could have diverted and assisted...

wel you yea sure it would take me longer, never diened that and yea if
the ship is sinking fast I may not be able to help, butAt least I tried

"well" "denied" "yeah"

"Gee too bad the ship sank and I COULD have saved them".

So your satement "From you own tale of your experience with trying to
learn morse, you'd be 1) incapable of recognizing that it was an
emergency and 2) incapable of understanding what help was needed.", Is
a bald faced lie,and if you had any brains you'd know that.

He does have the brains. He very aptly pointed out that you have
not learned Morse Code and as a consequence can not respond in a prompt
and meaningful manner.

dpends on how well the morse was send if the operator was good I can
turn it around in acouple of minutes if it is bad then maybe an hour

"depends" "sent"

It won't matter HOW fast it's sent...If you can't do it, you can't
do it.

But I could respond in seconds tell them someone was trying to decode
and tell em things to do in sending there signal that would help my PC
to copy

How can you send a message in response TO a message and tell them
you're trying to "decode" it when you don't even know why the original
message was sent...?!?!

the word you refuse to say, the answer to the question of when you
worked those out of band hams did you know they were out of band or
not. Not were you responible to know or any other evasion.

Why, Mark, is that an "evasion"...?!?!

It remains the point. He wasn't required to know.

it was never the point

Sure it was.

Was he required to know the OTHER station's operating limits, and
WAS he, by his Tanzanian license, restricted from communicating with
them.

It's the WHOLE point!

you dance and dance avoiding this question

In either case, he's "in the clear".

Dave had NO OBLIGATION to know who was in or out of the bands per
THIER administration's requiremments.

None under US law...None under Tanzanian law...None under
International law.

more evasion

It's not "evasion".

It's a matter or complying with laws and regulations.

A question even YOU said was moot!

Which means YOU haven't got a leg to stand on.

the longer you 2 dance around missing the point the better it gets

There's no "dancing".

YOU have acknowledged that Dave wasn't required to know the French
stations limits.

YOU have acknowledged that no one could be EXPECTED to know other
stations limits...

Yet YOU keep trying tio insist that it somehow applies differently
in this case...

Which just makes YOU look (as if it were possible) even MORE
idiotitc.

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

From you own tale of your experience with trying to learn morse, you'd
be 1) incapable of recognizing that it was an emergency and 2) incapable
of understanding what help was needed.

more of your pack of lies

Nope.

From the archived words of Mark C. Morgan, KB9RQZ.

YOU said you COULDN'T DO IT.

Nope I said I can't when restricted to just the use of my ear

Ear...fingers...flashing lights.

You're incapable. Period.

without using my PC No i can't

But I never have my radios without having at least one of my pc's, So I
can Alawys do morse Code if I need to

Unless, of course, you're now changing your story and claiming you
CAN learn Morse?

nope No need to learn Morse in order to use morse

Even Jim adknowledges that

break
Regardless of the mehtodology, YOU won't learn...

Lie

I already have just not by a methodlogy that I am allowed to use for e
a Code test

I have logged long ragcrews in Cw I was doing it to help other hams
pass there tests and so rather than typing at each other In Mirc or
other means we chatted over the air me all PC for encoding and decoding
him by ear and keyer toreply.

And anyone that can follow my typing converted to Morse can pass a test
at the same speed


You refuse to acept facts

You refuse to use a spellchecker.

yes I do

That makes you a voluntary idiot.

no it makes me at worst stuborn

You want me to spend time and energy on what you want?

You are a fool if you think you can bully me into doing your will


It isn't hard to reconize SoS

It is if you don't know Morse Code.

a few letter sure can't keep the whole set in my mind though

Perhaps the lack of "mind" with which to store the 26 letters and
10 numbers?

it is a problem a type of mental capcity yes indeed. never deiend that,
that you insit on realting it to other matter I have deined when proper


Once reconized the action needed is clear, For me of course the
procedure is different I would record the signal for play back later.
Then I try ruing it though a computer decode, which should recover much
of the signal. or if not I send using the PC a sginal reequesting more
data...(SNIP)

If you can't copy code without the computer, how are you going to
send it?

By using the computer to do so

How do you know to record one signal over another that MIGHT be a
distress signal?

if I here SOS or anything like it ....DUH

Now agreed I am not as likely to hear the signal, indeed even if you or
Dave were at my rig it would harder to read the CW signal since I don't
bother with specail Filters for CW etc. I would be looking through the
band in SSB sized slices et, so I am more likely to miss it, but IF I
hear it I will respond


I have done so many times

I bet you have.

thank you


Indeed a FD station where I was doing so may even be in Your log

Not in my log it isn't.

maybe, maybe not, It would be a Club Call of course not KB9RQZ


I run it through until I have or find I can't read it with a
machine. If i can't read it then I start calling people who can read
the signal play it for them let them decode it and/or get them on the
Air to render more assistance than I can

And by the time this has all transpired and you've spent a couple
hours banging out your dreck in RRAP due to your frustrations at not
knowing if it was a distress signal or Dave and I talking about you,
the ship has gone down with loss of life. Too bad, too...There was a
tanker only 10 miles away that could have diverted and assisted...

wel you yea sure it would take me longer, never diened that and yea if
the ship is sinking fast I may not be able to help, butAt least I tried

"well" "denied" "yeah"

"Gee too bad the ship sank and I COULD have saved them".

No

GEE to bad they could not have lasted a bit longer at least I tired


So your satement "From you own tale of your experience with trying to
learn morse, you'd be 1) incapable of recognizing that it was an
emergency and 2) incapable of understanding what help was needed.", Is
a bald faced lie,and if you had any brains you'd know that.

He does have the brains. He very aptly pointed out that you have
not learned Morse Code and as a consequence can not respond in a prompt
and meaningful manner.

dpends on how well the morse was send if the operator was good I can
turn it around in acouple of minutes if it is bad then maybe an hour

"depends" "sent"

It won't matter HOW fast it's sent...If you can't do it, you can't
do it.

Liar if the morse is badly sent it matters, if the speed ins't even it
matters. I can do it Me and MY pc that is, The mere fact i got a
somewhat defective modem unit in my brain for such things doesn't mean
I can't be fitted with an external modem that will work

I know my limits, and I prepare for them. I considered long and hard
the Claim of the Procoders about distress, and did something about it.
I aquired the tools to deal with the issue, maybe I (and my Pc) are not
as Good as you or Dave, maybe we are, but we are better than Many
stations that passed the Code test and forgot code the next day,
meaning I am good enough for the current bands

The Last a point that the ITU and the FCC agree is correct

But I could respond in seconds tell them someone was trying to decode
and tell em things to do in sending there signal that would help my PC
to copy

How can you send a message in response TO a message and tell them
you're trying to "decode" it when you don't even know why the original
message was sent...?!?!

I can send a message quote "to station apearing to sending SOS on this
Frequency DE KB9RQZ please repeat now nature of you emergency, please
be adivised that Sending slowy and evenly is required for this station
to receive decode and attempt to assit you over"

Indeed since the program I have has memories for sending caned messages
that one I can send by hitting key f1


the word you refuse to say, the answer to the question of when you
worked those out of band hams did you know they were out of band or
not. Not were you responible to know or any other evasion.

Why, Mark, is that an "evasion"...?!?!

It remains the point. He wasn't required to know.

it was never the point

Sure it was.

Was he required to know the OTHER station's operating limits, and
WAS he, by his Tanzanian license, restricted from communicating with
them.

It's the WHOLE point!

it never was the point

The point was DID he know not wether he was required to

you dance and dance avoiding this question

In either case, he's "in the clear".

Dave had NO OBLIGATION to know who was in or out of the bands per
THIER administration's requiremments.

None under US law...None under Tanzanian law...None under
International law.

more evasion

It's not "evasion".

It's a matter or complying with laws and regulations.

A question even YOU said was moot!

it is evasion
since it has nothing to do with wether the operation was legal or not



Which means YOU haven't got a leg to stand on.

the longer you 2 dance around missing the point the better it gets

There's no "dancing".

YOU have acknowledged that Dave wasn't required to know the French
stations limits.

YOU have acknowledged that no one could be EXPECTED to know other
stations limits...

Nope never said that

Said wasn't required

nothing about expected

more of your embellishing my words again

Yet YOU keep trying tio insist that it somehow applies differently
in this case...

Not at all


Which just makes YOU look (as if it were possible) even MORE
idiotitc.

no just shows you and dave are not answering the question put

If Dave knew (by what ever means) they were out of band when he made
the contacts then he was wrong to do it

If dave only learned later they were out of band then he gets a ONE
time pass.

So until/unless Dave wants to answer questions about what did he know,
and when did he know it all of this is evasion

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

From you own tale of your experience with trying to learn morse, you'd
be 1) incapable of recognizing that it was an emergency and 2) incapable
of understanding what help was needed.

more of your pack of lies

Nope.

From the archived words of Mark C. Morgan, KB9RQZ.

YOU said you COULDN'T DO IT.

Nope I said I can't when restricted to just the use of my ear

Ear...fingers...flashing lights.

You're incapable. Period.

without using my PC No i can't

But I never have my radios without having at least one of my pc's, So I
can Alawys do morse Code if I need to

Unless, of course, you're now changing your story and claiming you
CAN learn Morse?

nope No need to learn Morse in order to use morse

Even Jim adknowledges that

break
Regardless of the mehtodology, YOU won't learn...

Lie

I already have just not by a methodlogy that I am allowed to use for e
a Code test

I have logged long ragcrews in Cw I was doing it to help other hams
pass there tests and so rather than typing at each other In Mirc or
other means we chatted over the air me all PC for encoding and decoding
him by ear and keyer toreply.

And anyone that can follow my typing converted to Morse can pass a test
at the same speed


You refuse to acept facts

You refuse to use a spellchecker.

yes I do

That makes you a voluntary idiot.

no it makes me at worst stuborn

You want me to spend time and energy on what you want?

You are a fool if you think you can bully me into doing your will


It isn't hard to reconize SoS

It is if you don't know Morse Code.

a few letter sure can't keep the whole set in my mind though

Perhaps the lack of "mind" with which to store the 26 letters and
10 numbers?

it is a problem a type of mental capcity yes indeed. never deiend that,
that you insit on realting it to other matter I have deined when proper


Once reconized the action needed is clear, For me of course the
procedure is different I would record the signal for play back later.
Then I try ruing it though a computer decode, which should recover much
of the signal. or if not I send using the PC a sginal reequesting more
data...(SNIP)

If you can't copy code without the computer, how are you going to
send it?

By using the computer to do so

How do you know to record one signal over another that MIGHT be a
distress signal?

if I here SOS or anything like it ....DUH

Now agreed I am not as likely to hear the signal, indeed even if you or
Dave were at my rig it would harder to read the CW signal since I don't
bother with specail Filters for CW etc. I would be looking through the
band in SSB sized slices et, so I am more likely to miss it, but IF I
hear it I will respond


I have done so many times

I bet you have.

thank you


Indeed a FD station where I was doing so may even be in Your log

Not in my log it isn't.

maybe, maybe not, It would be a Club Call of course not KB9RQZ


I run it through until I have or find I can't read it with a
machine. If i can't read it then I start calling people who can read
the signal play it for them let them decode it and/or get them on the
Air to render more assistance than I can

And by the time this has all transpired and you've spent a couple
hours banging out your dreck in RRAP due to your frustrations at not
knowing if it was a distress signal or Dave and I talking about you,
the ship has gone down with loss of life. Too bad, too...There was a
tanker only 10 miles away that could have diverted and assisted...

wel you yea sure it would take me longer, never diened that and yea if
the ship is sinking fast I may not be able to help, butAt least I tried

"well" "denied" "yeah"

"Gee too bad the ship sank and I COULD have saved them".

No

GEE to bad they could not have lasted a bit longer at least I tired


So your satement "From you own tale of your experience with trying to
learn morse, you'd be 1) incapable of recognizing that it was an
emergency and 2) incapable of understanding what help was needed.", Is
a bald faced lie,and if you had any brains you'd know that.

He does have the brains. He very aptly pointed out that you have
not learned Morse Code and as a consequence can not respond in a prompt
and meaningful manner.

dpends on how well the morse was send if the operator was good I can
turn it around in acouple of minutes if it is bad then maybe an hour

"depends" "sent"

It won't matter HOW fast it's sent...If you can't do it, you can't
do it.

Liar if the morse is badly sent it matters, if the speed ins't even it
matters. I can do it Me and MY pc that is, The mere fact i got a
somewhat defective modem unit in my brain for such things doesn't mean
I can't be fitted with an external modem that will work

I know my limits, and I prepare for them. I considered long and hard
the Claim of the Procoders about distress, and did something about it.
I aquired the tools to deal with the issue, maybe I (and my Pc) are not
as Good as you or Dave, maybe we are, but we are better than Many
stations that passed the Code test and forgot code the next day,
meaning I am good enough for the current bands

The Last a point that the ITU and the FCC agree is correct

But I could respond in seconds tell them someone was trying to decode
and tell em things to do in sending there signal that would help my PC
to copy

How can you send a message in response TO a message and tell them
you're trying to "decode" it when you don't even know why the original
message was sent...?!?!

I can send a message quote "to station apearing to sending SOS on this
Frequency DE KB9RQZ please repeat now nature of you emergency, please
be adivised that Sending slowy and evenly is required for this station
to receive decode and attempt to assit you over"

Indeed since the program I have has memories for sending caned messages
that one I can send by hitting key f1


the word you refuse to say, the answer to the question of when you
worked those out of band hams did you know they were out of band or
not. Not were you responible to know or any other evasion.

Why, Mark, is that an "evasion"...?!?!

It remains the point. He wasn't required to know.

it was never the point

Sure it was.

Was he required to know the OTHER station's operating limits, and
WAS he, by his Tanzanian license, restricted from communicating with
them.

It's the WHOLE point!

it never was the point

The point was DID he know not wether he was required to

you dance and dance avoiding this question

In either case, he's "in the clear".

Dave had NO OBLIGATION to know who was in or out of the bands per
THIER administration's requiremments.

None under US law...None under Tanzanian law...None under
International law.

more evasion

It's not "evasion".

It's a matter or complying with laws and regulations.

A question even YOU said was moot!

it is evasion
since it has nothing to do with wether the operation was legal or not



Which means YOU haven't got a leg to stand on.

the longer you 2 dance around missing the point the better it gets

There's no "dancing".

YOU have acknowledged that Dave wasn't required to know the French
stations limits.

YOU have acknowledged that no one could be EXPECTED to know other
stations limits...

Nope never said that

Said wasn't required

nothing about expected

more of your embellishing my words again

Yet YOU keep trying tio insist that it somehow applies differently
in this case...

Not at all


Which just makes YOU look (as if it were possible) even MORE
idiotitc.

no just shows you and dave are not answering the question put

If Dave knew (by what ever means) they were out of band when he made
the contacts then he was wrong to do it

If dave only learned later they were out of band then he gets a ONE
time pass.

So until/unless Dave wants to answer questions about what did he know,
and when did he know it all of this is evasion

Steve, K4YZ

an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

From you own tale of your experience with trying to learn morse, you'd
be 1) incapable of recognizing that it was an emergency and 2) incapable
of understanding what help was needed.

more of your pack of lies

Nope.

From the archived words of Mark C. Morgan, KB9RQZ.

YOU said you COULDN'T DO IT.

Nope I said I can't when restricted to just the use of my ear

Ear...fingers...flashing lights.

You're incapable. Period.

without using my PC No i can't

My point made. That's what I said in the first place.

But I never have my radios without having at least one of my pc's, So I
can Alawys do morse Code if I need to

You carry a PC on your belt? In your car? Always?

Unless, of course, you're now changing your story and claiming you
CAN learn Morse?

nope No need to learn Morse in order to use morse

Even Jim adknowledges that

break
Regardless of the mehtodology, YOU won't learn...

Lie

Nope. Truth.

I already have just not by a methodlogy that I am allowed to use for e
a Code test

You can't do it. Won't do it.

I have logged long ragcrews in Cw I was doing it to help other hams
pass there tests and so rather than typing at each other In Mirc or
other means we chatted over the air me all PC for encoding and decoding
him by ear and keyer toreply.

No...YOU didn't log "long ragchews"...Your PC did.

And anyone that can follow my typing converted to Morse can pass a test
at the same speed

Except you.

You refuse to acept facts

You refuse to use a spellchecker.

yes I do

That makes you a voluntary idiot.

no it makes me at worst stuborn

No.

It makes you a voluntary idiot.

You want me to spend time and energy on what you want?

Nope. I want to be able to read your thoughts without having to
interpret individual words.

You are a fool if you think you can bully me into doing your will

Not bullying, but you've already DONE it, Markie!

As I stated in another thread...

It isn't hard to reconize SoS

It is if you don't know Morse Code.

a few letter sure can't keep the whole set in my mind though

Perhaps the lack of "mind" with which to store the 26 letters and
10 numbers?

it is a problem a type of mental capcity yes indeed. never deiend that,
that you insit on realting it to other matter I have deined when proper

"capacity" "denied" "insist"

You claim an IQ of 248 and more-than-adequate financial and
material resources, but can't seem to fix simple problems without being
taken by the hand and guided step-by-step.

Once reconized the action needed is clear, For me of course the
procedure is different I would record the signal for play back later.
Then I try ruing it though a computer decode, which should recover much
of the signal. or if not I send using the PC a sginal reequesting more
data...(SNIP)

If you can't copy code without the computer, how are you going to
send it?

By using the computer to do so

How do you know to record one signal over another that MIGHT be a
distress signal?

if I here SOS or anything like it ....DUH

"hear"

You're unlikely to recognize it under ANY circumstances.

Now agreed I am not as likely to hear the signal, indeed even if you or
Dave were at my rig it would harder to read the CW signal since I don't
bother with specail Filters for CW etc. I would be looking through the
band in SSB sized slices et, so I am more likely to miss it, but IF I
hear it I will respond

"special"

No, Markie...If you're listening in "SSB sized slices", you are
MORE likely to hear a CW distress signal.

I have done so many times

I bet you have.

thank you

That wasan't a gratuity, Markie.

Indeed a FD station where I was doing so may even be in Your log

Not in my log it isn't.

maybe, maybe not, It would be a Club Call of course not KB9RQZ

And I still doubt I have ever worked ANY station wherein YOU were
working the CW station, computer or otherwise.

I run it through until I have or find I can't read it with a
machine. If i can't read it then I start calling people who can read
the signal play it for them let them decode it and/or get them on the
Air to render more assistance than I can

And by the time this has all transpired and you've spent a couple
hours banging out your dreck in RRAP due to your frustrations at not
knowing if it was a distress signal or Dave and I talking about you,
the ship has gone down with loss of life. Too bad, too...There was a
tanker only 10 miles away that could have diverted and assisted...

wel you yea sure it would take me longer, never diened that and yea if
the ship is sinking fast I may not be able to help, butAt least I tried

"well" "denied" "yeah"

"Gee too bad the ship sank and I COULD have saved them".

No

GEE to bad they could not have lasted a bit longer at least I tired

"tried"

But not very hard.

So your satement "From you own tale of your experience with trying to
learn morse, you'd be 1) incapable of recognizing that it was an
emergency and 2) incapable of understanding what help was needed.", Is
a bald faced lie,and if you had any brains you'd know that.

He does have the brains. He very aptly pointed out that you have
not learned Morse Code and as a consequence can not respond in a prompt
and meaningful manner.

dpends on how well the morse was send if the operator was good I can
turn it around in acouple of minutes if it is bad then maybe an hour

"depends" "sent"

It won't matter HOW fast it's sent...If you can't do it, you can't
do it.

Liar

Nope. I could send it at 3 WPM and you'd still screw it up.

if the morse is badly sent it matters, if the speed ins't even it
matters. I can do it Me and MY pc that is, The mere fact i got a
somewhat defective modem unit in my brain for such things doesn't mean
I can't be fitted with an external modem that will work

Oh?

We keep trying to get you to use an "external modem" in the form
of a spell checker and you cna't seem to master that. What's to make us
believe you'd be any more functional using a PC for Morse Code
purposes?

I know my limits...(SNIP)

Obviously not.

(UNSNIP)...and I prepare for them.

Again, obviously not.

(UNSNIP)...I considered long and hard
the Claim of the Procoders about distress, and did something about it.
I aquired the tools to deal with the issue, maybe I (and my Pc) are not
as Good as you or Dave, maybe we are, but we are better than Many
stations that passed the Code test and forgot code the next day,
meaning I am good enough for the current bands

Are you?

The Last a point that the ITU and the FCC agree is correct

I wish I knew what that was supposed to mean.

But I could respond in seconds tell them someone was trying to decode
and tell em things to do in sending there signal that would help my PC
to copy

How can you send a message in response TO a message and tell them
you're trying to "decode" it when you don't even know why the original
message was sent...?!?!

I can send a message quote "to station apearing to sending SOS on this
Frequency DE KB9RQZ please repeat now nature of you emergency, please
be adivised that Sending slowy and evenly is required for this station
to receive decode and attempt to assit you over"

In which case you would have violated on of the principle
guidelines for aiding stations in distress....DO NOT TRANSMIT unless
you are immdeiately able to assist.

Indeed since the program I have has memories for sending caned messages
that one I can send by hitting key f1

"canned"

Unless, of course, you meant you strike the mesaages with a stick
before you send them...?!?!

the word you refuse to say, the answer to the question of when you
worked those out of band hams did you know they were out of band or
not. Not were you responible to know or any other evasion.

Why, Mark, is that an "evasion"...?!?!

It remains the point. He wasn't required to know.

it was never the point

Sure it was.

Was he required to know the OTHER station's operating limits, and
WAS he, by his Tanzanian license, restricted from communicating with
them.

It's the WHOLE point!

it never was the point

The point was DID he know not wether he was required to

If he was NOT required to know there was STILL no violation since
his licensing authority didn't deem it important enough to address in
the first place THEY didn't deem it a violation!

you dance and dance avoiding this question

In either case, he's "in the clear".

Dave had NO OBLIGATION to know who was in or out of the bands per
THIER administration's requiremments.

None under US law...None under Tanzanian law...None under
International law.

more evasion

It's not "evasion".

It's a matter or complying with laws and regulations.

A question even YOU said was moot!

it is evasion
since it has nothing to do with wether the operation was legal or not

It wasn't illegal, knucklehead! That's the WHOLE point! There
was NO standing regulation that addressed it in the first place!

Which means YOU haven't got a leg to stand on.

the longer you 2 dance around missing the point the better it gets

There's no "dancing".

YOU have acknowledged that Dave wasn't required to know the French
stations limits.

YOU have acknowledged that no one could be EXPECTED to know other
stations limits...

Nope never said that

Sure you did.

Said wasn't required

Sure you did.

nothing about expected

Sure you did.

more of your embellishing my words again

Nope.

Here's YOUR words quoted VERBATIM.

QUOTE:

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: "an_old_friend" - Find messages by this
author
Date: 9 Aug 2005 10:02:17 -0700
Local: Tues, Aug 9 2005 11:02 am
Subject: An Even BETTER Question for Brain...
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

K4YZ wrote:
b.b. wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

Yes, Mark. I told "bb" that I've never seen a branch deep enough to swim
in (follow along here) and he said that I probably "layed down" in it
though there was no indication of any probability that I would do any
such thing. I asked him what my motivation would be for doing so. If
you need further help on this stuff, I'll be happy to attempt to explain
it to you.

Dave K8MN

A better question would be to ask what your motivation was to work out
of band Frenchmen on 6 meters.

An ever better yet question (and one that's already been addressed
to but unanswered BY Brain...) is where was Dave ever responsible for
knowing what the allowed band limits by ANY foreign Amateur were?

he never said any such thing

Can YOU swear, with ABSOLUTE certainty, that EVERY foreign Amateur
you ever "worked" was operating within his/her allowed scope of
licensure?

of course not

For that matter can you swear, with ABSOLUTE certainty, that EVERY
domestic station you've ever "worked" was operating within the scope of
his/her license?

of course not

Can YOU show where in Part 97 it requires an FCC licensee to be
knowledgable of OTHER administrations licensing criteria...?!?!

of course not

Just wondering, since YOU keep making an issue of it...

But if the hams is ggod and expeenced he is likely to have a pretty
good idea

UNQUOTE

Yet YOU keep trying tio insist that it somehow applies differently
in this case...

Not at all

Sure.

The above quote proves it exactly.

Which just makes YOU look (as if it were possible) even MORE
idiotitc.

no just shows you and dave are not answering the question put

Complete the sentence, Markie.

If Dave knew (by what ever means) they were out of band when he made
the contacts then he was wrong to do it

You STILL have NOT provided ONE LINE OF APPLICABLE LAW OR
REGULATION to substantiate this claim, Markie.

If dave only learned later they were out of band then he gets a ONE
time pass.

So until/unless Dave wants to answer questions about what did he know,
and when did he know it all of this is evasion

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

From you own tale of your experience with trying to learn morse, you'd
be 1) incapable of recognizing that it was an emergency and 2) incapable
of understanding what help was needed.

more of your pack of lies

Nope.

From the archived words of Mark C. Morgan, KB9RQZ.

YOU said you COULDN'T DO IT.

Nope I said I can't when restricted to just the use of my ear

Ear...fingers...flashing lights.

You're incapable. Period.

without using my PC No i can't

My point made. That's what I said in the first place.

No It is not what you said

You said I could not responf to Morse Code distres Signal

I can


But I never have my radios without having at least one of my pc's, So I
can Alawys do morse Code if I need to

You carry a PC on your belt? In your car? Always?

In my car always, Not a PC on my Belt but my wireless PDA and I am
never far from my car.


Unless, of course, you're now changing your story and claiming you
CAN learn Morse?

nope No need to learn Morse in order to use morse

Even Jim adknowledges that

break
Regardless of the mehtodology, YOU won't learn...

Lie

Nope. Truth.

I can't learn it Tried for years, under the assitance of Experts, the
same same ones that you flame me for ever having seen


I already have just not by a methodlogy that I am allowed to use for e
a Code test

You can't do it. Won't do it.

I can do and Have done it

Face facts

Manual Morse Code just isn't that specail for modern PCs


I have logged long ragcrews in Cw I was doing it to help other hams
pass there tests and so rather than typing at each other In Mirc or
other means we chatted over the air me all PC for encoding and decoding
him by ear and keyer toreply.

No...YOU didn't log "long ragchews"...Your PC did.

if you prefer


And anyone that can follow my typing converted to Morse can pass a test
at the same speed

Except you.

What are you saying?

If I could follow my typed morse at any speed of Course I could pass a
test at the same speed. So my statement is prefectly accurate

Indeed I could also pass Morse Code test at any speed with my trusty pc
at my side


You refuse to acept facts

You refuse to use a spellchecker.

yes I do

That makes you a voluntary idiot.

no it makes me at worst stuborn

No.
yes


It makes you a voluntary idiot.

nope


You want me to spend time and energy on what you want?

Nope. I want to be able to read your thoughts without having to
interpret individual words.

I don't want you reading my thoughts at all.

But I want you to work to read my stuff.

To make you think, if that is possible for you

You want it given to you,

Go for it yourself you lazy bum

You want my words then work for it, don't ask for it to be Given to you


You are a fool if you think you can bully me into doing your will

Not bullying, but you've already DONE it, Markie!

Nope

As I stated in another thread...

as you lied in another thread


It isn't hard to reconize SoS

It is if you don't know Morse Code.

a few letter sure can't keep the whole set in my mind though

Perhaps the lack of "mind" with which to store the 26 letters and
10 numbers?

it is a problem a type of mental capcity yes indeed. never deiend that,
that you insit on realting it to other matter I have deined when proper

"capacity" "denied" "insist"

You claim an IQ of 248 and more-than-adequate financial and
material resources, but can't seem to fix simple problems without being
taken by the hand and guided step-by-step.

you claim to undersatnd emdcine without knowing that Leraning Disorders
are not simple problems


Intellegnce and Dyslexia are not incompatble. If you were educated you
would know that


Once reconized the action needed is clear, For me of course the
procedure is different I would record the signal for play back later.
Then I try ruing it though a computer decode, which should recover much
of the signal. or if not I send using the PC a sginal reequesting more
data...(SNIP)

If you can't copy code without the computer, how are you going to
send it?

By using the computer to do so

How do you know to record one signal over another that MIGHT be a
distress signal?

if I here SOS or anything like it ....DUH

"hear"

You're unlikely to recognize it under ANY circumstances.

Likely? Unlikely who know?

If the Ship is out on Superior. I may well hear it and reconize it.

indeed how likely is it today athat A ship would Use Morse at all in
distress?




Now agreed I am not as likely to hear the signal, indeed even if you or
Dave were at my rig it would harder to read the CW signal since I don't
bother with specail Filters for CW etc. I would be looking through the
band in SSB sized slices et, so I am more likely to miss it, but IF I
hear it I will respond

"special"

No, Markie...If you're listening in "SSB sized slices", you are
MORE likely to hear a CW distress signal.

Really if you say so, that isn't what ohers are saying but..


I have done so many times

I bet you have.

thank you

That wasan't a gratuity, Markie.

but it should have been, and I was showing more manners than you


Indeed a FD station where I was doing so may even be in Your log

Not in my log it isn't.

maybe, maybe not, It would be a Club Call of course not KB9RQZ

And I still doubt I have ever worked ANY station wherein YOU were
working the CW station, computer or otherwise.

and you may be right, but you don't know, and for that matter nethier
do I


I run it through until I have or find I can't read it with a
machine. If i can't read it then I start calling people who can read
the signal play it for them let them decode it and/or get them on the
Air to render more assistance than I can

And by the time this has all transpired and you've spent a couple
hours banging out your dreck in RRAP due to your frustrations at not
knowing if it was a distress signal or Dave and I talking about you,
the ship has gone down with loss of life. Too bad, too...There was a
tanker only 10 miles away that could have diverted and assisted...

wel you yea sure it would take me longer, never diened that and yea if
the ship is sinking fast I may not be able to help, butAt least I tried

"well" "denied" "yeah"

"Gee too bad the ship sank and I COULD have saved them".

No

GEE to bad they could not have lasted a bit longer at least I tired

"tried"

But not very hard.

Really?

More lies on Stevies part.

With the ARS luddite mentality on Morse Code, it takes a lot to
assemble and esp test a station using Computer Morse.

and Should that Unlikely occasion arise I will do what I can

So your satement "From you own tale of your experience with trying to
learn morse, you'd be 1) incapable of recognizing that it was an
emergency and 2) incapable of understanding what help was needed.", Is
a bald faced lie,and if you had any brains you'd know that.

He does have the brains. He very aptly pointed out that you have
not learned Morse Code and as a consequence can not respond in a prompt
and meaningful manner.

dpends on how well the morse was send if the operator was good I can
turn it around in acouple of minutes if it is bad then maybe an hour

"depends" "sent"

It won't matter HOW fast it's sent...If you can't do it, you can't
do it.

Liar

Nope. I could send it at 3 WPM and you'd still screw it up.

Nope but 5 wpm (a preset speed in the program would be better)

If I saw your call though I stop the operation at once


if the morse is badly sent it matters, if the speed ins't even it
matters. I can do it Me and MY pc that is, The mere fact i got a
somewhat defective modem unit in my brain for such things doesn't mean
I can't be fitted with an external modem that will work

Oh?

yep


We keep trying to get you to use an "external modem" in the form
of a spell checker and you cna't seem to master that. What's to make us
believe you'd be any more functional using a PC for Morse Code
purposes?

Well You know I will put out effort to save a life, I will not to
please a bully


I know my limits...(SNIP)

Obviously not.

sure do

Knowing one limits pushing them where desirable is part of living


(UNSNIP)...and I prepare for them.

Again, obviously not.

sure do

just not in a Stevie approved manner


(UNSNIP)...I considered long and hard
the Claim of the Procoders about distress, and did something about it.
I aquired the tools to deal with the issue, maybe I (and my Pc) are not
as Good as you or Dave, maybe we are, but we are better than Many
stations that passed the Code test and forgot code the next day,
meaning I am good enough for the current bands

Are you?

sure are

More fit than any of the Code users that boast of lacking a Mike
altogether


The Last a point that the ITU and the FCC agree is correct

I wish I knew what that was supposed to mean.

Then of course you are stupid

It means that the ITU and FCC agree there is no need for manual code
testing or manaul code use, while both reamin premitted


But I could respond in seconds tell them someone was trying to decode
and tell em things to do in sending there signal that would help my PC
to copy

How can you send a message in response TO a message and tell them
you're trying to "decode" it when you don't even know why the original
message was sent...?!?!

I can send a message quote "to station apearing to sending SOS on this
Frequency DE KB9RQZ please repeat now nature of you emergency, please
be adivised that Sending slowy and evenly is required for this station
to receive decode and attempt to assit you over"

In which case you would have violated on of the principle
guidelines for aiding stations in distress....DO NOT TRANSMIT unless
you are immdeiately able to assist.

nothing imporper about the message

I am prepared at once to assisit


Indeed since the program I have has memories for sending caned messages
that one I can send by hitting key f1

"canned"

Unless, of course, you meant you strike the mesaages with a stick
before you send them...?!?!

to say something is "canned" meaning prepared is a clearly understood
by any one using thier brain


the word you refuse to say, the answer to the question of when you
worked those out of band hams did you know they were out of band or
not. Not were you responible to know or any other evasion.

Why, Mark, is that an "evasion"...?!?!

It remains the point. He wasn't required to know.

it was never the point

Sure it was.

Was he required to know the OTHER station's operating limits, and
WAS he, by his Tanzanian license, restricted from communicating with
them.

It's the WHOLE point!

it never was the point

The point was DID he know not wether he was required to

If he was NOT required to know there was STILL no violation since
his licensing authority didn't deem it important enough to address in
the first place THEY didn't deem it a violation!

wrong simply wrong
If he knew they were out of band he was wrong
that he was not required to know does not that fact


you dance and dance avoiding this question

In either case, he's "in the clear".

Dave had NO OBLIGATION to know who was in or out of the bands per
THIER administration's requiremments.

None under US law...None under Tanzanian law...None under
International law.

more evasion

It's not "evasion".

It's a matter or complying with laws and regulations.

A question even YOU said was moot!

it is evasion
since it has nothing to do with wether the operation was legal or not

It wasn't illegal, knucklehead! That's the WHOLE point! There
was NO standing regulation that addressed it in the first place!

indeed there is but it is matter of Law, you may not knowingly aid
another in the comission of a crime


Which means YOU haven't got a leg to stand on.

the longer you 2 dance around missing the point the better it gets

There's no "dancing".

YOU have acknowledged that Dave wasn't required to know the French
stations limits.

YOU have acknowledged that no one could be EXPECTED to know other
stations limits...

Nope never said that

Sure you did.

No I did not

you are lying again


Said wasn't required

Sure you did.

Yes which is not the same as saying no one could be expected


nothing about expected

Sure you did.


where?


more of your embellishing my words again

Nope.

sure thing


Here's YOUR words quoted VERBATIM.

yep and nothing in there about expectations

not a word

QUOTE:

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: "an_old_friend" - Find messages by this
author
Date: 9 Aug 2005 10:02:17 -0700
Local: Tues, Aug 9 2005 11:02 am
Subject: An Even BETTER Question for Brain...
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

K4YZ wrote:
b.b. wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

Yes, Mark. I told "bb" that I've never seen a branch deep enough to swim
in (follow along here) and he said that I probably "layed down" in it
though there was no indication of any probability that I would do any
such thing. I asked him what my motivation would be for doing so. If
you need further help on this stuff, I'll be happy to attempt to explain
it to you.

Dave K8MN

A better question would be to ask what your motivation was to work out
of band Frenchmen on 6 meters.

An ever better yet question (and one that's already been addressed
to but unanswered BY Brain...) is where was Dave ever responsible for
knowing what the allowed band limits by ANY foreign Amateur were?

he never said any such thing

Can YOU swear, with ABSOLUTE certainty, that EVERY foreign Amateur
you ever "worked" was operating within his/her allowed scope of
licensure?

of course not

For that matter can you swear, with ABSOLUTE certainty, that EVERY
domestic station you've ever "worked" was operating within the scope of
his/her license?

of course not

Can YOU show where in Part 97 it requires an FCC licensee to be
knowledgable of OTHER administrations licensing criteria...?!?!

of course not

Just wondering, since YOU keep making an issue of it...

But if the hams is ggod and expeenced he is likely to have a pretty
good idea

UNQUOTE

Yet YOU keep trying tio insist that it somehow applies differently
in this case...

Not at all

Sure.

The above quote proves it exactly.

Which just makes YOU look (as if it were possible) even MORE
idiotitc.

no just shows you and dave are not answering the question put

Complete the sentence, Markie.

If Dave knew (by what ever means) they were out of band when he made
the contacts then he was wrong to do it

You STILL have NOT provided ONE LINE OF APPLICABLE LAW OR
REGULATION to substantiate this claim, Markie.

If dave only learned later they were out of band then he gets a ONE
time pass.

So until/unless Dave wants to answer questions about what did he know,
and when did he know it all of this is evasion

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

From you own tale of your experience with trying to learn morse, you'd
be 1) incapable of recognizing that it was an emergency and 2) incapable
of understanding what help was needed.

more of your pack of lies

Nope.

From the archived words of Mark C. Morgan, KB9RQZ.

YOU said you COULDN'T DO IT.

Nope I said I can't when restricted to just the use of my ear

Ear...fingers...flashing lights.

You're incapable. Period.

without using my PC No i can't

My point made. That's what I said in the first place.

No It is not what you said

You said I could not responf to Morse Code distres Signal

I can


But I never have my radios without having at least one of my pc's, So I
can Alawys do morse Code if I need to

You carry a PC on your belt? In your car? Always?

In my car always, Not a PC on my Belt but my wireless PDA and I am
never far from my car.


Unless, of course, you're now changing your story and claiming you
CAN learn Morse?

nope No need to learn Morse in order to use morse

Even Jim adknowledges that

break
Regardless of the mehtodology, YOU won't learn...

Lie

Nope. Truth.

I can't learn it Tried for years, under the assitance of Experts, the
same same ones that you flame me for ever having seen


I already have just not by a methodlogy that I am allowed to use for e
a Code test

You can't do it. Won't do it.

I can do and Have done it

Face facts

Manual Morse Code just isn't that specail for modern PCs


I have logged long ragcrews in Cw I was doing it to help other hams
pass there tests and so rather than typing at each other In Mirc or
other means we chatted over the air me all PC for encoding and decoding
him by ear and keyer toreply.

No...YOU didn't log "long ragchews"...Your PC did.

if you prefer


And anyone that can follow my typing converted to Morse can pass a test
at the same speed

Except you.

What are you saying?

If I could follow my typed morse at any speed of Course I could pass a
test at the same speed. So my statement is prefectly accurate

Indeed I could also pass Morse Code test at any speed with my trusty pc
at my side


You refuse to acept facts

You refuse to use a spellchecker.

yes I do

That makes you a voluntary idiot.

no it makes me at worst stuborn

No.
yes


It makes you a voluntary idiot.

nope


You want me to spend time and energy on what you want?

Nope. I want to be able to read your thoughts without having to
interpret individual words.

I don't want you reading my thoughts at all.

But I want you to work to read my stuff.

To make you think, if that is possible for you

You want it given to you,

Go for it yourself you lazy bum

You want my words then work for it, don't ask for it to be Given to you


You are a fool if you think you can bully me into doing your will

Not bullying, but you've already DONE it, Markie!

Nope

As I stated in another thread...

as you lied in another thread


It isn't hard to reconize SoS

It is if you don't know Morse Code.

a few letter sure can't keep the whole set in my mind though

Perhaps the lack of "mind" with which to store the 26 letters and
10 numbers?

it is a problem a type of mental capcity yes indeed. never deiend that,
that you insit on realting it to other matter I have deined when proper

"capacity" "denied" "insist"

You claim an IQ of 248 and more-than-adequate financial and
material resources, but can't seem to fix simple problems without being
taken by the hand and guided step-by-step.

you claim to undersatnd emdcine without knowing that Leraning Disorders
are not simple problems


Intellegnce and Dyslexia are not incompatble. If you were educated you
would know that


Once reconized the action needed is clear, For me of course the
procedure is different I would record the signal for play back later.
Then I try ruing it though a computer decode, which should recover much
of the signal. or if not I send using the PC a sginal reequesting more
data...(SNIP)

If you can't copy code without the computer, how are you going to
send it?

By using the computer to do so

How do you know to record one signal over another that MIGHT be a
distress signal?

if I here SOS or anything like it ....DUH

"hear"

You're unlikely to recognize it under ANY circumstances.

Likely? Unlikely who know?

If the Ship is out on Superior. I may well hear it and reconize it.

indeed how likely is it today athat A ship would Use Morse at all in
distress?




Now agreed I am not as likely to hear the signal, indeed even if you or
Dave were at my rig it would harder to read the CW signal since I don't
bother with specail Filters for CW etc. I would be looking through the
band in SSB sized slices et, so I am more likely to miss it, but IF I
hear it I will respond

"special"

No, Markie...If you're listening in "SSB sized slices", you are
MORE likely to hear a CW distress signal.

Really if you say so, that isn't what ohers are saying but..


I have done so many times

I bet you have.

thank you

That wasan't a gratuity, Markie.

but it should have been, and I was showing more manners than you


Indeed a FD station where I was doing so may even be in Your log

Not in my log it isn't.

maybe, maybe not, It would be a Club Call of course not KB9RQZ

And I still doubt I have ever worked ANY station wherein YOU were
working the CW station, computer or otherwise.

and you may be right, but you don't know, and for that matter nethier
do I


I run it through until I have or find I can't read it with a
machine. If i can't read it then I start calling people who can read
the signal play it for them let them decode it and/or get them on the
Air to render more assistance than I can

And by the time this has all transpired and you've spent a couple
hours banging out your dreck in RRAP due to your frustrations at not
knowing if it was a distress signal or Dave and I talking about you,
the ship has gone down with loss of life. Too bad, too...There was a
tanker only 10 miles away that could have diverted and assisted...

wel you yea sure it would take me longer, never diened that and yea if
the ship is sinking fast I may not be able to help, butAt least I tried

"well" "denied" "yeah"

"Gee too bad the ship sank and I COULD have saved them".

No

GEE to bad they could not have lasted a bit longer at least I tired

"tried"

But not very hard.

Really?

More lies on Stevies part.

With the ARS luddite mentality on Morse Code, it takes a lot to
assemble and esp test a station using Computer Morse.

and Should that Unlikely occasion arise I will do what I can

So your satement "From you own tale of your experience with trying to
learn morse, you'd be 1) incapable of recognizing that it was an
emergency and 2) incapable of understanding what help was needed.", Is
a bald faced lie,and if you had any brains you'd know that.

He does have the brains. He very aptly pointed out that you have
not learned Morse Code and as a consequence can not respond in a prompt
and meaningful manner.

dpends on how well the morse was send if the operator was good I can
turn it around in acouple of minutes if it is bad then maybe an hour

"depends" "sent"

It won't matter HOW fast it's sent...If you can't do it, you can't
do it.

Liar

Nope. I could send it at 3 WPM and you'd still screw it up.

Nope but 5 wpm (a preset speed in the program would be better)

If I saw your call though I stop the operation at once


if the morse is badly sent it matters, if the speed ins't even it
matters. I can do it Me and MY pc that is, The mere fact i got a
somewhat defective modem unit in my brain for such things doesn't mean
I can't be fitted with an external modem that will work

Oh?

yep


We keep trying to get you to use an "external modem" in the form
of a spell checker and you cna't seem to master that. What's to make us
believe you'd be any more functional using a PC for Morse Code
purposes?

Well You know I will put out effort to save a life, I will not to
please a bully


I know my limits...(SNIP)

Obviously not.

sure do

Knowing one limits pushing them where desirable is part of living


(UNSNIP)...and I prepare for them.

Again, obviously not.

sure do

just not in a Stevie approved manner


(UNSNIP)...I considered long and hard
the Claim of the Procoders about distress, and did something about it.
I aquired the tools to deal with the issue, maybe I (and my Pc) are not
as Good as you or Dave, maybe we are, but we are better than Many
stations that passed the Code test and forgot code the next day,
meaning I am good enough for the current bands

Are you?

sure are

More fit than any of the Code users that boast of lacking a Mike
altogether


The Last a point that the ITU and the FCC agree is correct

I wish I knew what that was supposed to mean.

Then of course you are stupid

It means that the ITU and FCC agree there is no need for manual code
testing or manaul code use, while both reamin premitted


But I could respond in seconds tell them someone was trying to decode
and tell em things to do in sending there signal that would help my PC
to copy

How can you send a message in response TO a message and tell them
you're trying to "decode" it when you don't even know why the original
message was sent...?!?!

I can send a message quote "to station apearing to sending SOS on this
Frequency DE KB9RQZ please repeat now nature of you emergency, please
be adivised that Sending slowy and evenly is required for this station
to receive decode and attempt to assit you over"

In which case you would have violated on of the principle
guidelines for aiding stations in distress....DO NOT TRANSMIT unless
you are immdeiately able to assist.

nothing imporper about the message

I am prepared at once to assisit


Indeed since the program I have has memories for sending caned messages
that one I can send by hitting key f1

"canned"

Unless, of course, you meant you strike the mesaages with a stick
before you send them...?!?!

to say something is "canned" meaning prepared is a clearly understood
by any one using thier brain


the word you refuse to say, the answer to the question of when you
worked those out of band hams did you know they were out of band or
not. Not were you responible to know or any other evasion.

Why, Mark, is that an "evasion"...?!?!

It remains the point. He wasn't required to know.

it was never the point

Sure it was.

Was he required to know the OTHER station's operating limits, and
WAS he, by his Tanzanian license, restricted from communicating with
them.

It's the WHOLE point!

it never was the point

The point was DID he know not wether he was required to

If he was NOT required to know there was STILL no violation since
his licensing authority didn't deem it important enough to address in
the first place THEY didn't deem it a violation!

wrong simply wrong
If he knew they were out of band he was wrong
that he was not required to know does not that fact


you dance and dance avoiding this question

In either case, he's "in the clear".

Dave had NO OBLIGATION to know who was in or out of the bands per
THIER administration's requiremments.

None under US law...None under Tanzanian law...None under
International law.

more evasion

It's not "evasion".

It's a matter or complying with laws and regulations.

A question even YOU said was moot!

it is evasion
since it has nothing to do with wether the operation was legal or not

It wasn't illegal, knucklehead! That's the WHOLE point! There
was NO standing regulation that addressed it in the first place!

indeed there is but it is matter of Law, you may not knowingly aid
another in the comission of a crime


Which means YOU haven't got a leg to stand on.

the longer you 2 dance around missing the point the better it gets

There's no "dancing".

YOU have acknowledged that Dave wasn't required to know the French
stations limits.

YOU have acknowledged that no one could be EXPECTED to know other
stations limits...

Nope never said that

Sure you did.

No I did not

you are lying again


Said wasn't required

Sure you did.

Yes which is not the same as saying no one could be expected


nothing about expected

Sure you did.


where?


more of your embellishing my words again

Nope.

sure thing


Here's YOUR words quoted VERBATIM.

yep and nothing in there about expectations

not a word

why do you lie so badly?

QUOTE:

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: "an_old_friend" - Find messages by this
author
Date: 9 Aug 2005 10:02:17 -0700
Local: Tues, Aug 9 2005 11:02 am
Subject: An Even BETTER Question for Brain...
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

K4YZ wrote:
b.b. wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

Yes, Mark. I told "bb" that I've never seen a branch deep enough to swim
in (follow along here) and he said that I probably "layed down" in it
though there was no indication of any probability that I would do any
such thing. I asked him what my motivation would be for doing so. If
you need further help on this stuff, I'll be happy to attempt to explain
it to you.

Dave K8MN

A better question would be to ask what your motivation was to work out
of band Frenchmen on 6 meters.

An ever better yet question (and one that's already been addressed
to but unanswered BY Brain...) is where was Dave ever responsible for
knowing what the allowed band limits by ANY foreign Amateur were?

he never said any such thing

Can YOU swear, with ABSOLUTE certainty, that EVERY foreign Amateur
you ever "worked" was operating within his/her allowed scope of
licensure?

of course not

For that matter can you swear, with ABSOLUTE certainty, that EVERY
domestic station you've ever "worked" was operating within the scope of
his/her license?

of course not

Can YOU show where in Part 97 it requires an FCC licensee to be
knowledgable of OTHER administrations licensing criteria...?!?!

of course not

Just wondering, since YOU keep making an issue of it...

But if the hams is ggod and expeenced he is likely to have a pretty
good idea

UNQUOTE

Yet YOU keep trying tio insist that it somehow applies differently
in this case...

Not at all

Sure.

The above quote proves it exactly.

Which just makes YOU look (as if it were possible) even MORE
idiotitc.

no just shows you and dave are not answering the question put

Complete the sentence, Markie.

If Dave knew (by what ever means) they were out of band when he made
the contacts then he was wrong to do it

You STILL have NOT provided ONE LINE OF APPLICABLE LAW OR
REGULATION to substantiate this claim, Markie.

If dave only learned later they were out of band then he gets a ONE
time pass.

So until/unless Dave wants to answer questions about what did he know,
and when did he know it all of this is evasion

Steve, K4YZ

an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:

Nope I said I can't when restricted to just the use of my ear

Ear...fingers...flashing lights.

You're incapable. Period.

without using my PC No i can't

My point made. That's what I said in the first place.

No It is not what you said

You said I could not responf to Morse Code distres Signal

I can

No...YOU can't.

Your computer MAY, but only if YOU can recognize the distress in
the first place.

As I said...POINT MADE!

But I never have my radios without having at least one of my pc's, So I
can Alawys do morse Code if I need to

You carry a PC on your belt? In your car? Always?

In my car always, Not a PC on my Belt but my wireless PDA and I am
never far from my car.

You're never far from caring hands that can heal you of your
illnesses, either, Mark, but it seems you won't use those effectively
either!

Unless, of course, you're now changing your story and claiming you
CAN learn Morse?

nope No need to learn Morse in order to use morse

Even Jim adknowledges that

break
Regardless of the mehtodology, YOU won't learn...

Lie

Nope. Truth.

I can't learn it Tried for years, under the assitance of Experts, the
same same ones that you flame me for ever having seen

You WON'T do it.

I already have just not by a methodlogy that I am allowed to use for e
a Code test

You can't do it. Won't do it.

I can do and Have done it

Face facts

But WAIT! Just a handful of lines up you said YOU CAN'T...! ! !

Manual Morse Code just isn't that specail for modern PCs

It takes up a lot less memory than a spellchecker. Old TRS-80's
could do it with the software held on cassete tapes!

I have logged long ragcrews in Cw I was doing it to help other hams
pass there tests and so rather than typing at each other In Mirc or
other means we chatted over the air me all PC for encoding and decoding
him by ear and keyer toreply.

No...YOU didn't log "long ragchews"...Your PC did.

if you prefer

It's not what I prefer...

It's about you misepresenting the truth again.

And anyone that can follow my typing converted to Morse can pass a test
at the same speed

Except you.

What are you saying?

If I could follow my typed morse at any speed of Course I could pass a
test at the same speed. So my statement is prefectly accurate

No, it's not.

YOU can't pass a Morse Code exam at ANY speed...You said that in
THIS VERY POST!

Indeed I could also pass Morse Code test at any speed with my trusty pc
at my side

No...YOU could not pass a Morse Code test.

You refuse to acept facts

You refuse to use a spellchecker.

yes I do

That makes you a voluntary idiot.

no it makes me at worst stuborn

No.
yes

Nope.

It makes you a voluntary idiot.

nope

Yep.

You want me to spend time and energy on what you want?

Nope. I want to be able to read your thoughts without having to
interpret individual words.

I don't want you reading my thoughts at all.

Then why bomb the NG with ANY of it, Markie..?!?!

But I want you to work to read my stuff.

Then we've proven who the bully is here, Markie!

Thanks!

To make you think, if that is possible for you

Sure it is..

As a matter of fact I have pushed you to improve your spelling.

It's worked.

You want it given to you

Nope. I want it in the same English that everyone else uses here.

Go for it yourself you lazy bum

Not lazy.

You want my words then work for it, don't ask for it to be Given to you

You don't want to be called an idiot, a fool, or illiterate.

Yet you do those things that substantiate my claims.

Willing or not, I've pushed you to improve yourself. But you have
a long way to go.

You are a fool if you think you can bully me into doing your will

Not bullying, but you've already DONE it, Markie!

Nope

Yep!

As I stated in another thread...

as you lied in another thread

No, I haven't.

But anyone who's been following any of this can attest to the
improvement in your spelling over the last several weeks.

You claim an IQ of 248 and more-than-adequate financial and
material resources, but can't seem to fix simple problems without being
taken by the hand and guided step-by-step.

you claim to undersatnd emdcine without knowing that Leraning Disorders
are not simple problems

"understand" "medicine" "learning"

I know they're not. But they are also fixable.

That I've pushed you into doing it here already is proof of it.

That you deny it in the face of several weeks of evidence to the
contrary proves me right.

Intellegnce and Dyslexia are not incompatble. If you were educated you
would know that

"Intelligence"

I am educated. "Informed", too.

Neither lead me to believe you're as intelligent as you claim.

How do you know to record one signal over another that MIGHT be a
distress signal?

if I here SOS or anything like it ....DUH

"hear"

You're unlikely to recognize it under ANY circumstances.

Likely? Unlikely who know?

"I know"

If the Ship is out on Superior. I may well hear it and reconize it.

It could be in your back yard and you'd not know.

indeed how likely is it today athat A ship would Use Morse at all in
distress?

Does it matter? You'd not be able to process it in any case.

Now agreed I am not as likely to hear the signal, indeed even if you or
Dave were at my rig it would harder to read the CW signal since I don't
bother with specail Filters for CW etc. I would be looking through the
band in SSB sized slices et, so I am more likely to miss it, but IF I
hear it I will respond

"special"

No, Markie...If you're listening in "SSB sized slices", you are
MORE likely to hear a CW distress signal.

Really if you say so, that isn't what ohers are saying but..

"others"

Yes, I say so. Your likelyhood of initially hearing a distress
signal using a modern Amateur transceiver is far greater if you're
listening without filters.

Put your hands up to your eyes with the lateral aspect of the palm
by the outer orbits and the medial aspects at 180d to the canthus of
the eyes. You have almost complete field of vision.

Now rotate your hands to 90d from the axis of the canthus of the
eyes. Your field of vision is now markedly reduced.

The same happens with the use of filters in an SSB/CW radio.

I have done so many times

I bet you have.

thank you

That wasan't a gratuity, Markie.

but it should have been, and I was showing more manners than you

No, you weren't.

You were "assuming".

Indeed a FD station where I was doing so may even be in Your log

Not in my log it isn't.

maybe, maybe not, It would be a Club Call of course not KB9RQZ

And I still doubt I have ever worked ANY station wherein YOU were
working the CW station, computer or otherwise.

and you may be right, but you don't know, and for that matter nethier
do I

I AM right and yes I DO know.

GEE to bad they could not have lasted a bit longer at least I tired

"tried"

But not very hard.

Really?

More lies on Stevies part.

Nope. Evidence on Markie's part proves...

With the ARS luddite mentality on Morse Code, it takes a lot to
assemble and esp test a station using Computer Morse.

It doesn't take 5 minutes.

Plug the speaker into the sound card, turn the computer on and
load the software.

In any case it takes more time than it takes me to just copy the
signal and call the Coast Gurad or AFRCC.

and Should that Unlikely occasion arise I will do what I can

Which will be too little too late.

It won't matter HOW fast it's sent...If you can't do it, you can't
do it.

Liar

Nope. I could send it at 3 WPM and you'd still screw it up.

Nope but 5 wpm (a preset speed in the program would be better)

My ears don't need a "preset".

If I saw your call though I stop the operation at once

Scardiy-Cat!

We keep trying to get you to use an "external modem" in the form
of a spell checker and you cna't seem to master that. What's to make us
believe you'd be any more functional using a PC for Morse Code
purposes?

Well You know I will put out effort to save a life, I will not to
please a bully

If you managed to save a life, you would please a lot of people.

And if a bully shows up here, I am sure s/he'd be pleased too.

I know my limits...(SNIP)

Obviously not.

sure do

Obviously not.

Knowing one limits pushing them where desirable is part of living


(UNSNIP)...and I prepare for them.

Again, obviously not.

sure do

Obviously not.

just not in a Stevie approved manner

That's a list somewhere?

(UNSNIP)...I considered long and hard
the Claim of the Procoders about distress, and did something about it.
I aquired the tools to deal with the issue, maybe I (and my Pc) are not
as Good as you or Dave, maybe we are, but we are better than Many
stations that passed the Code test and forgot code the next day,
meaning I am good enough for the current bands

Are you?

sure are

More fit than any of the Code users that boast of lacking a Mike
altogether

Lacking a Mike?

I have a John, Paul, George and Ringo here...do they count?

The Last a point that the ITU and the FCC agree is correct

I wish I knew what that was supposed to mean.

Then of course you are stupid

No...I just can't figure out what that sentence was supposed to
say!

It means that the ITU and FCC agree there is no need for manual code
testing or manaul code use, while both reamin premitted

"permitted"

So far the FCC hasn't made that official.

But I could respond in seconds tell them someone was trying to decode
and tell em things to do in sending there signal that would help my PC
to copy

How can you send a message in response TO a message and tell them
you're trying to "decode" it when you don't even know why the original
message was sent...?!?!

I can send a message quote "to station apearing to sending SOS on this
Frequency DE KB9RQZ please repeat now nature of you emergency, please
be adivised that Sending slowy and evenly is required for this station
to receive decode and attempt to assit you over"

In which case you would have violated on of the principle
guidelines for aiding stations in distress....DO NOT TRANSMIT unless
you are immdeiately able to assist.

nothing imporper about the message

Sure it is.

You have encumbered the distressed operator with having to
accomodate YOUR inadequcies when he COULD be talking to someone who
could help him.

I am prepared at once to assisit

"assist"

Not unless the message was by voice.

Indeed since the program I have has memories for sending caned messages
that one I can send by hitting key f1

"canned"

Unless, of course, you meant you strike the mesaages with a stick
before you send them...?!?!

to say something is "canned" meaning prepared is a clearly understood
by any one using thier brain

But that's NOT what I was addressing.

I WAS addressing your improper use of the word "caned". To be
"caned" is to be punished by being struck across the back or buttocks
with a cane.

the word you refuse to say, the answer to the question of when you
worked those out of band hams did you know they were out of band or
not. Not were you responible to know or any other evasion.

Why, Mark, is that an "evasion"...?!?!

It remains the point. He wasn't required to know.

it was never the point

Sure it was.

Was he required to know the OTHER station's operating limits, and
WAS he, by his Tanzanian license, restricted from communicating with
them.

It's the WHOLE point!

it never was the point

The point was DID he know not wether he was required to

If he was NOT required to know there was STILL no violation since
his licensing authority didn't deem it important enough to address in
the first place THEY didn't deem it a violation!

wrong simply wrong

Nope. Simply nope.

If he knew they were out of band he was wrong

Where is the law or regulation that established his error?

that he was not required to know does not that fact

Where is the law or regualtion that establishes his error?

you dance and dance avoiding this question

In either case, he's "in the clear".

Dave had NO OBLIGATION to know who was in or out of the bands per
THIER administration's requiremments.

None under US law...None under Tanzanian law...None under
International law.

more evasion

It's not "evasion".

It's a matter or complying with laws and regulations.

A question even YOU said was moot!

it is evasion
since it has nothing to do with wether the operation was legal or not

It wasn't illegal, knucklehead! That's the WHOLE point! There
was NO standing regulation that addressed it in the first place!

indeed there is but it is matter of Law, you may not knowingly aid
another in the comission of a crime

WHAT CRIME?

No "crime" was perpetrated.

Dave had NO requirement to know if the French operators were "in
band" or not.

Even if they WERE "out of band", the point STILL remains that Dave
was NOT out of band.

There is NO international regulation that establishes even a HINT
of culpability for communication with stations that MAY be operating
beyond the scope of thier license!

Not a one!

Which means YOU haven't got a leg to stand on.

the longer you 2 dance around missing the point the better it gets

There's no "dancing".

YOU have acknowledged that Dave wasn't required to know the French
stations limits.

YOU have acknowledged that no one could be EXPECTED to know other
stations limits...

Nope never said that

Sure you did.

No I did not

you are lying again

Nope.

Said wasn't required

Sure you did.

Yes which is not the same as saying no one could be expected

NOW LOOK WHO'S DANCING!

nothing about expected

Sure you did.

where?


more of your embellishing my words again

Nope.

sure thing

Nope.

Here's YOUR words quoted VERBATIM.

yep and nothing in there about expectations

not a word

why do you lie so badly?

No lie.

The ENTIRE quote below is about what you could expect a licensee
to know or be responsible for.


QUOTE:

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: "an_old_friend" - Find messages by this
author
Date: 9 Aug 2005 10:02:17 -0700
Local: Tues, Aug 9 2005 11:02 am
Subject: An Even BETTER Question for Brain...
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

K4YZ wrote:
b.b. wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

Yes, Mark. I told "bb" that I've never seen a branch deep enough to swim
in (follow along here) and he said that I probably "layed down" in it
though there was no indication of any probability that I would do any
such thing. I asked him what my motivation would be for doing so. If
you need further help on this stuff, I'll be happy to attempt to explain
it to you.

Dave K8MN

A better question would be to ask what your motivation was to work out
of band Frenchmen on 6 meters.

An ever better yet question (and one that's already been addressed
to but unanswered BY Brain...) is where was Dave ever responsible for
knowing what the allowed band limits by ANY foreign Amateur were?

he never said any such thing

Can YOU swear, with ABSOLUTE certainty, that EVERY foreign Amateur
you ever "worked" was operating within his/her allowed scope of
licensure?

of course not

For that matter can you swear, with ABSOLUTE certainty, that EVERY
domestic station you've ever "worked" was operating within the scope of
his/her license?

of course not

Can YOU show where in Part 97 it requires an FCC licensee to be
knowledgable of OTHER administrations licensing criteria...?!?!

of course not

Just wondering, since YOU keep making an issue of it...

But if the hams is ggod and expeenced he is likely to have a pretty
good idea

UNQUOTE

Yet YOU keep trying tio insist that it somehow applies differently
in this case...

Not at all

Sure.

The above quote proves it exactly.

Which just makes YOU look (as if it were possible) even MORE
idiotitc.

no just shows you and dave are not answering the question put

Complete the sentence, Markie.

If Dave knew (by what ever means) they were out of band when he made
the contacts then he was wrong to do it

You STILL have NOT provided ONE LINE OF APPLICABLE LAW OR
REGULATION to substantiate this claim, Markie.

If dave only learned later they were out of band then he gets a ONE
time pass.

So until/unless Dave wants to answer questions about what did he know,
and when did he know it all of this is evasion

Still no evasion.

What we DO have is Mark C Morgan caught in his own whirlpool of
silliness.

Steve, K4YZ