(Fred McKenzie) wrote in
:

In article , "Alun L.
Palmer" wrote:

Assuming some weird contrived scenario where I had the equipment to
send CW but not phone, it would depend what frequencies it worked on.

I think this is the nature of the premise on which the original post was
based.

Compare it to a similar situation, where a film camera user is debating
a digital camera user:

"If you came upon a drowning man, and you had to choose whether to save
him or photograph his demise, what kind of film would you use?"


Getting rid of CW is like choosing the kind of film.

Ham radio is drowning and the anti-code hams want us to think tossing it
bricks will make it float better. Dumbing things down is never an
improvement.

SC

On 17 Jul 2006 20:00:37 -0700, "an old freind"
wrote:


Al Klein wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 17:16:10 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Slow Code wrote:

Ham radio is drowning and the anti-code hams want us to think tossing it
bricks will make it float better. Dumbing things down is never an
improvement.

nobody is talking about dummbing anything down

Eliminating a requirement is dumbing things down.
bull****
But no one would
expect you to be able to understand that.
you mean be fooled by that lie

you are
indeed you advocate dummbing down radio and giving hf only to the
unintelgent

That's YOUR stance - giving HF to those not intelligent enough to
actually learn things.
nope
I want to give it those that can show the brains to ass a written
idealy an improved written test

you want to keep a frat house game in place

but you favor dishonesty

Are you using English?

I can't understand what you are saying.

Please go back to Third Grade and learn how to express yourself.
(Plonk)

Warren

Brian Denley wrote:

SNIPPED

BTW film is seeing it's last days too. Ask Kodak!


I use a digital for my family memories type shooting.

I use FUJI roll film in 120 size for my serious MF work. It is either Fuji
VELVIA for transparencies or NPH for formal portraits.

In either case, digital or film, they have nothing to do with ham radio in
general or CW in particular.

CW is!

On 18 Jul 2006 14:01:07 -0700, "Koikus"
wrote:

I want to give it those that can show the brains to ass a written
idealy an improved written test

you want to keep a frat house game in place

but you favor dishonesty

. -.. --- -. - --. . - .. - . .. - .... . .-.

Neither does anyone else, once you destroy the attributions.

a thread related not

I thought Id mention that one of the things that was overlooked in the
Titantic disccusion is the CW was not invovled it was spark gap used in
that Morse encoded spark

"Koikus" wrote in
oups.com:



I want to give it those that can show the brains to ass a written
idealy an improved written test

you want to keep a frat house game in place

but you favor dishonesty

. -.. --- -. - --. . - .. - . .. - .... . .-.



You just gave him another headache, Shame on you.

Sc

Slow Code wrote:
"Koikus" wrote in
oups.com:


. -.. --- -. - --. . - .. - . .. - .... . .-.



You just gave him another headache, Shame on you.
not realy I did not listen to the "transmision"


Sc

RHF wrote:
SC,

Morris Code
uh, it's Morse Code...after Samuel Morse who invented it

(and, of course, everyone knows Joshua T. Semaphore)

jawod wrote:

RHF wrote:

SC,

Morris Code

uh, it's Morse Code...after Samuel Morse who invented it

(and, of course, everyone knows Joshua T. Semaphore)


Actually the Code that Sam developed is completely unlike the code we
use on radio. What is tested for is the "International Morse Code"
Sam's code was click based and radio is beep based.

Dave WD9BDZ

jawod - Oops ! - You Are Right ~RHF