Date: Tue, 6 Sep 94 04:30:09 PDT From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup Errors-To: Ham-Policy-Errors@UCSD.Edu Reply-To: Ham-Policy@UCSD.Edu Precedence: Bulk Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #425 To: Ham-Policy Ham-Policy Digest Tue, 6 Sep 94 Volume 94 : Issue 425 Today's Topics: CW future Forwarded QSO from somewhere Fuck all CBers!! Sum'tin for nut'in and chicks for free Send Replies or notes for publication to: Send subscription requests to: Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu. Archives of past issues of the Ham-Policy Digest are available (by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-policy". We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Sep 1994 05:44:47 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.ksu.ksu.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!news.mid.net!crcnis1.unl.edu!unlinfo.unl.edu!gbrown@network.ucsd.edu Subject: CW future To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu Dan Pickersgill (dan@amcomp.com) wrote: : Marijan.Miletic@ijs.si (Marijan Mileti}) writes: : [deleted to save bandwith, but well said] : >I am well aware that this technology is years ahead from good old Morse code : >in the area of DATA TRANSFER but try 2400b on HF or EME! But Spectrum is NOT : >limitless so narrow modes should be preserved for heating ionosphere! : > : >As we are the last generation of CW experts, it is our duty to preserve over : >100 years of history for future generations. I'll try to complete that task. : Nothing wrong with that attitude. But what purpose of the ARS as expressed : in 97.1 does pass/fail high speed manual morse mode specific testing : fullfill? Remember, preserving the history of radio is not a purpose. In : fact there is a test question to that effect. : Were I, and I feel some others, disagree is that the amateur tests require : passing an element that is expressly designed to preserve the history of : radio does nothing to fullfill the purposes of the ARS as express by the : FCC in Part 97.1 (inclusive). More stuff about 97.1 deleted... : 73, : Dan N8PKV : -- Sigs deleted cuz I'm tired of reading them... Dan, did you notice that Mario is in Slovenia??? Did you ever consider that he doesn't give a flying fig about what FCC Part 97.1 says? Or do you think the world of amateur radio revolves around us (or more precisly, you?). One simple reason we (American) hams should know CW is that it is a very popular and _accessible_ mode for foreign hams who may not have the financial resorces nor even access to more "advanced" modes. HF frequencies are "world-wide" frequencies...we share them with hams around the world. And _international goodwill_ IS a purpose listed in 97.1. The "ugly-American" reputation is something we earn everyday. It already extends to amateur radio. Why reinforce it by making HF even more of an exclusive American playground? Forget 97.1. When you are doing your silly polls about how (un)popular CW is or how obsolete it is, don't forget to include the rest of the ham world. If furthering international goodwill was the ONLY argument for keeping the CW test requirement, it would be enough. And next time, think twice before demanding that a Slovenian justify his feelings about CW by citing FCC Part 97.1. Greg WB0RTK gbrown@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 08:16:21 UTC From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Forwarded QSO from somewhere To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu Question: is this a regular ham QSO? ********************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: (null) From: (null) Subject: Fuck all CBers!! John Tiwari writes: >Why do you like CB anyway? because you are all fu..... morons?? ********************************************************************* altoids@delphi.com (John Tiwari) writes: >I am an amateur radio operator, but i am not in the callbook ********************************************************************* From: John Tiwari >cb cb cb >sucks fu..... di..! >cb is for a bunch of fu....., shi..., beer guzzling rednecks! >cb is for a bunch of morons, who don't know shi. about radio >ham is the true amateur service, not cb! >bunch of fuckin' bitches.. >i am one angry nigga ********************************************************************* Just asking... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Sep 1994 06:44:05 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!chnews!fallout!cmoore@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Sum'tin for nut'in and chicks for free To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu Jay Maynard (jmaynard@nyx10.cs.du.edu) wrote: : WAKE UP, PEOPLE! JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE'S NOT A GRADUATE EE DOESN'T MEAN HE : DOESN'T BELONG IN HAM RADIO!!! Simmer down, Jay. I'm not advocating that entry level requirements be changed. I'm trying to figure out a rational way for people with 30 years experience designing commercial radios to get into HF amateur radio without having to learn 13wpm Morse code. Guys like that certainly would "smarten-up" amateur radio (vs dumbing-down). So far the pro-code-testers have not objected to my 5wpm+extra class written test proposal for obtaining general-class HF phone privileges. 73, KG7BK, OOTC, Cecil_A_Moore@ccm.ch.intel.com (Not speaking for Intel) ------------------------------ End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #425 ******************************