I'm pretty sure the list moderator has something to say about the
flare of m*rse messages on this list.
Myself, I built several transceivers (not kits - own design, from scratch),
built several repeaters, including SHF (again, from parts,
not a modified mobile), built many circuits with PIC
I have been reading the comments about the possibility of dropping the
requirement for CW in order to advance your license. I have great respect for
those who have passed the code test and one day I would like to be able to use
CW, but it will take a converter and keyboard to accomplish the
. :-)
Craig
Original Message
From: DAN ABBOTT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07/21/05 10:41 AM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I have been reading the comments about the possibility of dropping the
requirement for CW in order to advance your
Original Message
From: DAN ABBOTT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07/21/05 10:41 AM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= I have been
reading the comments about the possibility of dropping the requirement for
CW in order to advance your
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Craig Rairdin wrote:
So my question is, should a bunch of us be able to get together and ask that all the
technical requirements for ham licenses be dropped just because it's hard? That's what
this no code thing sounds like to me. To me dropping the code and only having
Hi Dan.
--- DAN ABBOTT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been reading the comments about the possibility of dropping the
requirement for CW in order to advance your license. I have great respect for
those who have passed the code test and one day I would like to be able to
use CW, but it will
PROTECTED]
To: 'Craig Rairdin' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:20 PM
Subject: RE: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day
Thinking about it,
I don't think dropping the code will make one bit of difference to CW.
I
agree with Craig in that the guys that just squeak
I invite those seeking answers to why the code testing requirement was
dropped to read the FCC's definition of the ham radio service given in the
NPRM, as well as the detailed FCC comments to each of the petitions they
considered.
They clearly made a case of why test by mode, as CW is a mode;
: Thursday, July 21, 2005 4:14 PM
Subject: RE: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day
Paul,
That may have been the young lady I saw explaining to a woman about 20
years
older than herself what a lot of the information covered in the book was
for - if she was indeed your granddaughter, I would say she
Stuart raises an interesting point.
Who controls the scope and format of the licensing exams?
Does the FCC require that it be a list of multiple choice questions?
If you want a fair but thorough way of assuring that new licensees pay the
dues, why not do it on the basis of an oral exam? Each
with a written
test some people freeze up and they think their mind is blank! g
Paul Gates
K1 #0231
KX1 #1186
XG1
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Stephen W. Kercel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day
: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day
| Thinking about it,
|I don't think dropping the code will make one bit of difference to CW. I
| agree with Craig in that the guys that just squeak by the CW test most
| likely won't be found on the CW bands. The people who want to learn CW will.
| 99% of my HF operating
12 matches
Mail list logo
