Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Contesters\s+on\s+CW\s+\(was\:\s+FCC\s+on\s+CW\)\s*$/: 22 ]

Total 22 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Contesters on CW (was: FCC on CW) (score: 1)
Author: "David Robbins K1TTT" <k1ttt@arrl.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:27:09 -0000
How about this... If the fcc drops the cw requirement I think contesting will be one of the few reasons for anyone to bother to learn cw. Its not like many hams build their own very simple cw radios
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00348.html (10,216 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesters on CW (was: FCC on CW) (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:00:22 -0400
There are three good reasons today for someone to learn CW, besides the licensing requirements that the FCC has slated for the chopping block: * Contesting - gives you that many more opportunities to
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00370.html (9,850 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesters on CW (was: FCC on CW) (score: 1)
Author: "John Geiger" <ne0p@lcisp.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:07:28 -0000
And reason 4 is that CW works much better on Aurora propagation once you get to 2 meters and above. I have heard SSB once on 2 meter aurora and it was virtually uncopyable. 73s John NE0P ____________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00376.html (11,244 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesters on CW (was: FCC on CW) (score: 1)
Author: "Brian Lambert" <n1ik@n1ik.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:29:41 -0400
Hi All, Let me say this about that. Dave is exactly right! Requiring someone to learn CW at ONLY 5WPM to advance through the ranks is essentially the same as not requiring them to learn CW at all. Th
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00377.html (13,069 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesters on CW (was: FCC on CW) (score: 1)
Author: "Ward Silver" <hwardsil@centurytel.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 09:17:34 -0700
I believe this is a good description of the Internet before about 1995. And guess what? Most people did not use the Internet! The Internet was a much different environment (old timers will work thei
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00384.html (9,272 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesters on CW (was: FCC on CW) (score: 1)
Author: "John Geiger" <ne0p@lcisp.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 18:16:16 -0000
Where is it written that everyone should become a ham? We seem to have this idea that we need to get as many hams as possible, so are willing to sacrifice quality for quantity. Most people will never
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00387.html (10,920 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesters on CW (was: FCC on CW) (score: 1)
Author: "SJ W3TX" <superberthaguy@adelphia.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:48:05 -0400
Every percieved set-back is really an opportunity waiting to be recognized. One door closes but three others open. The only given in this world is that everything changes with time. We may not like w
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00394.html (10,530 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesters on CW (was: FCC on CW) (score: 1)
Author: "Randy Thompson" <k5zd@charter.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 04:37:57 -0000
I am very happy there are people out there who want to become hams to provide local communication and "chase storms and parades." In terms of protecting the future of our hobby, they are doing a more
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00396.html (13,015 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesters on CW (was: FCC on CW) (score: 1)
Author: sawyered@earthlink.net
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 07:03:26 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
Great Post Ward. I couldn't agree more. I also feel this way. CW is its own special unique thing that people need to see and become interested in positively. I believe that enough can, and will, if w
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00401.html (8,684 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesters on CW (was: FCC on CW) (score: 1)
Author: Eric Hilding <dx35@hilding.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 13:17:03 -0700
Fun!" What a GREAT idea, Scott Go-For-It, OM !!! I find it most interesting that the "art" of CONTESTING *could* actually be carried on without radios, just as other aspects of amateur radio *can* pr
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00411.html (8,307 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesters on CW (was: FCC on CW) (score: 1)
Author: Dick Flanagan <dick@twohams.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 01:46:12 -0700
I think Ed and Ward have the right idea. Human nature proves this over and over again: Tell me to do something, I'll fight it. Ask me to do something, I'll try it. Above all don't yell at the new peo
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00428.html (7,908 bytes)

12. [CQ-Contest] Contesters on CW (was: FCC on CW) (score: 1)
Author: "David Robbins K1TTT" <k1ttt@arrl.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:27:09 -0000
How about this... If the fcc drops the cw requirement I think contesting will be one of the few reasons for anyone to bother to learn cw. Its not like many hams build their own very simple cw radios
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00937.html (10,216 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesters on CW (was: FCC on CW) (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:00:22 -0400
There are three good reasons today for someone to learn CW, besides the licensing requirements that the FCC has slated for the chopping block: * Contesting - gives you that many more opportunities to
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00959.html (9,850 bytes)

14. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesters on CW (was: FCC on CW) (score: 1)
Author: "John Geiger" <ne0p@lcisp.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:07:28 -0000
And reason 4 is that CW works much better on Aurora propagation once you get to 2 meters and above. I have heard SSB once on 2 meter aurora and it was virtually uncopyable. 73s John NE0P ____________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00965.html (11,244 bytes)

15. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesters on CW (was: FCC on CW) (score: 1)
Author: "Brian Lambert" <n1ik@n1ik.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:29:41 -0400
Hi All, Let me say this about that. Dave is exactly right! Requiring someone to learn CW at ONLY 5WPM to advance through the ranks is essentially the same as not requiring them to learn CW at all. Th
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00966.html (13,069 bytes)

16. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesters on CW (was: FCC on CW) (score: 1)
Author: "Ward Silver" <hwardsil@centurytel.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 09:17:34 -0700
I believe this is a good description of the Internet before about 1995. And guess what? Most people did not use the Internet! The Internet was a much different environment (old timers will work thei
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00973.html (9,272 bytes)

17. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesters on CW (was: FCC on CW) (score: 1)
Author: "John Geiger" <ne0p@lcisp.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 18:16:16 -0000
Where is it written that everyone should become a ham? We seem to have this idea that we need to get as many hams as possible, so are willing to sacrifice quality for quantity. Most people will never
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00976.html (10,920 bytes)

18. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesters on CW (was: FCC on CW) (score: 1)
Author: "SJ W3TX" <superberthaguy@adelphia.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:48:05 -0400
Every percieved set-back is really an opportunity waiting to be recognized. One door closes but three others open. The only given in this world is that everything changes with time. We may not like w
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00983.html (10,530 bytes)

19. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesters on CW (was: FCC on CW) (score: 1)
Author: "Randy Thompson" <k5zd@charter.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 04:37:57 -0000
I am very happy there are people out there who want to become hams to provide local communication and "chase storms and parades." In terms of protecting the future of our hobby, they are doing a more
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00985.html (13,015 bytes)

20. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesters on CW (was: FCC on CW) (score: 1)
Author: sawyered@earthlink.net
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 07:03:26 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
Great Post Ward. I couldn't agree more. I also feel this way. CW is its own special unique thing that people need to see and become interested in positively. I believe that enough can, and will, if w
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00990.html (8,684 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu