Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+\'Real\s+CW\?\'\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+\'Real\s+CW\?\'\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] 'Real CW?' (score: 1): Author: "Tommy" <aldermant@alltel.net>; Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 07:50:17 -0400; I only disagree with Paul/W8KC on this one statement: "This is also what I claim as what will be the root cause of the ultimate demise of CW. It's just too much of a bother to work toward CW proficie; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-04/msg00228.html (9,076 bytes)
2. Re: [TenTec] 'Real CW?' (score: 1): Author: Ira Franklin <k4ymq@yahoo.com>; Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 05:35:19 -0700 (PDT); Amen Tommy, it seems that incentive licensing created a caste system with in our hobby that is not a healthy thing. If I was interested in ham radio and read one of these big discourses on "extra lit; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-04/msg00230.html (10,920 bytes)
3. Re: [TenTec] 'Real CW?' (score: 1): Author: "Paul - W8KC" <w8kc@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:43:36 -0400; Actually Tommy, if you go back and read my entire email you'll see that we are in violent agreement. :-) 73 =p= w8kc I only disagree with Paul/W8KC on this one statement: "This is also what I claim a; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-04/msg00231.html (8,143 bytes)
4. Re: [TenTec] 'Real CW?' (score: 1): Author: " Gene Hawkins" <ka5cnt@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 07:49:46 -0500; Tommy, Your response is very well put, and we all would do well to do the same. 73, Gene Hawkins KA5CNT 20 WORD EXTRA CLASS _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-04/msg00233.html (7,394 bytes)
5. Re: [TenTec] 'Real CW?' (score: 1): Author: "Tommy" <aldermant@alltel.net>; Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:55:51 -0400; Yep Paul...I did read your entire email and thought it was a great post! Tommy W4BQF Actually Tommy, if you go back and read my entire email you'll see that we are in violent agreement. :-) 73 =p= w8; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-04/msg00234.html (8,518 bytes)
6. Re: [TenTec] 'Real CW?' (score: 1): Author: "Bill Rowlett" <kc4atu@hotmail.com>; Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:00:00 +0000; Having 20 WORD EXTRA CLASS in your signature does not help any. kc4atu From: " Gene Hawkins" <ka5cnt@sbcglobal.net> Reply-To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com> To: "Discussion o; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-04/msg00235.html (8,953 bytes)
7. Re: [TenTec] 'Real CW?' (score: 1): Author: " Gene Hawkins" <ka5cnt@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:22:43 -0500; I know that, and a DO NOT normally let it be known but , the Tommy did say he could copy more than 20 words also in his post also, and you had no comment to that So, I though it was appropriate for t; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-04/msg00237.html (8,031 bytes)
8. Re: [TenTec] 'Real CW?' (score: 1): Author: "David S.McCallum" <w7sac2@cox.net>; Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:40:25 -0500; I think,,,,AGAIN,,,we've (at least me) had enough of the whole subject about how good us "Real CW Guys (and Gal's)" are. I think it's been run to the ground gang. Lets get back to the real TT Reflect; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-04/msg00240.html (9,293 bytes)
9. Re: [TenTec] 'Real CW?' (score: 1): Author: "James Duffer" <dufferjames@hotmail.com>; Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:42:57 -0500; But, what does it harm? It is just a statement that expresses his pride in accomplishing something that he obviously thinks is worth it. Does that discourage anyone? what harm? Maybe others who read; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-04/msg00242.html (10,245 bytes)
10. Re: [TenTec] 'Real CW?' (score: 1): Author: "DaveHeller" <k3tx@fast.net>; Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:30:56 -0400; I have to agree with both of you. Of course the microphone is (at first) so much easier to use. Most everyone can talk. CW can be easy for some and very rough for others. Regardless, it's really up t; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-04/msg00245.html (10,508 bytes)
11. Re: [TenTec] 'Real CW?' (score: 1): Author: "Charles Nagel" <cnagel@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 14:41:54 -0500; Agree! Charles Nagel, K0CW --Original Message-- From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of David S.McCallum Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 8:40 AM To: Discu; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-04/msg00255.html (9,990 bytes)
12. Re: [TenTec] 'Real CW?' (score: 1): Author: Cellobrown@aol.com; Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:20:04 EDT; Hi--My name is Clarissa Brown. My father was Charlie, W1HZE. I would appreciate it if you could tell the ham folks that my daddy passed away on April 4. We will be closing his AOL account, as my moth; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-04/msg00274.html (8,449 bytes)
13. Re: [TenTec] 'Real CW?' (score: 1): Author: "jack" <jfriend31@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:06:16 -0600; God bless you and your family, Clarissa. We shall miss your Dad greatly. Sincerely Jack AK7O _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.con; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-04/msg00283.html (9,200 bytes)
14. Re: [TenTec] 'Real CW?' (score: 1): Author: Ynkedragon@aol.com; Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:33:53 EDT; << It took me nearly forever to get good enough to pass 5 wpm. . . . So just to prove I could work G frequencies I tried CW. . . And just like most others, once the speed got to a comfortable level I; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-04/msg00289.html (8,734 bytes)
15. Re: [TenTec] 'Real CW?' (score: 1): Author: "DaveHeller" <k3tx@fast.net>; Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 00:22:01 -0400; I'd imagine your experience and mine apply to most everyone, though most seem to learn the code a bit faster. As for T-T CW superiority, I'd tried various rice boxes - Yaseu = pure garbage; Kenwood =; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-04/msg00314.html (9,892 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]