Radio talk in the UK

beaudoin wrote:
I didn't quote it. I wrote/typed it in.

What "it" are you refering to?

If you can't tell who I am answering, just look at the where the post
fits in the chronology.

You don't know much about Usenet and how it works, do you?

Isn't this much easier to read rather than with all the other
jibberish.

Except that many people will have no idea what the heck you are talking
about because they didn't read the post you are following up to, forgot what
was written there, found your article weeks later in google and are
wondering now what on earth you were talking about, killfiled the poster you
were responding to, or simply didn't have a chance to read the preceeding
post because it has not been delivered to their newsserver (yet).
There are many, many reasons why not quoting any context isn't any better
then doing a dumb TOFU posting.

jue

Tscha Jürgen, ich teile Beaudoins Meinung. Ist's ja zu 90% meistens
belangloses Zeug, oder? ;-)

Pietro

"beaudoin" wrote in message
...
I didn't quote it. I wrote/typed it in.
If you can't tell who I am answering, just look at the where the post fits
in the chronology.
Isn't this much easier to read rather than with all the other jibberish.



No.

Ali

In article , beaudoin
wrote
I have a Cessna 152 (N714WQ) but don't have a strap on leg key for Morse.
Morse is archaiac and we don't need to use archaiac Morse abbreviations any
longer. Speak English d.... it. Dah di dah.

So what's the answer to my question?

--
Richard Herring

In article , beaudoin
wrote
I didn't quote it. I wrote/typed it in.

And the difference is?

If you can't tell who I am answering, just look at the where the post fits
in the chronology.

Your faith in perfect Usenet propagation is touching, if naive.

Isn't this much easier to read rather than with all the other jibberish.

No.


--
Richard Herring

So what's the answer to my question?

The following will not be interesting to the current flying enthusiast but
to answer Red's multiple request, here goes, The last time I remember using
QNE was in the mid-fifties. I was a shipboard radio operator on ice patrol
off the Newfoundland coast in the North Atlantic. Ship-shore communications
at the time was done completely using Morse. Our ship was assigned patrol
looking for ice (bergs & growlers). We were assisted in the searches by
aircraft. The aircraft were controlled by Argentia Newfoundland. While the
aircraft was in our area we communicated with it on UHF RT but they weren't
able to communicate with their base in Argentia and we had to relay via CW.
The usual scenario was the aircraft would search our area and then return to
Argentia after a search of the area. Whenever the aircraft decided to
return to base they would ask us on RT to contact their base and tell them
the aircraft was returning to base and switching to QNE. That is when I
remember using the term.

In article , beaudoin
wrote

So what's the answer to my question?

The following will not be interesting to the current flying enthusiast but
to answer Red's multiple request, here goes, The last time I remember using
QNE was in the mid-fifties. I was a shipboard radio operator on ice patrol
off the Newfoundland coast in the North Atlantic. Ship-shore communications
at the time was done completely using Morse. Our ship was assigned patrol
looking for ice (bergs & growlers). We were assisted in the searches by
aircraft. The aircraft were controlled by Argentia Newfoundland. While the
aircraft was in our area we communicated with it on UHF RT but they weren't
able to communicate with their base in Argentia and we had to relay via CW.
The usual scenario was the aircraft would search our area and then return to
Argentia after a search of the area. Whenever the aircraft decided to
return to base they would ask us on RT to contact their base and tell them
the aircraft was returning to base and switching to QNE. That is when I
remember using the term.

Thank you. Most interesting.

--
Richard Herring