Re: Radioreference.com forums comments

On Tue, 20 May 2008 13:39:40 -0400, Sarah Czepiel <ninety7gt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>On Mon, 19 May 2008 05:23:00 GMT, Mats Peterson <matsp555@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
>:>Sarah Czepiel <ninety7gt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>:>> On Mon, 19 May 2008 02:45:15 +0100, MegaForce
>:>> <MegaForce.2769582@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>:>>
>:>> :>
>:>> :>Sarah Czepiel;630979 Wrote: 
>:>> :>> On Sun, 18 May 2008 06:46:57 -0400, *Bluto *@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>:>> :>> 
>:>> :>> :I have been into scanners for 0ver 20 years I dont need nothing
and
>:>> :>> :never claimed to know it all.
>:>> :>> :
>:>> :>> :You just admited you need software and rr.com because you are
too
>:>> :>> :stupid to program it yourself.  Noobs like you need a scanner
with
>:>> :>> :only and ON/OFF switch so you can understand it and program it.
>:>> :>> 
>:>> :>> Forgetting just for a moment your inability to construct a
>:>> :>> grammatically  correct sentence, would you kindly tell us what
scanners you own and
>:>> :>> then enlighten us as to the advantages you've found hand
programming
>:>> :>> hundreds of  channels when you could use a computer and software
to accomplish the
>:>> :>> same  thing in a matter of minutes?  The one thing you revel in
is doing
>:>> :>> things the hard way.  You appear content to walk along a freshly
tarred road
>:>> :>> without wearing shoes while the rest of us stand around wondering
why
>:>> :>> you like having burned and blistered feet.
>:>> :>
>:>> :>Sarah, I suggest you take your holier than thou attitude back over
to
>:>> :>RR where you came from. ;)
>:>>
>:>> To begin with my friend I didn't come from rr.com.    Secondly the
person
>:>> you're defending is the one with the holier than thou speech.  He
seems to
>:>> think it most unseemly to use a computer to program 1800 channels
into a
>:>> scanner.   I'm still waiting for a rational explanation for why
manual
>:>> programming is somehow advantageous in scanner operations, and why
anyone
>:>> who chooses to use a computer and software to accomplish the task
would
>:>> somehow be deemed less worthy.    
>:>
>:>Well Sarah, in my case, it might be as simple as not having a computer
>:>nearby.  I didn't say it is advantageous, but it's a good reason to do
>:>it manually :-)
>
>I too have not always had a computer nearby and in the "old days" , I
>started monitoring radio transmissions via a scanner back in 1978, doing
it
>manually was the *only* option.   :)   It should be noted that back then
>you were limited to less than 50 channels and the task could be done
quite
>quickly.   These days I would find the task of programming hundreds of
>frequencies by hand a daunting task at best.   I live just outside of
>Wa****ngton DC and the # of freqs.  available to listen to is almost
>endless.   The  win*  software has been absolutely invaluable.   That
said,
>when I was back home in New England last summer I manually programmed
>approx. 30 frequencies and it took me about 10 minutes.
>

And now since scanners have more than 2 buttons on them you can't
program it yourself!