[ARC5] "Geoff" on VHF vs HF

[Ronnie Hull]

Sweet Jesus that's enough for me I'm outta here

Sent from Ronnie's IPhone

On Jul 9, 2012, at 15:42, "Kenneth G. Gordon" <kgordon2006 at frontier.com> wrote:

> Mike:
> 
> Although I certainly will not, and cannot, argue with WHAT you say, I most certainly WILL 
> comment on HOW you are saying these things below: you are coming across to me as 
> pedantic and arrogant.
> 
> Is that your intention? From past experiences with you, I actually think not, but you are 
> certainly giving that impression.
> 
> It also appears to me that the two of you are arguing from two completely different 
> viewpoints, and neither one of you is seeing the other's.
> 
> Mac's experience might be the connection between those two viewpoints.
> 
> Ken W7EKB
> 
> On 9 Jul 2012 at 15:16, Mike Morrow wrote:
> 
>> Mike/KK5F (aka "I") wrote in an earlier post (in lines with >>):
>>>> ...the UK helped get the USA away from attraction to its marginally
>>>> effective MF/HF command sets to VHF.
>> 
>> Carl/KM1H (aka "Geoff") responded (in lines with >):
>>> I think not as VHF has severe distance limits that only HF could cover.
>>> Both had their purpose and were widely used with excellent results by US
>>> forces.
>> 
>> I wrote:
>>>> What we've got here is...failure to communicate.
>> 
>> "Geoff" responds:
>>> Not really, there is a big difference between book reading and combat needs
>> 
>> The thread of this discussion is not 
>>             'HF vs. VHF for any aircraft communications',
>> just simply 
>>             'HF vs. VHF for aircraft **command** communications'.
>> 
>> The distinction in function and purpose between command sets and liaison
>> sets has always been very clear and unambiguous, surviving to this day.