Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation
From: (William)
Date: 8/19/2004 1:07 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation
From: (William)
Date: 8/19/2004 7:34 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

"KØHB" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

- No CW-only subbands

There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF.

That's true - but there should be!

Odd, when I was first licensed I could only use CW on 80, 40, 15, and 10M.

Wonder what kind of subbands those were?

Narrow band modes, Brainless Twerp, in as much as Conditionals,
Generals,
Advanced and Extras could STILL exercise the full breadth of thier
privileges
there.

Is this the part where The World's Greatest DXer comes in and mentions
that you consistently spell "thier" incorrectly?

And does THAT negate the fact that you were WRONG about YOUR assertion
that there are "CW only" subbands on HF...?!?!

You guys are so predictable.

As are you, Brain.

Try to hide your own inadequacies behind a typo I made...?!?!

The NOVICES may have been limited to using only CW, however NONE of
those
"subbands" was restricted to CW only.

Never.

"Ahven't" they?

Nope.

They were to Novices.

That's not what was said.

btw, anybody who says "CW is dead" should take a look at the ARRL 160 m
contest
scores.

73 de Jim, N2EY

What was your score?

What was YOURS? (More logbooks locked away, no doubt........)

What was yours?

On my desk. Didn't participate in the 160 test, though...Have in the
past, but not this time.

Steve, K4YZ