Tim Shoppa wrote:

...
The ARRL has to kind of pussyfoot around these issues because you
can't have hams being against the communications cartels as long as
"emergency responder radio" spectrum is their trump card.

Tim N3QE

Everyone I know, who is "cutting edge", is ~1Ghz+. My 100W Ghz amp is
unbelievable--I am now constructing the 1KW (and I am telling you, there
ARE major design/construction problems to deal with!)--dreaming about 4KW!

HF is just too-too ...

Regards,
JS

Ed Cregger wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Mr. Jim wrote:
Romney just lost my VOTE.
I suspect any rational vote would go to Ron Paul.
I see you're still doing your comedy routine, Cecil.

Dave K8MN

------------

Ron Paul. If they made a movie about Ron Paul life story,
who would you think would be the best actor to represent
him? I vote for Don Knotts, deceased though he may be.

I see that you *do* know how to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:

...
I see that you *do* know how to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Dave K8MN

From time to time I have wondered why some seem just "damn dense."
That single sentence explained it all ...

JS

John Smith wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

...
I see that you *do* know how to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Dave K8MN

From time to time I have wondered why some seem just "damn dense." That
single sentence explained it all ...

I've never thought you "damn dense", but I'm glad if I've helped you
with one of your problems, "John".

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

...
I see that you *do* know how to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Dave K8MN

From time to time I have wondered why some seem just "damn dense."
That single sentence explained it all ...

I've never thought you "damn dense", but I'm glad if I've helped you
with one of your problems, "John".

Dave K8MN

Well, it was a bit of an over-statement ... you are far from dense ...
sometimes just too cynical for your own good.

Regards,
JS

I am a Democrat. Even I can tell this is a smear job. Lots of
operatives out there with their "eyes on the prize". Don't be misled by
these emails. The gloves are off. Internet dispatches are ALL suspect.

We are all sailing in rough seas. In the end, each of us can pick the
candidate we are most comfortable with.

73,

John
AB8O

AI4QJ wrote:
Of course, our best defense is to use our allocated bands to the maximum. As
long as there is a large installed base of ham equipment and the hams use
it, the government is less likely to take those bands away, no matter how
much lobbying occurs because they know that those bands will never be free
of gross interference. At worst case, the "carpetbaggers" would be driven
away by those who have invested money in their equipment. Knowledge of this
MAD scenario is our best defense. Imagine what would happen if they tried
to give 11m to a private company; I wouldn't bet on it succeeding. Not that
I for a moment would *ever* advocate illegal operation of any kind.

What about giving 220-222 mHz to UPS, who then decided not to use it?

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/

jawod wrote:
I am a Democrat. Even I can tell this is a smear job. Lots of
operatives out there with their "eyes on the prize". Don't be misled by
these emails. The gloves are off. Internet dispatches are ALL suspect.

We are all sailing in rough seas. In the end, each of us can pick the
candidate we are most comfortable with.

73,

John
AB8O

John,
I would respectfully beg to differ with you. This incident actually
happened a couple of years ago, -long- before he threw is hat in the
ring; no reason to 'smear' him back then...

In article ,
Carter-k8vt wrote:

jawod wrote:
I am a Democrat. Even I can tell this is a smear job. Lots of
operatives out there with their "eyes on the prize". Don't be misled by
these emails. The gloves are off. Internet dispatches are ALL suspect.

We are all sailing in rough seas. In the end, each of us can pick the
candidate we are most comfortable with.

73,

John
AB8O

John,
I would respectfully beg to differ with you. This incident actually
happened a couple of years ago, -long- before he threw is hat in the
ring; no reason to 'smear' him back then...

You miss the point, the smear is NOW. Why bring up comments that are
two years OLD, NOW? To smear the guy, is the only reason.....

In article ,
Carter-k8vt wrote:

jawod wrote:
I am a Democrat. Even I can tell this is a smear job. Lots of
operatives out there with their "eyes on the prize". Don't be misled by
these emails. The gloves are off. Internet dispatches are ALL suspect.

We are all sailing in rough seas. In the end, each of us can pick the
candidate we are most comfortable with.

73,

John
AB8O
John,
I would respectfully beg to differ with you. This incident actually
happened a couple of years ago, -long- before he threw is hat in the
ring; no reason to 'smear' him back then...

You wrote:

You miss the point, the smear is NOW.

No, 'You', I believe YOU miss the point. *Romney* said he did not like
ham radio operators. Words from *his* own mouth. Period.

Please tell me why -quoting- what HE ACTUALLY SAID is a smear...and if
by some stretch of the imagination, you manage to twist a direct quote
around as a being a smear, well then, Romney smeared himself. Finally,
are we to give him a free pass just because he said it 'x' number of
(years) (weeks) (days) ago?

Why bring up comments that are
two years OLD, NOW?

Well, because he never retracted the statement. Presumably then, these
are STILL his feelings towards hams. Again, does a negative statement he
makes just 'time out' and shouldn't be quoted after a certain period of
time even though he still stands by the statement? What period of time
would you suggest that after which, we just ignore what he said?