get help wrote:
On 27 Aug 2006 13:37:53 -0700, a welfare ham wrote:

in a time where numbers are declining but that does not maater to al
since the No Code techs are not hams anyway according to AL

Indeed you're not.

ah but we are indeed we are almost the majority of ham now now

On 27 Aug 2006 15:28:24 -0700, a welfare ham wrote:

get help wrote:
On 27 Aug 2006 13:37:53 -0700, a welfare ham wrote:

in a time where numbers are declining but that does not maater to al
since the No Code techs are not hams anyway according to AL

Indeed you're not.

ah but we are indeed we are almost like vermin now

Indeed you are.

----
In message om,
wrote "If I want a cock I go for a man if I
want pussy I go fo r a fmeale simple as that [sic]"

get help wrote:
On 27 Aug 2006 15:28:24 wrote:

get help wrote:

ah but we are indeed we are almost like vermin now

Indeed you are.
you are a forger poor loser

"an old freind" wrote in message
oups.com...

get help wrote:
On 27 Aug 2006 13:37:53 -0700, a welfare ham
wrote:

in a time where numbers are declining but that does not maater to al
since the No Code techs are not hams anyway according to AL

Indeed I'm not.

--
Mark caught forging using Steve's name.
"Steve's" post has headers:

X-Complaints-To:
X-Submitted-By: 66.82.9.42

Your reply contains headers:

NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.82.9.42
Injection-Info: 38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.82.9.42

'Nuff said.

www.marksspamblog.blogspot.com

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 18:49:38 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:57:46 -0500, "Not Lloyd" anon@anon wrote:


"an old freind" wrote in message
roups.com...

get help wrote:
On 27 Aug 2006 13:37:53 -0700, a welfare ham
wrote:

in a time where numbers are declining but that does not maater to al
since the No Code techs are not hams anyway according to AL

Indeed I'm a
poor forger

So why do you forge?

http://marksspamblog.blogspot.com

----
In message . com,
Mark Morgan replied "yes I did. your point?" when accused of
confessing publicly to having beer enemas.

The Kat wrote in
:

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:06:22 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:



WHY in the **** are you continuing this thread
in a SCANNER newsgroup??




Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.



Hey,

This thread is about CW and ham radio. You scanner assholes stay
out of it. Go find some police or fireman to listen to.

Sc

Slow Code wrote:
The Kat wrote in
:




Hey,

This thread is about CW and ham radio.
you started the thread in those gruops to troll them so you could bitch
when they complained

Nah, if ya can't beat 'em join 'em.... Help us out, we're making a Comm-Post
pile!

And my answer is this:

If someone took ham radio, let 'em have it. Fighting to get it back is like
fighting over a turd in the sewer.
Just enjoy what you have, and float on down the river, to your Cajun
hideaway.....
rb



"Travis Jordan" wrote in message
m...
Slow Code wrote:
1: No more

Please don't feed the trolls.

Well... I can remember my dad filling 'er up with Fire Chief Hi-Test back in
the day, at the Sunoco station.
I'm a summer of love baby so not too old yet, LOL.
rb

"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:59:00 GMT, "Woody" wrote:

Oh, and .75 cent gasoline too....

25 cent gas. I guess I'm older than you.

OK.... taking a poll....

By replying only in CW, either text dit-dah, or periods and hyphens......

How many people actually read that, and what is your analysis of the report?

I am running a script to see how long it takes you to click reply, enter
your response,
then click send. Your effective scaled-score code speed will be calculated
from those particular
clicks, along with the character count of the message. You will be made fun
of, according to your
CW speed. Anyone less than 24wpm will be required to take the new FCC
remedial code speed
Enzyte Exam for phallic phlops.

Gentlemen, gud luck.
rb




"Travis Jordan" wrote in message
. ..
Slow Code wrote:
1: No more

Amateur radio is in decline and you think putting Morse code back in as
a requirement would help?

Bwhahahahaha.
----------------
Statistics courtesy of George McCouch, K3UD.

Total active individual licenses as of May 14, 2000:
Novice - 49,329
Tech/+ - 334,254
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750

Total all classes - 674,792

Total active individual licenses as of June 30, 2006:
Novice - 24,877 (-49.57%) (-24,456)
Tech/+ - 320,242 (-4.20%) (-14,012)
General - 132,758 (+17.82%) (+20,081)
Advanced - 71,753 (-28.13%) (-28,029)
Extra - 108,184 (+37.38%) (+29,434)

Total All Classes: 657,814 (-1,405 since the March 2006 reporting
period)

Total all classes (5/14/00) - 674,792
Total all Classes (4/21/03) - 687,860
Total all classes (9/6/04 ) - 674,788
Total all classes (6/30/06) - 657,814

Total loss of 16,978 since 5/14/2000 (Was 674,792)
Total loss of 16,974 since 9/6/2004 (Was 674,788)
Total Loss of 30,066 since 4/2003 (all time high of 687,860)

We lost:
842 Novice
1,088 General
1,157 Advanced
3,087 Total

We Gained:
1,258 Tech/+
424 Extra
1,682 Total

This is an overall 1,405 decline since the March reporting period
and averages 467 per month for the quarter.

For the months March April and May the new licenses issued
break down as follows.

6,999 Tech/+ 89.3% **
627 General 8.0%
217 Extra 2.7%

Total new licenses issues during the period - 7,849

** These numbers come from the very interesting and comprehensive
website of Joe Speroni, AH0A http://www.ah0a.org

Numbers of US population and the number of hams at the start of each
decade from 1930.

Year Population # Hams Growth Rate
1930 123,202,624 19,000
1940 132,164,569 56,000 194%
1950 151,325,798 87,000 55%
1960 179,323,175 230,000 164%
1970 203,211,926 263,918 15%
1980 226,545,805 393,353 49%
1990 248,709,873 502,677 28%
2000 281,421,906 682,240 36%
2006 657,814 -3.6 %

The 2006 number was as of June 30, 2006.