Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 21:58:07 GMT, "Travis Jordan"
wrote:

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

Change 5/14/00 to 4/2/03 - *+*13068
Change 4/2/03 to 9/6/04 - -13072
Change 9/6/04 to 6/30/06 - -16974

What a perfect example if ignoring evidence that doesn't back up your
argument. There was no change in Morse from 5/14/00 to 4/2/03, yet we
GAINED over 13,000 hams, so how is a Morse requirement decreasing the
number of hams?

Hi Al -

Although it may be true I'm not arguing that the current Morse
requirement decreases the number of hams. However, two elements of the
OP's proposal we

3: Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.
4: Make the no-code license one year non-renewable

My point was that increasing the code requirements beyond those in place
as of 2003 would likely reduce the already declining rate of enrollment
of new hams.

Travis Jordan wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 21:58:07 GMT, "Travis Jordan"

Hi Al -

Although it may be true I'm not arguing that the current Morse
requirement decreases the number of hams. However, two elements of the
OP's proposal we

3: Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.
4: Make the no-code license one year non-renewable

My point was that increasing the code requirements beyond those in place
as of 2003 would likely reduce the already declining rate of enrollment
of new hams.
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

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.

----
In message .com,
makes a death threat when he writes "the mostly
ooccasion [sic] where where you might it will be seconds before you
die."

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.

OK, who are you going to take it from. And what are you going to do
once you get it.


Not Lloyd wrote:
"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

"John S." wrote in message
oups.com...
OK, who are you going to take it from. And what are you going to do
once you get it.



Those idiots couldn't take back an overdue library book.

BH