|
In article , Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:53:39 +1100, "Martin, VK2UMJ" wrote: If you support the landline linking of repeaters then you MUST also support the IRLP system, it is the exact same concept except using technology that makes it affordable to almost every ham.... But we don't. We don't support repeaters at all. It was when voice repeaters were introduced on the 2m and 70cm bands in the early seventies that the rot began to set in. 73 de G3NYY Well finally we see your colours. Anything this side of 1950 must really hurt your point of view. I'm sorry for calling you a **TROLL*, your simply stuck in a time warp....you just dont know any better |
In article , Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 06:44:07 GMT, Concerned Amateur wrote: Sure olle Bean, I would love to live in a country that never sees sunshine.. That is preferable to living in the country with the world's highest incidence of skin cancer. And I am not Bean. You are thinking of someone else! ;-) 73 de G3NYY You put on a hat and shirt to stop the sun. In your part of the UK, you sit inside with the heater on.....I'd rather live outside than forever under grey skies. Then again, this is where you get all this time to get bitter and twisted about AR definitions and post so prolifically..nothing better to do, dreary old life.... Come down to OZ and your skin might stop looking so pale.... |
In article , Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:27:30 +1100, "nana" wrote: Applying that logic, if a licensed amateur speaks on a cellphone, that's ham radio. Well, applying USA logic, if I had a phone patch from a cellphone to a 2m radio, then yes, it would still be Ham Radio. Just as their LL phones patched into their repeaters are classed as Ham Radio. There is NO difference. Well, fortunately phone patch is NOT amateur radio in this country. Hopefully, it never will be. 73 de G3NYY Yes, I wish Amateur Radio would live in a vacuum too and that I could ignore everything else around me like you do.... You must live in an amazing world..... |
In article , Martin, VK2UMJ wrote:
People like YOU are the main reason newcomers decide to dump ham radio or not even start in the first place. Stuck up, pompass, arrogant old fossils stuck in the past and unwilling to even consider new or changing technology. I guess you also have your very own group of fellow hams (those that haven't been moved to a nursing home yet) that you regularly chat to on HF, refusing to admit any newcomers to the QSO because, let's face it, if they didn't have to totally build their own radio using nothing but safety pins, paperclips and the wire from an old AM wireless, AND have a written reference from Morse himself, then they just aren't hams, are they.... Oh, and by the way, you really need to keep up with the thread - some of your fellow 'debaters' have already admitted that repeater linking by landline is perfectly acceptable, so you can't even manage to get your own side to agree with your opinions!! What a JOKE!!! Sorry Walt, but IMHO (In My Humble Opinion for the oldies) ham radio would be far better without YOU, and those like YOU. Otherwise, the hobby will no doubt die as operators like you constantly alienate new technology and newcomers alike. Hope you enjoy the onset of BPL!!! Martin Your correct with your posting, olle **GRUMPY** here has finally shown us the colours of his bloomers and we can see, its not IRLP thats the problem, he's just unhappy he's continued breathing beyond 1970. You cant expect more when life is boring and it always rains, you get crotch rot and it appears olle Walty has a bad dose of it. It was only a matter of time before we worked out what was **REALLY** driving him....and I thought he was a **TROLL**.. just a plain unhappy POM...... |
"Walt Davidson" wrote in message ... On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 06:44:07 GMT, Concerned Amateur wrote: Sure olle Bean, I would love to live in a country that never sees sunshine.. That is preferable to living in the country with the world's highest incidence of skin cancer. only for those people who migrate from old dart and europe. Alf VK5ZKL And I am not Bean. You are thinking of someone else! ;-) 73 de G3NYY -- Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com |
Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:53:39 +1100, "Martin, VK2UMJ" wrote: If you support the landline linking of repeaters then you MUST also support the IRLP system, it is the exact same concept except using technology that makes it affordable to almost every ham.... But we don't. We don't support repeaters at all. It was when voice repeaters were introduced on the 2m and 70cm bands in the early seventies that the rot began to set in. It was when voice repeaters were introduced on the 2m and 70cm bands that amateur radio finally began to realise it's true potential! G-S |
Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 06:44:07 GMT, Concerned Amateur wrote: Sure olle Bean, I would love to live in a country that never sees sunshine.. That is preferable to living in the country with the world's highest incidence of skin cancer. And I am not Bean. You are thinking of someone else! You talk like Bean though! G-S VK3DMN |
Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 06:48:24 GMT, Concerned Amateur wrote: IRLP is an **extension** of Hamradio, get over it.... IRLP is a malignant carbuncle on the once-respected hobby of amateur radio. We need to get rid of it without delay before the cancer spreads farther. That won't happen. What will happen is that the old dinosaurs who have held back amateur radio from advancing into the 21st century will finally die off and then we won't have to listen to the whinging from them anymore :-) G-S VK3DMN |
Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:27:30 +1100, "nana" wrote: Applying that logic, if a licensed amateur speaks on a cellphone, that's ham radio. Well, applying USA logic, if I had a phone patch from a cellphone to a 2m radio, then yes, it would still be Ham Radio. Just as their LL phones patched into their repeaters are classed as Ham Radio. There is NO difference. Well, fortunately phone patch is NOT amateur radio in this country. Hopefully, it never will be. Hopefully it will be here, and I'm sure many amateurs would wish it will be in the land of the eternally whinging! G-S VK3DMN |
"nana" wrote:
The IRLP CANNOT be accessed by others. It is STRICTLY designed for radio to radio access only. ECHOLINK can be accessed by others and is NOT the topic of conversation. Just for the record, everyone on Echolink (links and individuals alike) have been validated by one of the Echolink validation team. I'm not sure that it is really necessary, but it happens. So, like it or not, there's very little chance of a non-licenced person using Echolink. .... and (lest we forget) what does it really matter anyway? ... This is a hobby. There are authorities whose job it is to ensure only those with licences transmit. We are just end users of the service. I for one don't really care whether the chap at the other end actually has a licence or not providing he sounds and behaves like a radio amateur. I will not hesitate to talk to someone who gives a callsign and sounds like an amateur. I pay my licence, and leave it to the authorities to sort out if he is bona fide or not. Here, we pay to renew our licences every year. How is someone supposed to know whether someone who was a bona fide amateur has paid for the forthcoming year. Of course, we don't know, but if he behaves like an amateur, we assume he is licenced. 73, -- Chris |
Walt Davidson wrote:
IRLP is a malignant carbuncle on the once-respected hobby of amateur radio. We need to get rid of it without delay before the cancer spreads farther. What a familiar refrain! If newsgroups and the internet had been about when the repeater network was started in the early 1970s, I bet you'd have said exactly the same thing about them too! The frequencies of internet links and repeaters are well publisised, and it is easy for anyone with even a small brian to avoid using those frequencies and get on with whatever parts of the hobby turn you on. 73, -- Chris |
Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:28:17 +1100, G-S wrote: It was when voice repeaters were introduced on the 2m and 70cm bands that amateur radio finally began to realise it's true potential .... Yes, very true. Repeaters are a crutch for the lazy and inept who don't have sufficient technical expertise to make a radio contact without using a relay station. IRLP is pretty much the same. And what makes you think I lack sufficient technical expertise to operate a radio or build a radio or accessories? I have done all those in the past. I have demonstrated those skills... I choose to use a more modern method because it is simply better and more efficient! G-S VK3DMN |
Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:30:48 GMT, Concerned Amateur wrote: But we don't. We don't support repeaters at all. It was when voice repeaters were introduced on the 2m and 70cm bands in the early seventies that the rot began to set in. 73 de G3NYY Well finally we see your colours. Anything this side of 1950 must really hurt your point of view. I'm sorry for calling you a **TROLL*, your simply stuck in a time warp....you just dont know any better Repeaters were the beginning of the CB-ization of the amateur bands. It's been a downhill slide ever since. You really have a bee in your bonet about CBers don't you! They are simply not relevant to amateur radio or the issues being discussed here. G-S VK3DMN |
Martin, VK2UMJ wrote:
If you wish to argue against systems that allow access from the internet rather than from & to radio, then please go pick on EchoLink.. Hee Hee, do I smell a deflection tactic here? Before you go and pick on Echolink, and if you don't want to appear a total prat, be sure to comprehend that everyone using Echolink has been validated by a team of people, and in many cases, have been asked to send a scan of their licences before getting access to the system. 73, -- Chris |
Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:23:43 GMT, "wonderer" wrote: only for those people who migrate from old dart and europe. Alf VK5ZKL I thought that was where you all migrated from, OM ... although some of you had no choice in the matter! Australia is a vibrant multi cultural society... we are _proud_ of being mongrels... and basic genetic knowledge shows that crossbreeding generally strengthens the breed... unlike restricted inbreeding! G-S VK3DMN |
Walt Davidson wrote:
But we don't. We don't support repeaters at all. It was when voice repeaters were introduced on the 2m and 70cm bands in the early seventies that the rot began to set in. No, the rot set in in the 1960s when many newly licenced G3R and G3S stations started flouting the rules by flagrantly exceeding the 400 watt output power limit on top band. Lets ban Top Band instead. g -- Chris |
Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:33:24 +1100, G-S wrote: That won't happen. What will happen is that the old dinosaurs who have held back amateur radio from advancing into the 21st century will finally die off and then we won't have to listen to the whinging from them anymore :-) G-S VK3DMN What a familiar refrain! Glad to hear you have enlighted people over there also! If I hadn't seen the callsign, I could have sworn it emanated from one of the usual M3/CB/Fools' Licence apologists that frequent uk.radio.amateur. Obviously they have the same problems down under as we experience here. I've been licensed over 25 years, full call for almost that long. For almost that long I've been lobbying and arguing for the changes that you complain so much about. I am pleased that the amateur community is finally coming to it's senses and implementing some of the measures that I and other forward thinking amateurs have been arguing in support of for so long :-) G-S VK3DMN |
"Chris Kirby" wrote in message
... "nana" wrote: The IRLP CANNOT be accessed by others. It is STRICTLY designed for radio to radio access only. ECHOLINK can be accessed by others and is NOT the topic of conversation. Just for the record, everyone on Echolink (links and individuals alike) have been validated by one of the Echolink validation team. I'm not sure that it is really necessary, but it happens. So, like it or not, there's very little chance of a non-licenced person using Echolink. ... and (lest we forget) what does it really matter anyway? ... This is a hobby. There are authorities whose job it is to ensure only those with licences transmit. We are just end users of the service. I for one don't really care whether the chap at the other end actually has a licence or not providing he sounds and behaves like a radio amateur. I will not hesitate to talk to someone who gives a callsign and sounds like an amateur. I pay my licence, and leave it to the authorities to sort out if he is bona fide or not. I must say that I have to disagree with you on this point OM. If we, as the hobbyists, have little interest in the use of the bands by 'pirates', then why should the authorities be concerned. Amateur Radio has, in most parts of the world, always been largely "self regulating" which means it is primarily up to us, the users, to ensure the bands are used properly and report any unlawful operations to the authorities. This is largely because we, as licensed amateurs, are supposedly "responsible persons" that are more than capable of taking care of "our hobby" If we show little interst in this, you can be assured the bands will fall into disarray and the authorities will start to regard us as no more than CBers with more frequencies. Here, we pay to renew our licences every year. How is someone supposed to know whether someone who was a bona fide amateur has paid for the forthcoming year. Of course, we don't know, but if he behaves like an amateur, we assume he is licenced. Callbooks, databases, common knowledge. I do not mean to say that we should be 100% certain of all contacts, or that we should go 'out of our way' to check every single contact, but by the same token we should NEVER adopt the attitude "it's not my problem" and "I don't care if he is licensed or not". They are very dangerous attitudes to have and will, eventually, spell the end of Amateur Radio. What reason do we give newcomers to study and sit their exam if they know you will talk to them anyway? We might as well just change the bands to CB now and open it up to anyone - that is basically what you are advocating. Now, open the debates!! -- Martin, VK2UMJ To reply by e-mail, replace ".invalid" with ".com.au" Windows 95 was unable to detect a keyboard. Press F1 to continue, or F3 to exit. |
"Walt Davidson" wrote in message
... On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:30:48 GMT, Concerned Amateur wrote: But we don't. We don't support repeaters at all. It was when voice repeaters were introduced on the 2m and 70cm bands in the early seventies that the rot began to set in. 73 de G3NYY Well finally we see your colours. Anything this side of 1950 must really hurt your point of view. I'm sorry for calling you a **TROLL*, your simply stuck in a time warp....you just dont know any better Repeaters were the beginning of the CB-ization of the amateur bands. It's been a downhill slide ever since. So, if you don't support repeaters, so supposedly don't listen to them, and IRLP is primarily linking repeaters, then WHY THE HELL ARE YOU CRAPPING ON??? You obviously are NOT affected by IRLP - you don't use repeaters, and by the sounds of it probably nothing above HF bands either, so IRLP is NOT a concern to you! You are just a typical whinging dickhead that has to stir as many people as possible - in short a TROLL. I think the best bet is to killfile you AND list your callsign amongst those to ignore on air, but then I would not be able to laugh at the continuous rantings you keep coming up with in a futile attempt to justfy your own shortcomings. |
Repeaters are a crutch for the lazy and inept who don't have
sufficient technical expertise to make a radio contact without using a relay station. IRLP is pretty much the same. 73 de G3NYY -- Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com That is so much ******** Walt, it defies reason. That is trolling at it's finest. This country is 31.5 times larger than the UK, those vast distances require much better systems for any sort of coverage and repeaters are the way to do it. Whilst I operate 40m mobile a lot, it isn't the total solution, nor is the simplex VHF coverage due to hilly terrain. Brad. |
"Walt Davidson" wrote in message ... On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:23:43 GMT, "wonderer" wrote: only for those people who migrate from old dart and europe. Alf VK5ZKL I thought that was where you all migrated from, OM ... although some of you had no choice in the matter! nah born Whyalla south aus dink di astralian. paternal grandmothe migrated from ireland matenal grandmother from good old scotland no forced imagation on either side of the family both came from noble countries. Alf VK5ZKL :-) 73 de G3NYY -- Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com |
Walt Davidson wrote:
Chris wrote: Just for the record, everyone on Echolink (links and individuals alike) have been validated by one of the Echolink validation team. I'm not sure that it is really necessary, but it happens. So, like it or not, there's very little chance of a non-licenced person using Echolink. How can you possibly do that? The Echolink validation team, as you call them, do not have privileged access to licensing records ... and we are talking about worldwide records, not just the UK. If someone appeared under a callsign randomly selected from the callbook, or even just made up an unallocated M3 callsign and came on Echolink, how would you know he wasn't a pirate? Nowt to do with me, Walt. I've nothing to do with the Echolink validation team. You'd better ask them that. I know, however, that newly licenced amateurs have to send off a scan of their licence to one of that team. How do you know my licence hasn't expired? If you give a real callsign, and sound like a real amateur, then I don't really care. I wish the authorities monitored on-air, and checked rather more than they do, but AFAIAC it is not my (or any amateur's) job. 73, -- Chris |
"Martin, VK2UMJ" wrote in message ... But if we look at it from that view then the whole of Amateur Radio should be considered nothing more than CB... You're not far wrong there :) -- 73s de Walter R. |
"Walt Davidson" wrote in message ... On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:56:31 +0000, Chris Kirby wrote: Just for the record, everyone on Echolink (links and individuals alike) have been validated by one of the Echolink validation team. I'm not sure that it is really necessary, but it happens. So, like it or not, there's very little chance of a non-licenced person using Echolink. How can you possibly do that? The Echolink validation team, as you call them, do not have privileged access to licensing records ... and we are talking about worldwide records, not just the UK. If someone appeared under a callsign randomly selected from the callbook, or even just made up an unallocated M3 callsign and came on Echolink, how would you know he wasn't a pirate? How do you know my licence hasn't expired? easy for australians the aca data base is publick domain 73 de G3NYY -- Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com |
"Walt Davidson" wrote in message ... Australians seem to have a preoccupation with lavatorial matters. I discovered that a lot of them think it's amusing to fart in company too. (An unpleasant trait that they share with Cardiff people of both sexes!) 73 de G3NYY This thread has just run and run has it not? -- 73s de Walter R. |
"Chris Kirby" wrote in message
... Martin, VK2UMJ wrote: If you wish to argue against systems that allow access from the internet rather than from & to radio, then please go pick on EchoLink.. Hee Hee, do I smell a deflection tactic here? Before you go and pick on Echolink, and if you don't want to appear a total prat, be sure to comprehend that everyone using Echolink has been validated by a team of people, and in many cases, have been asked to send a scan of their licences before getting access to the system. Yes, and I am one of those that have been validated for EchoLink. But that is irrelevant to the debate about IRLP.... The argument is that IRLP uses radio linked by internet protocol, and as such is still amateur radio. IMHO Echolink, if used PC to PC, is definately not amateur radio. Perhaps if used PC to Radio, or Radio to PC, then it is still amateur radio, but EchoLink PC to PC is nothing different than Yahoo or MSN Messenger... IRLP is not the same... That is the debate.. |
In article , Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:28:17 +1100, G-S wrote: Repeaters are a crutch for the lazy and inept who don't have sufficient technical expertise to make a radio contact without using a relay station. IRLP is pretty much the same. 73 de G3NYY YAWN... looks like the **TROLL** woke up this morning.... |
In article , Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:06:16 +1100, G-S wrote: And what makes you think I lack sufficient technical expertise to operate a radio or build a radio or accessories? I have done all those in the past. I have demonstrated those skills... I choose to use a more modern method because it is simply better and more efficient! A better and more efficient method would be to use a cellphone or even an ordinary telephone. Amateur radio is not necessarily about being "better and more efficient". If you think it is, you've missed the point. 73 de G3NYY Thats where **YOU** have missed the point. Amateur Radio has demonstrated it can co-exist with the internet and has actually embraced it. Have you embraced Television, Gasoline Engines, the Global Economy ? I find it hard to understand how a **TROLL** like you can function in the 21st century... Go back to 40m and play with your pill poppin, haemoroid bound friends and leave the newer and more interesting technologies to people that can accept and accomodate them... |
In article , Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:30:48 GMT, Concerned Amateur wrote: But we don't. We don't support repeaters at all. It was when voice repeaters were introduced on the 2m and 70cm bands in the early seventies that the rot began to set in. 73 de G3NYY Well finally we see your colours. Anything this side of 1950 must really hurt your point of view. I'm sorry for calling you a **TROLL*, your simply stuck in a time warp....you just dont know any better Repeaters were the beginning of the CB-ization of the amateur bands. It's been a downhill slide ever since. 73 de G3NYY You cant live in piece with **ANYONE** can you. You are a **TROLL** out PHISHING..... |
In article , Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:07:51 +1100, G-S wrote: You really have a bee in your bonet about CBers don't you! They are simply not relevant to amateur radio ... I wholeheartedly agree. Let's keep them out of amateur radio! 73 de G3NYY ************TROLL**************** |
In article , Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:20:56 +1100, "Martin, VK2UMJ" wrote: Temper ... temper .... :-))) 73 de G3NYY *****************************TROLL**************** ********** |
In article , Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:07:55 GMT, Concerned Amateur wrote: nonsence. pompus It's a well-known characteristic of CBers that they are all illiterate. Your latest posting proves the point. 73 de G3NYY *****************************TROLL**************** ********* |
"Walter Raleigh" wrote:
: : "ZZZPK " .es.it.net wrote : in message ... : : "shoutred" : : "rwad" : : "yeh" : : "witht" : : "COMPULSRY" : : Glass houses and stones come to mind. When preaching to Brian about his : actions and beliefs, an attempt to respond in the same language would be : nice. DEOTH now... what were yousaying about GLASSHOUSES ???????????????????? |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:
: 73 de Simon, VK3XEM. : http://www.aca.gov.au/pls/radcom/cli...IENT_NO=157452 : VoIP http://www.TALKonIP.com.au/ : : You STILL don't get it do you? Try addressing what I am complaining about. : Or can't you do so without spinning things way out of wack? ONE MORE : TIME;;;;;;IT IS NOT HAM RADIO. IT IS INTERNET CONNECTED TO RADIO. DON'T : CALL IT HAM RADIO. : : Dan/W4NTI : : Dan youre wasting your time. some of the people on this newsgroup think they have an ADVANCED B-licence because they sat a morse assessment that 11year old kids can pass after one hour practice in a radio club the night before. others think that plugging a radio into a telephone socket is pushing the technolgoy to its limits! |
"ZZZPK " .es.it.net wrote in message ... DEOTH Ah yes, one typo, on an unfamiliar lap-top keyboard, quickly corrected in a follow up post, as opposed to a decade of pseudo-dyslexic repetitive drivel. I think you've beaten me there....sigh!. Incidentally, I don't use a spell-checker, perhaps you need to try it. -- 73s de Walter R. |
"Walt Davidson" wrote in message ... Well, it's a Bank Holiday ... and "idle hands will mischief make"! ;-) Indeed! Have a good one:) -- 73s de Walter R. |
Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:06:16 +1100, G-S wrote: And what makes you think I lack sufficient technical expertise to operate a radio or build a radio or accessories? I have done all those in the past. I have demonstrated those skills... I choose to use a more modern method because it is simply better and more efficient! A better and more efficient method would be to use a cellphone or even an ordinary telephone. Amateur radio is not necessarily about being "better and more efficient". If you think it is, you've missed the point. If you think it isn't then _you_ have missed the point. Amateur radio has been instrumental in the introduction of many new radio technologies over the last 100 odd years. As for not using repeaters do not forget you live on a green postage stamp sized country where simplex VHF is likely to cover a significant proportion of your country. I have an easy simplex 2m range FM range of about 100km to the north and West and about 50 km to the south and east. That covers an amateur population of about 200. Anecdotely about 50% are active sometimes and about 25% use VHF sometimes. That leaves about 50 amateurs most of whom are not very active. Repeaters provide a means of increasing the available amateurs for such activites as the local on repeater technical discussion night, organising the local swap meet and many other useful amateur radio related functions. G-S VK3DMN |
Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:07:51 +1100, G-S wrote: You really have a bee in your bonet about CBers don't you! They are simply not relevant to amateur radio ... I wholeheartedly agree. Let's keep them out of amateur radio! Until of course they pass the amateur radio license test, then lets welcome them with open arms to increase our numbers and broaden our appeal :-) [1] G-S VK3DMN [1] before they pass they are welcome to be SWL's! |
Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:11:18 +1100, G-S wrote: and basic genetic knowledge shows that crossbreeding generally strengthens the breed... It probably does ... for those who start off at rock-bottom in the gene pool, any such crossbreeding opportunity would be seen as a chance to better themselves. As against those inbred until the last trace of viability is gone :-) G-S VK3DMN |
ZZZPK wrote:
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote: : 73 de Simon, VK3XEM. : http://www.aca.gov.au/pls/radcom/cli...IENT_NO=157452 : VoIP http://www.TALKonIP.com.au/ : : You STILL don't get it do you? Try addressing what I am complaining : about. : Or can't you do so without spinning things way out of wack? ONE MORE : TIME;;;;;;IT IS NOT HAM RADIO. IT IS INTERNET CONNECTED TO RADIO. : DON'T CALL IT HAM RADIO. : : Dan/W4NTI : : Dan youre wasting your time. some of the people on this newsgroup think they have an ADVANCED B-licence because they sat a morse assessment that 11year old kids can pass after one hour practice in a radio club the night before. No, I sat the old fast morse test... thanks for playing... do come again :-) G-S VK3DMN |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com