| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
July 28th 07, 01:55 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
|
|||
|
|||
July 23, 2007 ARS License Numbers
On Jul 27, 2:39?pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote: - Some hams haven't gotten the word I still have prospective Hams tell me that they have to brush up on their Morse code so they can test. Oddly enough a few fellows continued in that line of even after I told them they didn't need to. I just don't understand that at all. For example, I have had more than one Advanced tell me that s/he won't upgrade to Extra because the Advanced "proves" the person passed a code test, while the Extra doesn't. Same here! I suppose that if a person runs with a crowd that sees that as somehow being better than other people it might be legit. Otherwise it strikes me as really odd. Which is a better indicator of Morse Code skill: 1) Once upon a time, maybe decades ago, a person passed a particular test under certain conditions or 2) A person demonstrating their *current* skills under real-world operating conditions? Seems to me #2 is the better indicator. Others have told me that they're sure FCC will eventually give Advanceds a free upgrade to Extra, so they're just waiting it out. Even when I point out that FCC has repeatedly turned down auto-upgrade proposals, they aren't convinced. I'd tell them the same thing I told those who waited out element one's demise: "If the wait doesn't bother you, then go ahead and wait." There were people telling me to wait it out back in 1999 "because Element 1 will be going away any day now!" But I didn't wait, and I wouldn't trade the extra 7 years I had my General and Extra for anything. When I got my Extra in 1970, some folks said I was wasting my time and effort because "incentive licensing won't last - in a few years Generals will have all privileges again..." At least one I know feels insulted that it takes the same testing to go from General to Extra as it does to go from Advanced to Extra. Oh my! Does this person want a special test made up just for him? Actually, yes - or rather, for all Advanceds. Exactly what dud they see as insulting about having to take the same test? He was angry that having passed the old Advanced written did not carry any testing credit towards Extra. Perhaps there is someone out there who is determined to be the last make that "Advanced" or the last Novice on the books. Did you mean Advanced instead of Extra? Yes - sorry! Sooner or later, the last of those closed-off licenses will disappear. It may take a very long time, though - the number of Advanceds today is about 67% of what it was when the license class was closed to new issues. While we have discussed lots of reasons for that decline, I know of another possibility, at least for a delay. I know several Hams who waited for the Element one to go away after it was eliminated from the treaty yet not gone from our testing requirements. The long wait made for an upgrade delay on some peoples part. I thought that the delay was actually a harmful thing in that respect. IOW: "if you're going to change the rules, change 'em! Don't take 3-1/2 years to make such a simple change!" I think the amateur radio organizations that pushed for the changes bear some responsibility for that delay. Here's why: It seems to me that the way we US hams deal with the FCC is completely backwards. What happens is that an individual or group puts together a proposal and sends it to FCC, who then assigns it an RM number and puts it up there for comments. FCC gets anywhere from a few to a few thousand comments of all kinds, somebody at FCC has to read them and categorize them and figure out the best course of action. Often the comments are all over the map, or solidly against the proposed change. What all this does is make a lot of unnecessary work for the FCC. Two examples: When the ITU treaty changed, FCC got more than a dozen different proposals about changing the license structure. One organization, NCVEC, sent in two proposals! Some of the proposals were essentially identical to others, such as the NCI proposal and the first NCVEC proposal. The result was that FCC had to assign RM numbers and deal with thousands of comments before taking any action. Which then resulted in an NPRM, still more comments, and finally action after 3-1/2 *years*. Or consider the ARRL "regulation by bandwidth" proposal, and the "Communications Think Tank" proposal to eliminate subbands-by-mode. Both proposals were opposed by a vast majority of commenters (I counted something like 7 to 1 against the ARRL proposal and 8 to 1 against the CTT proposal) and both were quietly withdrawn by those who proposed them - after they had generated a lot of work for FCC. What *should* be done, IMHO, is for amateur organizations to do the legwork up-front. IOW, I think the way to do a proposal is: 1) Gather up lots of opinions from the amateur community 2) Write a draft proposal 3) Present it to the amateur community, with clear explanation of what is proposed and why. 4) Gather more opinions by means of surveys, polls, etc. 5) Rework the draft proposal based on the input received 6 Repeat steps 3 through 5 until a proposal gets a clear and compelling majority of support from the amateur community, and the opposition's points are dealt with.IOW, build a consensus *first* 7) Submit the proposal to FCC, including the survey/poll results. If all that were done, FCC would assign an RM number and then be flooded with supportive comments. FCC could then easily rubber-stamp approval of the proposal. But doing it that way takes a lot of grunt work, time, and effort. Also takes compromise. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#2
July 30th 07, 06:25 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
|
|||
|
|||
|
July 23, 2007 ARS License Numbers
|
|
#3
July 31st 07, 02:54 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
|
|||
|
|||
|
July 23, 2007 ARS License Numbers
On Jul 30, 12:25?pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote: On Jul 27, 2:39?pm, Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: I told him that while he would still want to study it, He didn't need to learn Morse for the test because they didn't test for it any more. He said "Maybe in a few months, because I still am not up to speed for the Morse code part of the test"....... I'd guess that he simply didn't understand you. Remember that we have had no-code-test ham licenses in the USA for 16 years now. But we've only hand no-code-test ham licenses in the USA for five months! Which is a better indicator of Morse Code skill: 1) Once upon a time, maybe decades ago, a person passed a particular test under certain conditions or 2) A person demonstrating their *current* skills under real-world operating conditions? Seems to me #2 is the better indicator. Absolutely. If a person knows how to "walk the walk" then they are there. What test they took is close to irrelevant. Actually I would say it was relevant the other way - if a person passed a test once upon a time, but couldn't pass it today. I am particularly concerned when I read or hear hams say they could not pass the current exams for the licenses they hold! IMO, the Testing process is the beginning, not the destination. I disagree. It's not a destination, it's a journey. When I got my Extra in 1970, some folks said I was wasting my time and effort because "incentive licensing won't last - in a few years Generals will have all privileges again..." Kinda another example of what I was talking about above. Even if they were correct that the incentive licensing would go away, it's hard to fault picking up knowledge. Sort of. If you don't have an HDTV, but want one, and you thought the price would drop significantly in the near future, you'd probably wait a bit. However, it's been 37 years since I was told that incentive licensing would go away soon.... Actually, yes - or rather, for all Advanceds. Some of us might think that was a pretty hefty sense of entitlement! Exactly what dud they see as insulting about having to take the same test? He was angry that having passed the old Advanced written did not carry any testing credit towards Extra. Wow. I guess that the only way to sate this fellow might be to throw away a lot of the questions. Of course then he might be angry that he is paying the same that a General pays to upgrade! He'd be paying more per test question! ;^) I think the only thing that would have made him happy would have been to either auto-upgrade all Advanceds to Extra with no test, or to keep alive the old Element 4B just so Advanceds could take it instead of Element 4. IOW: "if you're going to change the rules, change 'em! Don't take 3-1/2 years to make such a simple change!" Absolutely. While I didn't win the poll that we had a long time ago in another group, I wasn't all that far off. It should have only taken 6 months, a year tops. Even then, it could have been more like "this is what is going to happen then, instead of being a minor mystery until the end. I remember when the treaty changed in 2003, and the ARRL story on it said the process would take two years. I thought that was wildy exaggerated. Turns out it was short by over a year. What *should* be done, IMHO, is for amateur organizations to do the legwork up-front. IOW, I think the way to do a proposal is: 1) Gather up lots of opinions from the amateur community 2) Write a draft proposal 3) Present it to the amateur community, with clear explanation of what is proposed and why. 4) Gather more opinions by means of surveys, polls, etc. 5) Rework the draft proposal based on the input received 6 Repeat steps 3 through 5 until a proposal gets a clear and compelling majority of support from the amateur community, and the opposition's points are dealt with.IOW, build a consensus *first* 7) Submit the proposal to FCC, including the survey/poll results. If all that were done, FCC would assign an RM number and then be flooded with supportive comments. FCC could then easily rubber-stamp approval of the proposal. But doing it that way takes a lot of grunt work, time, and effort. Also takes compromise. Jim, that is an excellent proposal. I think it might be a great way to keep the league in (better?) touch with the Ham community. It's not just ARRL that I'm referring to - it's anyone writing a proposal. It would certainly allow Hams to offer feedback and interactivity. It would be a semi-direct conduit, coordinated by the organization(s). It's also a lot of boring work! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#4
July 30th 07, 08:23 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
|
|||
|
|||
|
July 23, 2007 ARS License Numbers
|
|
#5
July 30th 07, 10:06 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
|
|||
|
|||
|
July 23, 2007 ARS License Numbers
Steve Bonine wrote:
wrote: What *should* be done, IMHO, is for amateur organizations to do the legwork up-front. IOW, I think the way to do a proposal is: 1) Gather up lots of opinions from the amateur community 2) Write a draft proposal 3) Present it to the amateur community, with clear explanation of what is proposed and why. 4) Gather more opinions by means of surveys, polls, etc. 5) Rework the draft proposal based on the input received 6 Repeat steps 3 through 5 until a proposal gets a clear and compelling majority of support from the amateur community, and the opposition's points are dealt with.IOW, build a consensus *first* 7) Submit the proposal to FCC, including the survey/poll results. I suspect that that's what the ARRL thinks they're doing now. The problem is that on any issue that's controversial, step 6 is going to be tough, if not impossible. Think of how hard it is to get a "compelling majority of support from the amateur community" on the issue of what the code requirements should be for the various classes of license. Certainly correct, Steve. I think what we need to eventually get into is that sometimes decisions need to be made, and if we can make them as democratically as possible, then we have done the best we can. There is a subculture within amateur radio that sees every change as a life threatening problem. I think that the regulation by bandwidth's death was a hint of how the process could work. If all that were done, FCC would assign an RM number and then be flooded with supportive comments. FCC could then easily rubber-stamp approval of the proposal. Contentious issues tend to split the amateur radio community into segments that are unlikely to agree on any single proposal. No matter what you end up with, there is going to be a significant fraction of the fraternity that will file negative comments. You're right, and I sometimes wonder about that. We still have people complaining about age-old grievances. It would be great to evolve the service from members carrying lifetime grudges to one in which they accept what happens and if they don't like it, work to change it - but give up old battles which mean nothing any more. Kind of like those Hams that Jim was speaking of who wouldn't test because of wanting to prove they took a "harder test" than someone like me. Or not upgrading because of taking the same written that I did when I went from General to Extra. For example, I have to wonder whether the regulation by bandwidth proposal died because the ARRL didn't work hard enough for consensus, or because the amateur radio community is simply opposed to any regulation by bandwidth proposal. I honestly don't know; perhaps if ARRL had worked harder for consensus, there would have been less negative comments filed. I suspect that there was a lot of opposition to the proposal. I know most of what I heard or read about was ramifications of what would happen if it were to be accepted. Then there are the comments from the NON-ham-radio community. BPL, for example . . . there are plenty of segments that will file comments against whatever the ARRL might come up with. There's nothing that they can do about that. BPL unfortunately is another nasty kettle of fish. As something that happens both outside and inside of amateur radio, it will get commentary from both ham radio and outside users. But doing it that way takes a lot of grunt work, time, and effort. Also takes compromise. And without the compromise, the work, time, and effort go for naught. I have not observed that hams, in general, are eager to compromise. You are correct in that. I think that maybe the tide might be turning in that respect - at least I hope so. In any political atmosphere - and for better or worse, we are stuck in one - when no one compromises, it is a great failure mode. If not right away, all we have to do is wait. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#6
July 31st 07, 02:55 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
|
|||
|
|||
|
July 23, 2007 ARS License Numbers
On Jul 30, 2:23?pm, Steve Bonine wrote:
wrote: What *should* be done, IMHO, is for amateur organizations to do the legwork up-front. IOW, I think the way to do a proposal is: 1) Gather up lots of opinions from the amateur community 2) Write a draft proposal 3) Present it to the amateur community, with clear explanation of what is proposed and why. 4) Gather more opinions by means of surveys, polls, etc. 5) Rework the draft proposal based on the input received 6 Repeat steps 3 through 5 until a proposal gets a clear and compelling majority of support from the amateur community, and the opposition's points are dealt with.IOW, build a consensus *first* 7) Submit the proposal to FCC, including the survey/poll results. I suspect that that's what the ARRL thinks they're doing now. With all due respect, it may be what they think they are doing, but it's not what they *are* doing. For example, was the original "Regulation By Bandwidth" proposal shown in QST and on the website where it could be seen by all? I don't recall that - instead, I recall it being described, but not the whole text given out. Was there a questionaire of all ARRL members about the proposal *before* it was sent to FCC? Were the results of such research published, and the proposal modified because of it? The problem is that on any issue that's controversial, step 6 is going to be tough, if not impossible. Think of how hard it is to get a "compelling majority of support from the amateur community" on the issue of what the code requirements should be for the various classes of license. I think the biggest part of that difficulty is lack of clear communications. Imagine if there had been a detailed survey of all ARRL members, or all US hams, on that very subject back in 2003 or so. Imagine if the results of such a survey were made public, so that everyone could see that X percent of US hams support Y amount of code- testing for license class Z Imagine if a proposal were crafted to follow that information, and the information presented to FCC along with the proposal. And imagine if there were creative options proposed on divisive issues. For example, look at how Canada solved the Morse code test issue. Why wasn't something like that proposed by ARRL? (I put it in my comments, btw). If all that were done, FCC would assign an RM number and then be flooded with supportive comments. FCC could then easily rubber-stamp approval of the proposal. Contentious issues tend to split the amateur radio community into segments that are unlikely to agree on any single proposal. No matter what you end up with, there is going to be a significant fraction of the fraternity that will file negative comments. Of course. But having a significant fraction opposed is a lot better than having a *majority* opposed! For example, I have to wonder whether the regulation by bandwidth proposal died because the ARRL didn't work hard enough for consensus, or because the amateur radio community is simply opposed to any regulation by bandwidth proposal. I honestly don't know; perhaps if ARRL had worked harder for consensus, there would have been less negative comments filed. I think it's a combination of factors. First off, the "RBB" proposal would have allowed data modes in the 'phone subbands. A lot of hams didn't like that, even though RBB also widened those subbands. What really ticked off a lot of folks was that RBB would have changed the rules on "robot" data stations. The kicker, IMHO, was that ARRL did not do the hard work to get the support *before* submitting the proposal. All that did was galvanize the opposition to action. And it's not just an ARRL problem. Look at the "Communications Think Tank" proposal, and how much opposition it generated! Made RBB look popular by comparison. Then there are the comments from the NON-ham-radio community. BPL, for example . . . there are plenty of segments that will file comments against whatever the ARRL might come up with. There's nothing that they can do about that. No, there isn't. But if you look at the various Part 97 RM and NPRM comments that have come down the pipe in the past decade or two, the vast majority are from already-licensed hams. It's really a rare event when a nonham sends in comments. But doing it that way takes a lot of grunt work, time, and effort. Also takes compromise. And without the compromise, the work, time, and effort go for naught. I have not observed that hams, in general, are eager to compromise. Well, we'll have to disagree about that. What I've seen is that people in general and hams in particular are willing to compromise *if* what is proposed is a true compromise - which means you give some and you get some. For example, consider again the RBB proposal. It offered the HF 'phone op slightly wider subbands - and the possibility of having to deal with wide data signals from robots all over those subbands! Not a good compromise. Or consider the CW op. RBB offered *narrower* subbands and the possibility of robot QRM all over those narrower subbands! (Yes, I know CW can legally be used anywhere, but how much actual real CW operation goes on in the 'phone subbands?) The end result was a coalition of "NO!" Now suppose RBB had included things like a slice of CW-only space for the CW ops, a slice of no-data space for the 'phone ops, and a slice of "all modes" space for everybody. The result might have been very different. The big mistake ARRL (and CTT, and many others) make is that they don't really know how popular their proposals are *before* submitting them to FCC. Whatever is the point of *any* amateur radio group submitting a Part 97 proposal that generates 70, 80, 90% negative comments? All that does is annoy FCC, IMHO. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#7
July 31st 07, 08:52 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
|
|||
|
|||
|
July 23, 2007 ARS License Numbers
|
|
#8
August 3rd 07, 03:44 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
|
|||
|
|||
|
July 23, 2007 ARS License Numbers
On Jul 31, 2:52 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote: The big mistake ARRL (and CTT, and many others) make is that they don't really know how popular their proposals are *before* submitting them to FCC. Whatever is the point of *any* amateur radio group submitting a Part 97 proposal that generates 70, 80, 90% negative comments? All that does is annoy FCC, IMHO. The way I see it is that indeed the proposal was a big mistake. The folks who were all about the robot stations effectively took over the process, and hoped to push things through with their agenda intact. I don't know if 'the folks who were all about the robot stations' took over the process or not. But that doesn't matter. What I do know is that there was a widespread *perception* that RBB was "all about robots" and conducted behind closed doors. That *perception* was pure poison when comment-time came around. It galvanized so many hams into writing anti-RBB comments that the good parts of the proposal were lost in the uproar. The really sad thing is that the BoD, who OK'd the proposal, didn't see all that ahead of time. This is not an unusual thing. Many different groups see their own interests as paramount to the "big picture" in Ham radio (though it isn't exclusive to the ARS) Of course. And the way you get around that sort of resistance is to let all groups have their say, and come up with proposals that give everybody something of what they want. I've sat through lectures from Emergency Operation fans on how amateur radio MUST change to acommodate their particular view. Pro contesters/anti contesters, the different folks involved all have a vision of what the service needs to be. Sure. And they're almost all right! The trick is to make room for everyone. For example, I think WinLink/Pactor/robots are a great thing in Amateur Radio. I think many of our rules on them are outdated and in need of rewriting. I even think the "no-data-in-the-phone-bands" rule has to go. But at the same time, I do not think that simply allowing robot operation everywhere is a good thing. That's why I opposed both RBB and CTT. In the case of the RBB, the big picture was circumvented, and the result was predictable and hams did their job. Some people look at it as a failure. I look at as a shining success. A bad idea was beat down. It was a failure in my view because: 1) A lot of good ideas in RBB were beat down too 2) The beat-down of the bad ideas should have happened *before* it was ever sent to FCC, not after. 3) The proposal asked a lot of hams to give something up, without giving them anything in return, or not enough in return. Meanwhile, other hams would gain something without giving anything up. Or at least it seemed that way to many hams. This is why proposals like RBB and CTT go nowhere, IMHO. Suppose somebody came up with a composite mode that combined SSB voice and a PSK31-like data mode in a bandwidth of less than 3 kHz. I think that would be a good thing for Amateur Radio, and under RBB it would be legal. Under current rules it's not allowed on US HF amateur radio, though, and with the mess created by RBB and CTT, it won't be for many years to come. IMHO, one of the reasons it takes *years* for FCC to make even simple changes to Part 97 (like dumping the code test) is because we USA hams don't get our act together before sending proposals to FCC. Look at how Canada handled the code test thing. They sent out surveys, got ideas, and put together an innovative plan that generated consensus among VE hams. Only when they could point to hard numbers about how much widespread support their was for their proposal did they send it to Industry Canada. And Industry Canada put the change in place with little hassle. The whole process was a done deal long before the USA got around to changing Part 97, and IMHO the Canadian change generated less animosity among VE hams than the USA process did here. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#9
August 3rd 07, 09:44 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
|
|||
|
|||
|
July 23, 2007 ARS License Numbers
|
|
#10
August 4th 07, 04:19 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
|
|||
|
|||
|
July 23, 2007 ARS License Numbers
On Aug 3, 3:44?pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote: On Jul 31, 2:52 pm, Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: I don't know if 'the folks who were all about the robot stations' took over the process or not. But that doesn't matter. I disagree. I believe it matters very much. See below about the very wise man you quoted. What I do know is that there was a widespread *perception* that RBB was "all about robots" and conducted behind closed doors. That *perception* was pure poison when comment-time came around. It galvanized so many hams into writing anti-RBB comments that the good parts of the proposal were lost in the uproar. A very wise man once told me that if enough people have a perception of something, it doesn't matter what the truth is, the perception becomes the truth. And as hard as that may be to swallow, it is just how things are. I would say that the perception is what drives people's actions, not that the perception is the truth. Most of all, what happens in those cases is that the perception matters more than the truth. That's what I meant by "It doesn't matter" whether the folks who are all about robots took drove RBB or not. The really sad thing is that the BoD, who OK'd the proposal, didn't see all that ahead of time. This is not an unusual thing. Sad but true - in many things. Many different groups see their own interests as paramount to the "big picture" in Ham radio (though it isn't exclusive to the ARS) It certainly isn't! And the way you get around that sort of resistance is to let all groups have their say, and come up with proposals that give everybody something of what they want. I've sat through lectures from Emergency Operation fans on how amateur radio MUST change to acommodate their particular view. Pro contesters/anti contesters, the different folks involved all have a vision of what the service needs to be. Sure. And they're almost all right! The trick is to make room for everyone. Actually I'm not so sure about everyone being right. Everyone isn't right. That's why I wrote "almost". My experience has been that people who are intensely interested in one thing or the other don't believe that others needs are of sufficient interest. Sometimes. Which is why it is important that any BOD is interested in the big picture. The trouble is that almost every specialized interest will say *they* are the big picture! For example, I think WinLink/Pactor/robots are a great thing in Amateur Radio. I think many of our rules on them are outdated and in need of rewriting. I even think the "no-data-in-the-phone-bands" rule has to go. I think that the stations have to become a whole lot better behaved before they are allowed anywhere. I'm not proposing that they be allowed everywhere. The business of just opening up whenever and wherever is bad stuff. But at the same time, I do not think that simply allowing robot operation everywhere is a good thing. That's why I opposed both RBB and CTT. As a person chased off the air (or at least to another frequency) by the machines, I couldn't agree more. There has been a lot of discussion re the PSK31 "segment", with a lot of people telling us to "just move". Yeah, I guess we could. The nature of PSK31 is such that making it's practitioners fly all over the band in search of a free spot is a great way to kill it. especially for those who use the rockbound radios. A lot of the PSK units are just a rockbound transceiver tied to a laptop. Which is the beauty of the mode: that it can give such good results without an elaborate setup. Unless I am mistaken, a ham could take an old computer that's useless for almost everything else and get on PSK31 with it and a radio that costs under $100. It got bad enough that at least in the Digipan PSK software, the programmer put in receive only for the robots so that we could ID them and complain to the F.C.C. Has anyone done that? Such complaints should also go to the ARRL BoD and the committee that wrote RBB as well, IMHO All that fuss over 1 3KHz piece of the band! Yep. It was a failure in my view because: 1) A lot of good ideas in RBB were beat down too 2) The beat-down of the bad ideas should have happened *before* it was ever sent to FCC, not after. 3) The proposal asked a lot of hams to give something up, without giving them anything in return, or not enough in return. Meanwhile, other hams would gain something without giving anything up. Or at least it seemed that way to many hams. This is why proposals like RBB and CTT go nowhere, IMHO. And that is why I consider it a good thing. I agree with you that ideas should be tested out before submission. I think the submission of proposals that fail miserably damages the credibility of the submitting organization. That's particularly true if the organization says they represent the amateur community, or a large part of it. If an organization cannot motivate its membership to produce a large number of supporting comments, it tells FCC that the organization doesn't really know what its members want. I really strongly believe that when special interest subgroups get hold of the process, they invariably subvert it to their interest. I disagree. But I do agree that it's very possible for them to do so. While there may have been good ideas in RBB, the bad ones were bad enough that it was worth losing the whole thing. I agree. But I think a proposal could have been developed that kept the good ideas and lost the bad ones. Hopefully the BOD paid attention to that fact. Hopefully. IMHO, one of the reasons it takes *years* for FCC to make even simple changes to Part 97 (like dumping the code test) is because we USA hams don't get our act together before sending proposals to FCC. Look at how Canada handled the code test thing. We can do it also. At least in principle. I hope so. Practice will be a lot harder, as I suspect that we might be a little more of a contentious lot than our VE brethren. Maybe. But I think if US hams are approached in a reasonable way, they will be reasonable. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| June 24, 2007 ARS License Numbers | Moderated | |||
| May 22, 2007 ARS License Numbers | Moderated | |||
| April 22, 2007 ARS License Numbers | Moderated | |||
| March 9 2007 License Numbers | Moderated | |||
| March 22, 2007 License Numbers | Moderated | |||
Hybrid Mode
