On Mar 11, 3:52�pm, "
wrote:
From: on Sun, Mar 11 2007 8:34 am

And even when AF6AY pointed out the story to
FCC in his Reply Comments to 98-143, FCC still
believed it.

* *NOBODY with the callsign AF6AY replied to FCC 98-143
* *on, before, or after 13 Jan 99. *It wasn't issued yet. *:-)

You're right, Len! I was mistaken about that. My bad.
Apologies all around.

It was Leonard H. Anderson, a non-radio amateur
at the time, who wrote those Reply Comments to FCC. And even though
Reply Comments aren't
supposed to bring up new subjects, the age limit
thing was presented to FCC.

There have been other verified stories about
young amateurs. Since 2000, a six-year-old has
passed the General, and a seven-year-old has
passed the Extra. Both stories in QST.
FCC had no problem believing either.

In fact that seven-year-old broke the previous record,
held by an eight-year-old who passed the old pre-2000
Extra, complete with 20 wpm code and five written tests.

All those young amateurs still have their licenses. They
haven't gotten into any problems with FCC.

* *Wonderful. *

I agree - it *is* wonderful.

I'll just think of all you worshippers
* *of St. Hiram as pre-teeners, mentality and reasoning
* *"maturity" to match... *:-)

Why?

* *Now, just WHY are you continuing your "age limit"
* *diatribe past the 8 year and 2 months time of that
* *particular Comment on an NPRM that got settled by
* *a Report and Order?

How was it "settled", Len? FCC did not refer to your
Reply Comments at all.

* *Is it the usual "nyah, nyah" to be followed by a
* *call to mommy by all you mental pre-teeners?

No, Len - that's you projecting your own motivations
and mentality on others. Again.

Here's why I brought up the "age limit" thing:

"hot-ham-and-cheese" claimed that nobody
but me believed the story about the young
amateurs. He said the whole thing was preposterous.

I pointed out that not only did I believe it, but
so did the FCC.

Not only did FCC accept and process those
licenses, but they took no action after Leonard
H. Anderson pointed out the story on the ARRL
website.

So "hot-ham-and-cheese" was simply mistaken
about me being the only one who believed the
story.

The "age limit thing" also has a direct bearing on the
VE system. You accused complete strangers of
"fraud" and "hypocrisy" with no evidence at all.

It would be interesting to see the reaction of the
VEs who administered your testing to your
accusations of "fraud" and "hypocrisy" aimed at
the ARRL and some Indiana VEs.

Say - got that LP and tower up yet Len?
How do you like the Icom IC-7800?

Jim, N2EY

From: on Mon, Mar 12 2007 5:42 am

On Mar 11, 3:52 pm, " wrote:
From: on Sun, Mar 11 2007 8:34 am

And even when AF6AY pointed out the story to
FCC in his Reply Comments to 98-143, FCC still
believed it.

NOBODY with the callsign AF6AY replied to FCC 98-143
on, before, or after 13 Jan 99. It wasn't issued yet. :-)

You're right, Len! I was mistaken about that. My bad.
Apologies all around.

Good grief, an expression of personal WRONGNESS with
an APOLOGY! The world may be coming to an end!

It was Leonard H. Anderson, a non-radio amateur
at the time, who wrote those Reply Comments to FCC.

Oh, my, Jimmie BLEW IT ALL AWAY...!

In 1998 I was NOT licensed as any radio amateur but
was ALREADY licensed as a COMMERCIAL radio operator
for 42 years...and had actual experience in long-
distance HF communications 45 years before.

Further, I had been a hobbyist in radio and
electronics since 1947 (hobbies are classified as
'amateur' activities by almost everyone else except
olde-tyme ham morsemen). Not only that, in 1998
I had already retired from a four-decade career as
an electronics engineer in southern California
aerospace industries...and was already in a new
career that had involved a Private Land Mobile
Radio Services station of which I was co-owner.

So, you are wanting to still label me as an "amateur"
in radio?

Of course you do. You can't help but attempt to
denigrate anything I post in here. :-(




Here's why I brought up the "age limit" thing:

That's just this latest go-around. What about all
those OTHER past harrangues you've tried to hang
on my SUGGESTION on minimum age limits?

"hot-ham-and-cheese" claimed that nobody
but me believed the story about the young
amateurs. He said the whole thing was preposterous.

I pointed out that not only did I believe it, but
so did the FCC.

WRONG. The FCC did NOT "believe" it...the FCC
accepted the input of the ARRL VEC. Pro forma
stuff done electronically.

The FCC had long before introduced the "no age
restrictions" on license applicants.

So "hot-ham-and-cheese" was simply mistaken
about me being the only one who believed the
story.

NO. You are confusing an ARRL "story" (an
article on their website) with what YOU
"think the FCC believes." You only IMAGINE
what "the FCC believes."

The "age limit thing" also has a direct bearing on the
VE system.

Bull****. Another fabrication of yours.

You accused complete strangers of
"fraud" and "hypocrisy" with no evidence at all.

TS. I will CONTINUE to do so, electronically
or face-to-face in-person ANY time there is
the OBVIOUS sign of such things.

It would be interesting to see the reaction of the
VEs who administered your testing to your
accusations of "fraud" and "hypocrisy" aimed at
the ARRL and some Indiana VEs.

No problem to me. Just pay for their transport
and lodging out here, along with yourself, and
you can "see" all you want. Record it if you
want. I'll just gather a group of local licensed
(and unlicensed) radio amateurs of like opinions
and we can all have a big gang-bang. Okay?

Otherwise, DROP this stupid harrangue of yours
that is already SEVEN YEARS OLD. You aren't
"winning' a damn thing and you are annoying
the rest of the folks (with the exception of
Heil, Deignan, and probably Kelly) with your
"endless summer" of "no-age-limit" harrangues.

Say - got that LP and tower up yet Len?
How do you like the Icom IC-7800?

I'm considering a Request for Quote from Harris on
the station and for an octet of rhombics on a large
ranch in Wyoming. The octet is, naturally, for
DX on 40m CW and up in frequency along with a remote
switching selection to eliminate rotator needs.
[the cattle can graze peacefully underneath it all]
I'm even considering abondoning that Wyoming
territory in favor of Nevada or Arizona. Takes time.

No, I'm not buying stock in any of the Big3 in
Japan. The shares of General Electric and AT&T
here are doing just fine.

Thanks for asking.

74s, Len AF6AY

On Mar 12, 2:31�pm, "
wrote:
From: on Mon, Mar 12 2007 5:42 am

On Mar 11, 3:52 pm, " wrote:
From: on Sun, Mar 11 2007 8:34 am

And even when AF6AY pointed out the story to
FCC in his Reply Comments to 98-143, FCC still
believed it.

*NOBODY with the callsign AF6AY replied to FCC 98-143
*on, before, or after 13 Jan 99. It wasn't issued yet. :-)

You're right, Len! I was mistaken about that. My bad.
Apologies all around.

* *Good grief, an expression of personal WRONGNESS with
* *an APOLOGY! *The world may be coming to an end!

Why?

I've always acknowledged and corrected my mistakes
here. When they were genuine, objective mistakes,
that is.

It was Leonard H. Anderson, a non-radio amateur
at the time, who wrote those Reply Comments to FCC.

* *Oh, my, Jimmie BLEW IT ALL AWAY...!

* *In 1998 I was NOT licensed as any radio amateur but
* *was ALREADY licensed as a COMMERCIAL radio operator
* *for 42 years...and had actual experience in long-
* *distance HF communications 45 years before.

So what?

In 1998 you were not a radio amateur. How did
my saying that simple fact blow it all away?

* *Further, I had been a hobbyist in radio and
* *electronics since 1947 (hobbies are classified as
* *'amateur' activities by almost everyone else except
* *olde-tyme ham morsemen). *

And the FCC, ITU, and most radio amateurs.

Not only that, in 1998
* *I had already retired from a four-decade career as
* *an electronics engineer in southern California
* *aerospace industries...and was already in a new
* *career that had involved a Private Land Mobile
* *Radio Services station of which I was co-owner.

But you were not a radio amateur then.

Gee, for somebody who claims not to need
"rank, title and status", you sure do put yours
out there often enough.

* *So, you are wanting to still label me as an "amateur"
* *in radio?

You're a radio amateur, Len. When you got the
license, you got that title. Anyone who holds a
valid Amateur Radio license (regardless of
license class) is a radio amateur. Nobody else.

* *Of course you do. *You can't help but attempt to
* *denigrate anything I post in here. *:-(

Do you think that being called a radio amateur
is an insult, Len?

Here's *why I brought up the "age limit" thing:

* *That's just this latest go-around. *What about all
* *those OTHER past harrangues you've tried to hang
* *on my SUGGESTION on minimum age limits?

"Harangues", Len. One 'n'.

I brought it up this time because it proved
"hot-ham-and-cheese" to be mistaken.

As for being a "SUGGESTION" - everything
proposed to FCC in Comments and Reply
Comments is essentially a "SUGGESTION".

You wrote what you wanted FCC to do: ban
anyone under the age of 14 from Amateur Radio.
I think you still want that. FCC looked at your
idea/proposal/suggestion/reasoning/arguments
about that and chose not to act on it.

"hot-ham-and-cheese" claimed that nobody
but me believed the story about the young
amateurs. He said the whole thing was preposterous.

I pointed out that not only did I believe it, but
so did the FCC.

* *WRONG. *

No, right.

I pointed it out.

The FCC did NOT "believe" it..

Sure they did. If they did not, they would
not have issued the licenses.

.the FCC
* *accepted the input of the ARRL VEC. *Pro forma
* *stuff done electronically.

In 1998? Can you be sure?

* *The FCC had long before introduced the "no age
* *restrictions" on license applicants.

Not exactly.

There has *never* been *any* age restriction for a US amateur radio
license. The FCC and all its
predecessors in amateur radio regulations never
ever saw the need for any such restriction. Not
since the beginning of mandatory licensing in 1912.

So "hot-ham-and-cheese" was simply mistaken
about me being the only one who believed the
story.

* *NO. *You are confusing an ARRL "story" (an
* *article on their website) with what YOU
* *"think the FCC believes." *You only IMAGINE
* *what "the FCC believes."

The ARRL story was presented to FCC in your
Reply Comments, Len. You went into detail about
it as a reason to impose a minimum age requirement
for an amateur radio license.

Someone at FCC reads all the Comments and
Reply Comments. So *people* at FCC knew all about
the licensing of those 4 year olds, from your
Reply Comments and the ARRL story.

FCC also enforces their rules, and
has investigated claims of rules violations at VE
sessions. But they did not investigate that VE session, nor revoke any
licenses or VE accreditation in connection with it.

FCC clearly believed, and continues to believe, that
there were no rules violations committed at the VE
session which licensed those 4 year olds.

FCC accepts the ARRL story as valid, not "preposterous". Otherwise
they would have acted.

The "age limit thing" also has a direct bearing on the
VE system.

* *Bull****. *Another fabrication of yours.

Why? Because I proved "hot-ham-and-cheese" to
be mistaken?

You accused complete strangers of
"fraud" and "hypocrisy" with no evidence at all.

* *TS. *I will CONTINUE to do so, electronically
* *or face-to-face in-person ANY time there is
* *the OBVIOUS sign of such things.

I don't think you would say these things in person.

It would be interesting to see the reaction of the
VEs who administered your testing to your
accusations of "fraud" and "hypocrisy" aimed at
the ARRL and some Indiana VEs.

* *No problem to me. *Just pay for their transport
* *and lodging out here, along with yourself, and
* *you can "see" all you want. *Record it if you
* *want. *I'll just gather a group of local licensed
* *(and unlicensed) radio amateurs of like opinions
* *and we can all have a big gang-bang. *Okay?

I don't think you'd say it to the VEs by yourself.

* *Otherwise, DROP this stupid harrangue of yours
* *that is already SEVEN YEARS OLD.

Who are you to tell me to shut up?

*You aren't
* *"winning' a damn thing and you are annoying
* *the rest of the folks (with the exception of
* *Heil, Deignan, and probably Kelly) with your
* *"endless summer" of "no-age-limit" harrangues.

Nobody is complaining except you, Len.

Say - got that LP and tower up yet Len?
How do you like the Icom IC-7800?

* *I'm considering a Request for Quote from Harris on
* *the station and for an octet of rhombics on a large
* *ranch in Wyoming. *

OK for DX but not optimum for USA contacts, except maybe to the
coasts. Rhombics are so
1930s. too - the modern way is Yagis. Three elements on 40, for
example.

And why stop at 40? At this point in the sunspot
sunspot cycle, an 80 meter quad is indicated...

The octet is, naturally, for
* *DX on 40m CW and up in frequency along with a remote
* *switching selection to eliminate rotator needs.

That's nice, Len. But who will operate it for you?

* *[the cattle can graze peacefully underneath it all]
* *I'm even considering abondoning that Wyoming
* *territory in favor of Nevada or Arizona. *Takes time.

Seven more years?

* *No, I'm not buying stock in any of the Big3 in
* *Japan. *The shares of General Electric and AT&T
* *here are doing just fine.

They don't make ham rigs.

* *Thanks for asking.

You're welcome!

So I guess you won't be on the amateur bands
any time soon. Particularly "40 CW and up".

I could be mistaken about that, of course.

7037 kHz is the RRAP CW frequency, btw. I've
worked quite a few there....


Jim, N2EY

On Mar 12, 4:31 pm, "
wrote:
From: on Mon, Mar 12 2007 5:42 am

On Mar 11, 3:52 pm, " wrote:
From: on Sun, Mar 11 2007 8:34 am

And even when AF6AY pointed out the story to
FCC in his Reply Comments to 98-143, FCC still
believed it.

NOBODY with the callsign AF6AY replied to FCC 98-143
on, before, or after 13 Jan 99. It wasn't issued yet. :-)

You're right, Len! I was mistaken about that. My bad.
Apologies all around.

Good grief, an expression of personal WRONGNESS with
an APOLOGY! The world may be coming to an end!

Indeed. I thought the end-times might be near...

then I took a look on .Moderated. "PRB-1 and CCNR" finally caught up
with the long-time leader "Tubes." Funny how the long-timers
gravitate to the subject of tubes. Some things never change and the
end-times are again delayed.

On Mar 14, 2:59�am, wrote:
On Mar 12, 4:31 pm, "
wrote:
From: on Mon, Mar 12 2007 5:42 am
On Mar 11, 3:52 pm, " wrote:
From: on Sun, Mar 11 2007 8:34 am

And even when AF6AY pointed out the story to
FCC in his Reply Comments to 98-143, FCC still
believed it.

*NOBODY with the callsign AF6AY replied to FCC 98-143
*on, before, or after 13 Jan 99. It wasn't issued yet. :-)

You're right, Len! I was mistaken about that. My bad.
Apologies all around.

* *Good grief, an expression of personal WRONGNESS with
* *an APOLOGY! *The world may be coming to an end!

Indeed. *I thought the end-times might be near...

"It won't be long now...." Except (of course) with Jimmie
Doing His Thing about 'how everyone else that challenged
Him (in anything) is always wrong.' :-)


then I took a look on .Moderated. *"PRB-1 and CCNR" finally caught up
with the long-time leader "Tubes." *Funny how the long-timers
gravitate to the subject of tubes. *Some things never change and the
end-times are again delayed.

Well, in this newsgroup as well as RRAM there's the usual
self-praise of amateur radio for its "invaluable emergency
work." :-)

There must be a great deal of Conscience going on where
hams aren't supposed to have FUN and ENJOYMENT out
of their hobby. They have to endlessly rationalize among
themselves that They are some kind of Minutemen of
Emergency Communications, ready to spring into action
at a moment's notice with superb, never-fail equipment
to Save The Day! :-)

Not likely. Some on RRAM aren't buying all that and are
speaking truth. That's a very good thing, in my mind. [but
Jimmie will spend hours at the keyboard teling me I'm all
'wrong' and 'mistaken' :-) ]

I'm now INTO US amateur radio and intend to stay...as long
as it remains a FUN HOBBY. If I wanted to DO emergency
work, I'd go volunteer for such things with a recognized
agency that actually DOES that sort of thing. Yesterday,
the 13th of March, was the 55th personal anniversary of
my being sworn into service with the United States Army.
The reason for that volunteering was rather more SERIOUS
at the time than playing around with radios in my spare
time. Amateur radio just is NOT anywhere close to being
that "serious" on a national or local scale. Amateur radio
is basically a HOBBY, never anything more than that
despite what all the chiefs and seniors of membership
organizations say.

At the start of this particular thread I put up some numbers
about some amateur volunteers' efforts in exam testing and
what other, numbers-oriented websites were showing was
the result of all that. There was NO evidence then nor now
on any "hordes of CB types" or "onslaught of no-coders"
"suddenly filling the ranks (and, supposedly 'the bands').
What that really showed was only a slight bump in the
status-quo of what all the self-proclaimed pro-coder gurus
CLAIMED was going to happen. Yawn time.

When I posted the first message on 7 Mar 07 I was not
yet aware that the FCC had put me into the US amateur
radio database. :-) Some others did later, which made
me look again. Some of the "congratulators" (notably
those pro-coders who think I'm a 'beginner' in radio) are
now showing how hyprocritcal they really are... :-( No
surprise to me since I had known of their traits long
before.

Most of this thread is filled with the usual filth and insults
of the immature male kind who seem to have never out-
grown their middle-school mentalities. That's a sad thing
but we don't really know if those anony-mousies are
at all INTO amateur radio. Nevertheless, I am INTO US
amateur radio and intend to stay for a while...and also to
speak my mind at MY discretion. :-)

73, Len AF6AY

wrote:
On Mar 14, 2:59�am, wrote:
On Mar 12, 4:31 pm, "
wrote:
From: on Mon, Mar 12 2007 5:42 am
On Mar 11, 3:52 pm, " wrote:
From: on Sun, Mar 11 2007 8:34 am
And even when AF6AY pointed out the story to
FCC in his Reply Comments to 98-143, FCC still
believed it.
�NOBODY with the callsign AF6AY replied to FCC 98-143
�on, before, or after 13 Jan 99. It wasn't issued yet. :-)
You're right, Len! I was mistaken about that. My bad.
Apologies all around.
� �Good grief, an expression of personal WRONGNESS with
� �an APOLOGY! �The world may be coming to an end!
Indeed. �I thought the end-times might be near...

"It won't be long now...." Except (of course) with Jimmie
Doing His Thing about 'how everyone else that challenged
Him (in anything) is always wrong.' :-)

You keep trying to make it about everyone, Len. It really is about you.
You aren't "always wrong". You're just frequently wrong.


then I took a look on .Moderated. �"PRB-1 and CCNR" finally caught up
with the long-time leader "Tubes." �Funny how the long-timers
gravitate to the subject of tubes. �Some things never change and the
end-times are again delayed.

Well, in this newsgroup as well as RRAM there's the usual
self-praise of amateur radio for its "invaluable emergency
work." :-)

Many others including Federal officials have praised amateur radio for
its invaluable emergency work.

There must be a great deal of Conscience going on where
hams aren't supposed to have FUN and ENJOYMENT out
of their hobby.

Just who has written that one isn't supposed to derive any enjoyment out
of amateur radio?

They have to endlessly rationalize among
themselves that They are some kind of Minutemen of
Emergency Communications, ready to spring into action
at a moment's notice with superb, never-fail equipment
to Save The Day! :-)

Who has to do that, Len? Radio amateurs can and do provide emergency
communications. I've never read anything which indicates that amateur
radio equipment never fails. It can be available when the commercial
infrastructure fails in an emergency.

Not likely. Some on RRAM aren't buying all that and are
speaking truth.

What is the truth, Len? Have you written the truth or have you made
things up using the generic "they"? Have you written that "they" say
something when the only person saying that particular thing is yourself?

That's a very good thing, in my mind. [but
Jimmie will spend hours at the keyboard teling me I'm all
'wrong' and 'mistaken' :-) ]

I think you'll find that a number of individuals will be happy to
address your frequent errors whenever they crop up.

I'm now INTO US amateur radio and intend to stay...as long
as it remains a FUN HOBBY.

I'm not sure you'll be around that long, Len. It is a good thing for
you that you got your license when you did.

If I wanted to DO emergency
work, I'd go volunteer for such things with a recognized
agency that actually DOES that sort of thing.

What's stopping you?

Yesterday,
the 13th of March, was the 55th personal anniversary of
my being sworn into service with the United States Army.
The reason for that volunteering was rather more SERIOUS
at the time than playing around with radios in my spare
time.

Maybe public service work just isn't for you. Maybe you'll find that
chasing DX or contesting is more to your liking.

Amateur radio just is NOT anywhere close to being
that "serious" on a national or local scale.

It is more likely that you're simply not aware of it, Len. You're a
newcomer.

Amateur radio
is basically a HOBBY, never anything more than that
despite what all the chiefs and seniors of membership
organizations say.

Your error can be forgiven in light of your newbie status.

At the start of this particular thread I put up some numbers
about some amateur volunteers' efforts in exam testing and
what other, numbers-oriented websites were showing was
the result of all that. There was NO evidence then nor now
on any "hordes of CB types" or "onslaught of no-coders"
"suddenly filling the ranks (and, supposedly 'the bands').
What that really showed was only a slight bump in the
status-quo of what all the self-proclaimed pro-coder gurus
CLAIMED was going to happen. Yawn time.

Actually, what the numbers show is that doing away with Morse code
testing hasn't resulted in the entry into amateur radio of those
technical whiz kids whom Carl Stevenson called "otherwise qualified".
The barrier seems to have been a myth.


When I posted the first message on 7 Mar 07 I was not
yet aware that the FCC had put me into the US amateur
radio database. :-) Some others did later, which made
me look again. Some of the "congratulators" (notably
those pro-coders who think I'm a 'beginner' in radio) are
now showing how hyprocritcal they really are... :-( No
surprise to me since I had known of their traits long
before.

No one said that you're a beginner in radio, Len. You a beginner in
amateur radio. You've demonstrated that you're green through your
statements in a number of your recent posts. Don't expect acceptance as
an instant expert in amateur radio, old boy.

Most of this thread is filled with the usual filth and insults
of the immature male kind who seem to have never out-
grown their middle-school mentalities. That's a sad thing
but we don't really know if those anony-mousies are
at all INTO amateur radio.

We know that a number of them are licensed. One, who isn't anonymous
but who posts under many different nyms, is apparently a fairly active
radio amateur.

Nevertheless, I am INTO US
amateur radio and intend to stay for a while...and also to
speak my mind at MY discretion. :-)

Yes, you finally acted and obtained an amateur radio license. You spoke
your mind long before obtaining the amateur radio license. You made
numerous factual errors back then and, as I've noted, you still make
factual errors.

Dave K8MN

Most of this thread is filled with the usual filth and insults
of the immature male kind who seem to have never out-
grown their middle-school mentalities. That's a sad thing
but we don't really know if those anony-mousies are
at all INTO amateur radio. Nevertheless, I am INTO US
amateur radio and intend to stay for a while...and also to
speak my mind at MY discretion. :-)

73, Len AF6AY


Len, you'll find that the great majority of hams who get on the air in
the ham bands are quite well behaved and friendly. This newsgroup is
not a representative sample of hams. So get on the air (if you haven't
already) and have fun with the various modes and aspects of ham radio!

73 de WA2ISE

On Mar 15, 1:20�pm, robert casey wrote:
* *Most of this thread is filled with the usual filth and insults
* *of the immature male kind who seem to have never out-
* *grown their middle-school mentalities. *That's a sad thing
* *but we don't really know if those anony-mousies are
* *at all INTO amateur radio. *Nevertheless, I am INTO US
* *amateur radio and intend to stay for a while...and also to
* *speak my mind at MY discretion. *:-)

* *73, Len *AF6AY

Len, you'll find that the great majority of hams who get on the air in
the ham bands are quite well behaved and friendly. *This newsgroup is
not a representative sample of hams. *So get on the air (if you haven't
already) and have fun with the various modes and aspects of ham radio!

73 de WA2ISE

Roger that, Bob. Some long-time listening to the HF and 2m bands
have shown me that. :-)

When the new equipment arrives, I'll get busy re-arranging the home
office for its new "radio room" function (at least in one corner).
It may
have to be with some #14 wire strung through the row of cypresses
along one side of my property (for under 10m frequency bands) but
that's life. :-)

73, Len AF6AY

" wrote in
ups.com:

On Mar 15, 1:20�pm, robert casey wrote:
* *Most of this thread is filled with the usual filth and insults
* *of the immature male kind who seem to have never out-
* *grown their middle-school mentalities. *That's a sad thing
* *but we don't really know if those anony-mousies are
* *at all INTO amateur radio. *Nevertheless, I am INTO US
* *amateur radio and intend to stay for a while...and also to *
*speak my mind at MY discretion. *:-)

* *73, Len *AF6AY

Len, you'll find that the great majority of hams who get on the air in
the ham bands are quite well behaved and friendly. *This newsgroup is
not a representative sample of hams. *So get on the air (if you haven't
already) and have fun with the various modes and aspects of ham radio!

73 de WA2ISE

Roger that, Bob. Some long-time listening to the HF and 2m bands
have shown me that. :-)

When the new equipment arrives, I'll get busy re-arranging the home
office for its new "radio room" function (at least in one corner).
It may
have to be with some #14 wire strung through the row of cypresses
along one side of my property (for under 10m frequency bands) but
that's life. :-)

73, Len AF6AY




Blimey! You got a callsign! I didn't think it would ever happen. Welcome
aboard.

Alun N3KIP

wrote:

Indeed. I thought the end-times might be near...

then I took a look on .Moderated. "PRB-1 and CCNR" finally caught up
with the long-time leader "Tubes." Funny how the long-timers
gravitate to the subject of tubes. Some things never change and the
end-times are again delayed.

You're free to start a topic on something in which you have some
experience or expertise if you feel that you can't contribute to a topic
already under discussion. Maybe you could contribute some general
knowledge of end fed antennas or begin a thread on the hows of DXing.

Dave K8MN