"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...


"Dick Carroll;" wrote:

Floyd Davidson wrote:

"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
being made so easy? I'll say it again-the only thing preventing
wholsale change
in ham radio toward the exact same thing that happened to CB is the
code test.
When that's gone, ham radio is on a steeper part of the slippery
slope.

BTW I held CB callsign KIQ8934, c. 1970.

Well ain't that just sweet. And you are the twit that accuses
_others_ of coming from 27 MHz. You're little more than a
flaming hypocrite of the first order. A CB retreated loser.


Hey, it's Frozen Floyd!!!

One thing more, you flaming nincompoop- the ONLY reason I hang out here is
to
counter the misinformation dished out by phoney dingalings like you. For
sure there are
more fun ways to spend my retirement, but I will not allow the likes of
you to by the
only resource for the new and future hams reading here. They deserve
better- MUCH better.



Imagine that. Dick Carroll out to "save the world."
BWAHHAHHHAHHAAAHAHAHAAA

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...


Dwight Stewart wrote:


Further, to clarify another issue, my comments about excluding people
applied only to the idea of using license requirements solely in an
effort
to exclude - I didn't introduce that premise, those specifically
advocating
the exclusion of others did.

Right you are, Dwight. The FCC did - way back about 1912
(actually their predecessors)

ALL licenses exclude those who don't meet the qualifications, and include
those
who do. Why else would they exist?


You can't purr like a kitten in one thread, Dick, then turn around and lose
control in another. The premise being discouraged here is that the CW test
would be seen by some as a way to keep *unwanted* people out of ham
radio--not just people in general.

I would suspect that there are many nitwits in this newsgroup who support
the idea of CW testing being a good way to keep someone, like me for
example, out of the ARS. Their idea is a waste of time, of course because
a) I am a coded ham, and b) CW testing does nothing to keep creeps out of
the ARS. I won't mention to you how I know that.

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

Hey Kim, I didn't get his post for some reason

Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

First off, I don't think I've ever said "dumbed
down". If you know I have, post the reference.


You've agreed with Brian and 'dumbed down" were his words.

Not my words! Come on, Dwight. We can discuss these things, but don't
put words in my mouth! Or my fingers or keyboard or whatever.

I do not consider the Morse Code to be *any
test of intelligence or desirability whatsoever.

What I do consider it is a method of ensuring
that the person actually wants to be in the
service. It is a measure of inclusivity, not
exclusivity. Kind of like learning to parallel
park or do a three point turn.


That ridiculous, Mike. Surely you must be joking. That premise is absurd
at its very core. It's basically saying nearly half the Hams today, those
without code skills, didn't actually want to be involved in Ham Radio -
that all their money invested in radio equipment and efforts invested in
activities were done because they didn't really want any of this. And
that,in the end, only a code test will prove they actually did want it. If I
didn't think you were serious, I'd be laughing at this point.

Gee Dwight, I can see that you are pretty good at extrapolating all
kinds of stuff. All those technicians are working at a level that they
are comfortable with. They have passed the tests they need to pass.


(snip) We do already have indications of what
the spectrum of behaviors are. Right now, those
who favor less knowledge have the upper hand.


Okay, now I'm laughing. Where are all those people who have the upper
hand(the ones who favor less knowledge)? There must be many thousands of them.

There are. They are NCI and the people who want the code test
eradicated. And it appears they have been successful. And please don't
try to differentiate between Morse Code as a skill and Morse code as
knowledge. No one sounds smart trying to make that argument.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

First off, I don't think I've ever said "dumbed
down". If you know I have, post the reference.


You've agreed with Brian and 'dumbed down" were his words.



I do not consider the Morse Code to be *any
test of intelligence or desirability whatsoever.

What I do consider it is a method of ensuring
that the person actually wants to be in the
service. It is a measure of inclusivity, not
exclusivity. Kind of like learning to parallel
park or do a three point turn.


That ridiculous, Mike. Surely you must be joking. That premise is absurd
at its very core. It's basically saying nearly half the Hams today, those
without code skills, didn't actually want to be involved in Ham Radio -

that

all their money invested in radio equipment and efforts invested in
activities were done because they didn't really want any of this. And

that,

in the end, only a code test will prove they actually did want it. If I
didn't think you were serious, I'd be laughing at this point.



(snip) We do already have indications of what
the spectrum of behaviors are. Right now, those
who favor less knowledge have the upper hand.


Okay, now I'm laughing. Where are all those people who have the upper

hand

(the ones who favor less knowledge)? There must be many thousands of them

if

they have the upper hand. I've been involved with Ham Radio for a number

of

years now and I have yet to hear all those people advocating less

knowledge

about Ham Radio. I haven't seen any web sites stating that goal. I've

never

talked to a person on the radio who has stated that goal. If these people
actually exist, they must be the most secret group in America.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/



That's because you won't hear it anywhere but here--as whining, Dwight.
With the exception of a few on this newsgroup, the participants in this
newsgroup are very out of touch with ham radio...

I know many hams who are bothered by this, Kim. They don't participate
in this newsgroup, but they still are concerned. And it really is pretty
hard to argue that complete removal of a test element is not a reduction
in the amount of knowledge needed to pass a test.


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
"Dick Carroll;" wrote:

Floyd Davidson wrote:

"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
being made so easy? I'll say it again-the only thing preventing
wholsale change
in ham radio toward the exact same thing that happened to CB is the
code test.
When that's gone, ham radio is on a steeper part of the slippery
slope.

BTW I held CB callsign KIQ8934, c. 1970.

Well ain't that just sweet. And you are the twit that accuses
_others_ of coming from 27 MHz. You're little more than a
flaming hypocrite of the first order. A CB retreated loser.


Hey, it's Frozen Floyd!!!

One thing more, you flaming nincompoop- the ONLY reason I hang out here
is to
counter the misinformation dished out by phoney dingalings like you. For
sure there are
more fun ways to spend my retirement, but I will not allow the likes of
you to by the
only resource for the new and future hams reading here. They deserve
better- MUCH better.

You hang out here because you're a hypocrite.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)


Well, Floyd, it sounds like you may know Dick personally. I don't know that
for a fact, but it sounds that way. Regardless, I do agree with your
comment that he's a hypocrite.

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...
"Dick Carroll;" wrote:

(snip) ALL licenses exclude those who don't
meet the qualifications, and include those
who do. Why else would they exist?

There is a huge difference in requirements necessary to meet a certain
goal or purpose and requirements designed to exclude those we doesn't
like,
Dick. I'm sure you know that. And I'm equally sure you know this
discussion
is about the latter.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Exactly my point. The 5-wpm test does NOT exclude anyone who puts forth a
minimal effort, the 20-wpm does.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

On 2 Aug 2003 04:31:13 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:

BTW - Arnold declined to run.

Supposedly his XYL put the nix on it because she doesn't want to be
anywhere near the BS.

Isn't he married to Maria Shriver, marriage-related to the Kennedys?

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

Kim W5TIT wrote:

That's because you won't hear it anywhere but
here--as whining, Dwight. With the exception
of a few on this newsgroup, the participants
in this newsgroup are very out of touch with
ham radio...


You right about that, Kim. If all those outside these newsgroups were like
those here, everyone would have probably killed each other by now.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Mike Coslo" wrote:
Kim is having some trouble with her newsreader, so
I'm forwarding this reply post with her permission.

(snip)

I appreciate and respect the tradition of CW as a
part of ham radio. I appreciate and respect most
(excluding some here in this newsgroup only) CW
operators and operation. I can't tell you how many
times I've felt quite privileged to watch a CW
operator at Field Day. I will defend to the end of
ham radio that CW is wonderful, a skill that only
few will learn and use, and that it has a rich
tradition and history in ham radio. But I will not
defend saying that having it as a testing
requirement proves a dawgoned thing, because it
just plain doesn't.


Well-written comments, Kim. So well written, there is nothing else to add.
So I'll wait to see how the responses fall. And thanks for posting Kim's
message, Mike.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
On 2 Aug 2003 04:31:13 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:

BTW - Arnold declined to run.

Supposedly his XYL put the nix on it because she doesn't want to be
anywhere near the BS.

Isn't he married to Maria Shriver, marriage-related to the Kennedys?

I think she's blood, one of Robert K's daughters, niece of the
President of the Chapaquiddick Diving Team.

"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
On 2 Aug 2003 04:31:13 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:

BTW - Arnold declined to run.

Supposedly his XYL put the nix on it because she doesn't want to be
anywhere near the BS.

Do they live in California?


Isn't he married to Maria Shriver, marriage-related to the Kennedys?

Don't know. I don't watch Access Hollywood or Entertainment or any of that "stuff."

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
Kim is having some trouble with her newsreader, so
I'm forwarding this reply post with her permission.

(snip)

I appreciate and respect the tradition of CW as a
part of ham radio. I appreciate and respect most
(excluding some here in this newsgroup only) CW
operators and operation. I can't tell you how many
times I've felt quite privileged to watch a CW
operator at Field Day. I will defend to the end of
ham radio that CW is wonderful, a skill that only
few will learn and use, and that it has a rich
tradition and history in ham radio. But I will not
defend saying that having it as a testing
requirement proves a dawgoned thing, because it
just plain doesn't.


Well-written comments, Kim. So well written, there is nothing else to
add.
So I'll wait to see how the responses fall. And thanks for posting Kim's
message, Mike.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


Thank you, Dwight. There will be none, save yours. The naysayers totally
ignore poignant statements and seem to like more, getting involved with the
idiocy...

For example:
Dave Heil still hasn't told me if he has ever, in any way, broken the law.
Dick Carroll still has not described the items he would need to set up a CW
station in a disaster situation.

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:


Thank you, Dwight. There will be none, save yours. The naysayers totally
ignore poignant statements and seem to like more, getting involved with the
idiocy...

For example:
Dave Heil still hasn't told me if he has ever, in any way, broken the law.

Why should he, Kim?

Dick Carroll still has not described the items he would need to set up a CW
station in a disaster situation.

Why should he, Kim?

Dave and Dick have nothing to prove to you, little Kimmie dear. They are
grown up, mature, adults, and you are (or act like) a little child screaming
for attention any way you can get some. Nobody in this NG is going to
lift a finger to prove a damn thing to the likes of YOU, Kim, so just forget
that, and start showing proper respect for your moral and intellectual
superiors -- you know, people like Dave, Dick, and myself!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:


"Mike Coslo" wrote:
Kim is having some trouble with her newsreader, so
I'm forwarding this reply post with her permission.

(snip)

I appreciate and respect the tradition of CW as a
part of ham radio. I appreciate and respect most
(excluding some here in this newsgroup only) CW
operators and operation. I can't tell you how many
times I've felt quite privileged to watch a CW
operator at Field Day. I will defend to the end of
ham radio that CW is wonderful, a skill that only
few will learn and use, and that it has a rich
tradition and history in ham radio. But I will not
defend saying that having it as a testing
requirement proves a dawgoned thing, because it
just plain doesn't.


Well-written comments, Kim. So well written, there is nothing else to add.
So I'll wait to see how the responses fall. And thanks for posting Kim's
message, Mike.

Dwight:

And they say ***I*** have a "thing" for Kim! Sheez! Why don't you just
go ahead and propose to her right here on the newsgroup! (Keep in mind,
her OM may object!) I've never seen such sucking-up since I saw a flight
of a half-dozen or so Canada Geese devoured by a C-5B engine!

I know this may come as a shock to Kim, but Code testing isn't there to
"prove" anything at all. It is there to ensure that prospective hams have
a basic understanding of this useful radiocommunications skill. Poor
Kim -- will she ever get ANYTHING right?

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

And they say ***I*** have a "thing" for Kim! Sheez!
Why don't you just go ahead and propose to her right
here on the newsgroup! (Keep in mind, her OM may
object!) I've never seen such sucking-up since I
saw a flight of a half-dozen or so Canada Geese
devoured by a C-5B engine! (snip)


As you well know, Larry, I've talked with Kim over a period of several
years in this newsgroup. I'm also one of those now having problems accessing
her messages. In this case, I happen to agree with most of her comments -
which has certainly not always been the case. Therefore, a rare, but firm,
"well-done" was richly deserved here.

But that is very different from your almost endless obsession with Kim.
Wherever and whenever she posts, you're almost always one of the first to
respond. And those responses almost always display a tinge of emotionalism,
perhaps even jealousy. Your comments above are an example of that. Are you
jealous because I've complimented "your girl?"

Don't worry, Larry. Her opinion of you isn't likely to go down simply
because somebody else complimented her. I don't think Kim's (at least
stated) opinion of you could go down much further.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Kim W5TIT wrote:


Thank you, Dwight. There will be none, save yours. The naysayers totally
ignore poignant statements and seem to like more, getting involved with the
idiocy...

For example:
Dave Heil still hasn't told me if he has ever, in any way, broken the law.

I've posted responses to your sillyness on at least two occasions. That
you have problems with your news service does not equate to a
non-response on my part. Your query to me is not relevant to your
self-admission to being a radio scofflaw.

Dick Carroll still has not described the items he would need to set up a CW
station in a disaster situation.

So? What response do you believe he owes you?

Dave K8MN

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...

She's the daughter of Sargent Shriver, who married a sister to JFK.

Now that's an important factoid. Speaking of coders and the
Kennedy's; do you think that if Ted had a knee-key...

Floyd Davidson wrote in message ...

He's also one of the most fun people to poke with a stick, just to
see what he can imagine next.

He's supposed to be a "Show Me" kind of guy. But we keep showing him
and showing him.

Maybe he's a "See No Evil" kind of guy, but he sees evil behind ever
corner.

Maybe he's just DICK.

In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:


Don't worry, Larry. Her opinion of you isn't likely to go down simply
because somebody else complimented her. I don't think Kim's (at least
stated) opinion of you could go down much further.

Dwight:

Whew! Thanks! I will sleep a lot better tonight knowing that Kim's
opinion of me is just as irrelevant to my life as it's always been!

73 de Larry, K3LT

On 03 Aug 2003 18:00:32 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

I've never seen such sucking-up since I saw a flight
of a half-dozen or so Canada Geese devoured by a C-5B engine!

You shoulda been at KIAG three years ago when a GU-11 got eaten by an
F-117. Two Nighthawks came in. The first one ate a seagull as soon as
he touched ground. The second one landed hard and broke something.
They were both supposed to fly in that weekend's air show, neither of
them did. The broken one spent the weekend in the hanger. The one with
a B1RD in the engine spent the weekend on the taxiway, roped off with
guys standing around it holding M-16s and trying their darndest to
look like Steven Segal.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Great, now you'll have to thoroughly read and
catch up with all this really intelligent
stuff I've been posting! ;)


Watch out. Too much activity in this newsgroup can lead to permanent brain
damage. Since I have a lot to do around the house (it's computer maintenance
day), I'll taking a break from this newsgroup until much later tonight.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart wrote in message ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

How was I excluded from the ARS by the Morse
code test?


In the past, you were not excluded (code testing served a need).

OK, I'll bite.

What need did code testing serve in the past that does not exist
today?

Before you say "other services used it", note that many if not most
hams had little chance of ever being part of those other services when
they used Morse. For example, people over a certain age, or with
certain physical conditions, would never be accepted in the military.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Dwight Stewart wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote:

OK, I'll bite.

What need did code testing serve in the past
that does not exist today?

Before you say "other services used it", note
that many if not most hams had little chance
of ever being part of those other services when
they used Morse. For example, people over a
certain age, or with certain physical
conditions, would never be accepted in the
military.


It served a need from the ITU's and FCC's perspectives.

Some of us would say it still does. All a matter of opinion.

And, yes, it did
have to do with the fact that other services used it - the pool of trained
operators concept in 97.1 of the CFR.

That "pool" thing is in Part 97, not ITU-R

However, it says "pool of trained operators" right? Not "pool of
trained CW/Morse operators". So it applies as a general reason for the
service to exist, not as a reason for code testing.

Since the services we serve don't use
code anymore, code simply no longer serves that need.

If it ever did. And amateur radio does not exist to serve other
services.

The "pool of trained operators" thing in 97.1 is really about the idea
of the ARS being a service where the licensees (hams) are skilled both
operationally and technically, able to do a lot of different things
well. This distinguishes it from other services, which usually involve
various types of certified equipment, channelized operation, and the
participation of both specialized professionals and unskilled users.
Look at cell phones - lots of specialized technology and technical
people do the hardware, so that the user doesn't have to know anything
other than how to "dial" a number. Heck, some users don;t even realize
their "phone" is actually a radio transceiver.

That only leaves code
use by ham operators for enjoyment.

And public service.

That doesn't warrant a unique license
requirement (unique compared to the other modes).

Your opinion noted. Others' opinions differ.

Besides, everything hams do is either "for enjoyment" or public
service. Does that mean none of it should be tested?

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 04:53:49 -0400, Dwight Stewart
wrote:

You right about that, Kim. If all those outside these newsgroups were like
those here, everyone would have probably killed each other by now.

I'll say. I've noticed for awhile that there seems to be small
segment of the ham community who seem to think that vociferous
argument ought to be the major ham activity. They're loud, brash,
obnoxious and attract a lot of attention. By the looks of things,
they all seem to have descended on rra.misc and rra.policy. Now if we
could only figure out a way to keep them there, and off the air.

Ben

"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) And amateur radio does not exist to
serve other services. (snip)


Our public service is often service to other agencies (Red Cross, MARS,
and so on).


The "pool of trained operators" thing in 97.1 is
really about the idea of the ARS being a service
where the licensees (hams) are skilled both
operationally and technically, able to do a lot
of different things well. This distinguishes it
from other services, (snip)


The pool of trained operators concept relates to our ability to do the
other things outlined in 97.1 (public service, international goodwill, and
so on). At one time, code was a necessary part of at least some of that.
That is much less so today, hence the move to change the code testing
requirement.


(snip) And public service. (snip)


I'm not aware of the use of code by any of the typical served agencies
(Red Cross, MARS, and so on).


(snip) Besides, everything hams do is either "for
enjoyment" or public service. Does that mean none
of it should be tested?


Huh? I thought I was fairly clear about all this. Code was once necessary
for the goals and purposes outlined in 97.1. At the very least, that is much
less so today (some would say it is not at all so today). That severely
weakens the justification for a unique license requirement. If the license
requirement is actually removed, code will then be tested on an equal
footing with the other operating modes (written theory). Nothing in that is
an argument for or against testing anything else.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) And amateur radio does not exist to
serve other services. (snip)

Our public service is often service to other agencies (Red Cross, MARS,
and so on).

The "pool of trained operators" thing in 97.1 is
really about the idea of the ARS being a service
where the licensees (hams) are skilled both
operationally and technically, able to do a lot
of different things well. This distinguishes it
from other services, (snip)

The pool of trained operators concept relates to our ability to do the
other things outlined in 97.1 (public service, international goodwill, and
so on). At one time, code was a necessary part of at least some of that.
That is much less so today, hence the move to change the code testing
requirement.

Dwight, that statement in 97.1 is an OLD thing going back decades.

It was put in there to rationalize the existance of amateur radio among
all the other very commercial radio services.

Three to four decades ago there MIGHT have been a "need" for "trained
operators" for the military draft. [the USA still had a draft and the Cold
War was very warm indeed] Never mind that the military already HAD
ways of training in the "radio arts."

Does national defense or the various aid agencies NEED amateurs who
are "trained" in DX contesting and sitting around telling old war stories
about when Kode Vas King? I don't think so.

(snip) And public service. (snip)

I'm not aware of the use of code by any of the typical served agencies
(Red Cross, MARS, and so on).

Morse code use will keep out the eveavsdropers and bad people from
the content of communications, thus not letting them know the deep
dark, very secret ways of the ham. Secure.

So I've been told.

(snip) Besides, everything hams do is either "for
enjoyment" or public service. Does that mean none
of it should be tested?

Huh? I thought I was fairly clear about all this. Code was once necessary
for the goals and purposes outlined in 97.1. At the very least, that is much
less so today (some would say it is not at all so today). That severely
weakens the justification for a unique license requirement. If the license
requirement is actually removed, code will then be tested on an equal
footing with the other operating modes (written theory). Nothing in that is
an argument for or against testing anything else.

Holier-than-thou old-timers just can't live with that, Dwight!

FCC "must" keep the "tradition" of morsemanship!

shrug

LHA

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
.com...
(Brian Kelly) wrote in message
.com...
(N2EY) wrote in message
.com...
Dwight Stewart wrote in message
...

Besides, everything hams do is either "for enjoyment" or public
service.

But . . but . . geez, wait a minnit here! What about all the
technological leaps forward we're 'sposed to lead . . ? It sez so in
97.1 . . isn't that the Techs job??

It's everybody's job. And nobody's.

Whew: The latter gets me off the hook . .

And everyone else.

You'll see, the techno folks who
will come into the ARS after Element 1 goes away will create a techno
revolution just like the one created when the Tech lost its code test.
Just watch....

What AGAIN??!

Yep. Brace yourself.

It won't be possible for us OFs to keep up with it if
it's even close to a repeat of the technology explosion of '92-'93.

Which was dwarfed by the followup in '95 when the vanity call rules changed.
And the total inundation by technorevolutionaries after the 2000 restructuring.


It was almost sad, seeing all that nearly-new ham gear made obsolete overnight
by the waves of radical technical improvements the technically-knowledgeable
newbies brought. Remember how Yaesu, Kenwood and Icom nearly dominated the ham
market until those folks revived homebrewing to the point that "appliance
operating" is just a niche interest?

We're doomed to obsolescence. Sob.

Yeah - HRO practically giving away those IC-7800s, TenTec offering the Orion as
a kit and being snubbed because there wasn't enough DSP in it. And all those
surplus SINGCARS set mods cluttering up QST....

Does that mean none of it should be tested?

That'll be covered in the next round . .

Maia & Co. are already working on that.

With "leaders" like him and Stevenson how can we miss?

Those two are NOT the same! At least Carl believes in written testing!

Fun fact: Check the lookup counter in QRZ.com for W5YI.

73 de Jim, N2EY

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

Fun fact: Check the lookup counter in QRZ.com for W5YI.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim:

W5YI's QRZ record seems to be missing the lookup counter! OTOH,
Michelle, KC0MYV, seems to be breaking all records on that account!

Now, now, Kim -- don't be jealous of Michelle -- even though you have a
right to be!

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

Fun fact: Check the lookup counter in QRZ.com for W5YI.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim:

W5YI's QRZ record seems to be missing the lookup counter! OTOH,
Michelle, KC0MYV, seems to be breaking all records on that account!

Now, now, Kim -- don't be jealous of Michelle -- even though you have a
right to be!

73 de Larry, K3LT


Jealous? Because of a woman who has a link to her commercial site on her
lookup on QRZ? Not at all.

Kim W5TIT

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:


You "don't think so" because you're an idiot and a troll.


So it has been. It's kept YOU out, Lennie.


And that's a fact YOU can't seem to live WITH, Your Scumminess!

Everyone can see you still haven't taken your medications, pSycho
pSteve. Shame on you, high holy medical professional...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

Fun fact: Check the lookup counter in QRZ.com for W5YI.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim:

W5YI's QRZ record seems to be missing the lookup counter! OTOH,
Michelle, KC0MYV, seems to be breaking all records on that account!

Now, now, Kim -- don't be jealous of Michelle -- even though you have a
right to be!

73 de Larry, K3LT


Jealous? Because of a woman who has a link to her commercial site on her
lookup on QRZ? Not at all.

If I were you I'd give up trying to compete with her too.

Kim W5TIT

"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
om...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(N2EY)
writes:

Fun fact: Check the lookup counter in QRZ.com for W5YI.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim:

W5YI's QRZ record seems to be missing the lookup counter! OTOH,
Michelle, KC0MYV, seems to be breaking all records on that account!

Now, now, Kim -- don't be jealous of Michelle -- even though you have
a
right to be!

73 de Larry, K3LT


Jealous? Because of a woman who has a link to her commercial site on
her
lookup on QRZ? Not at all.

If I were you I'd give up trying to compete with her too.

Kim W5TIT

Brian: perhaps you can give me some kind of clue as to what the Hell you are
talking about?

Kim W5TIT

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Jim:

W5YI's QRZ record seems to be missing the lookup counter! OTOH,
Michelle, KC0MYV, seems to be breaking all records on that account!

Perhaps we can get Vipul a date?

No -- but I'm available!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Jim:

W5YI's QRZ record seems to be missing the lookup counter! OTOH,
Michelle, KC0MYV, seems to be breaking all records on that account!

Now, now, Kim -- don't be jealous of Michelle -- even though you have a
right to be!

73 de Larry, K3LT


Jealous? Because of a woman who has a link to her commercial site on her
lookup on QRZ? Not at all.

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

Don't look now, but I don't think you'd be jealous of her sales volume, even
though I expect it looks just as good as she does!

73 de Larry, K3LT