Dick Carroll; wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

And the supreme court yesterday must hav thought that the FCC's


decision process was a tad flawed.


Mike, what did I mess yesterday?


The Supremes told the F.C.C. that it's relaxed ruling on how many media
outlets one entity (Clear Channel and Fox types) could own was not
acceptable.

And as a person that lives in an area where all the AM stations are
playing the exact same thing most of the time, I can say it's a bad idea.

And with Fox News bloodying it's nose trying to sue and squelch a
satire writer, I am leery of them now too.

- Mike KB3EIA -

--
Now this is an interesting thing! Are we to *have* to buy this
equipment? And what of the poor ham that didn't have the resources and
is caught in the middle of a disaster?


Some ARES groups have incorporated as not for profits. This allows them to
get corporate sponsorship for emergency gear.

A contractor for a local nuke plant hired to make sure the evac drills go
smooth told me last year there was no need for amateur radio. They could
depend on cell phones for all their field communications during evacuation
of the NYC metro area.

No **** !

Steve Stone wrote:


Some ARES groups have incorporated as not for profits. This allows them to
get corporate sponsorship for emergency gear.

When possible, it is a good idea for groups to have equipment at the
ready. Mother Nature has this nasty streak in her that seems to favor
the unprepared though! ;^)


A contractor for a local nuke plant hired to make sure the evac drills go
smooth told me last year there was no need for amateur radio. They could
depend on cell phones for all their field communications during evacuation
of the NYC metro area.

Can you imagine? And yet I hear that kind of thing all over. Presumably
intelligent people that don't realize that these highly centralized
systems are certain to fail when the same conditions that make emergency
comms necessary work their damage on those area systems.


The inherently independent, non networked nature of Amateur radio is
what gives it it's strength. And sometimes why when all else fails....
corny statement that just happens to be true.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bob Brock wrote in message . ..
On 4 Sep 2003 05:25:03 -0700, (Brian) wrote:

Bob Brock wrote in message . ..

On a related question, is it pro coders intention to boycott QSO's
with countries that have already dropped the code requirement for HF
work? Do you guys refuse to talk to Australians now?

In the event they have that country confirmed for DXCC, they will boycott.

I was asking about you guys, not what they will do. Afterall, I've
boycotted General and above for about 9 years now because of
antiquated requirements.

That's funny. I don't necessarily agree with it, but its funny.

Tell me, do you have any anecdotal stories?

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...

That's exactly right. He'll never tell because the number is embarassingly small.

But apparently is highly effective.

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
hlink.net...

I think total ellimination is equivilant to negotiations with a
terrorist
organization (NCI).

Dan/W4NTI

I think that characterization is totally out of line and is equivalent to
the "law of usenet" that goes something like "the first one to equate
the other to Hitler automatically loses the argument."

Carl - wk3c


I understand your point of view Carl. Down heah in Dixie we call that 'eat
up with the dumbass'.

Your NCI organization is nothing but a bunch of whinney crybaby lazy me
generation morons. You know it, and we know it. Now just go off and whine
in your corner.

The truth hurts, eh?

Dan/W4NTI

In article , Bob Brock
writes:

On 4 Sep 2003 05:25:03 -0700, (Brian) wrote:

Bob Brock wrote in message
...

On a related question, is it pro coders intention to boycott QSO's
with countries that have already dropped the code requirement for HF
work? Do you guys refuse to talk to Australians now?

In the event they have that country confirmed for DXCC, they will boycott.

I was asking about you guys, not what they will do.

I don't boycott any ham who follows the rules.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob Brock
writes:

On 4 Sep 2003 05:25:03 -0700, (Brian) wrote:

Bob Brock wrote in message
...

On a related question, is it pro coders intention to boycott QSO's
with countries that have already dropped the code requirement for HF
work? Do you guys refuse to talk to Australians now?

In the event they have that country confirmed for DXCC, they will
boycott.

I was asking about you guys, not what they will do.

I don't boycott any ham who follows the rules.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Exactly. And, I hadn't heard of any attempt to boycott a "country" due to
its position on CW. That seems like something that would only get thought
up right here in this newsgroup, though! GRIN

Anyway, that's taking the whole CW debate just way too far, IMNSHO.

Kim W5TIT

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 13:50:54 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:



Bob Brock wrote:
On 4 Sep 2003 05:25:03 -0700, (Brian) wrote:


Bob Brock wrote in message . ..


On a related question, is it pro coders intention to boycott QSO's
with countries that have already dropped the code requirement for HF
work? Do you guys refuse to talk to Australians now?

In the event they have that country confirmed for DXCC, they will boycott.


I was asking about you guys, not what they will do. Afterall, I've
boycotted General and above for about 9 years now because of
antiquated requirements.

Your loss, dude.

If you wait long enough, the writtens might go away too.

No, the writen exams have a basis in the real world. Code just has
it's basis as a historical antiquity. I'm more than willing to do
whatever is necessary to prove profiency in radio operation.


Hey Carl, here's one of your new guys!

Im sure that this has some type of significance for you, but it's lost
on me.

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:15:41 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob Brock
writes:

On 4 Sep 2003 05:25:03 -0700, (Brian) wrote:

Bob Brock wrote in message
...

On a related question, is it pro coders intention to boycott QSO's
with countries that have already dropped the code requirement for HF
work? Do you guys refuse to talk to Australians now?

In the event they have that country confirmed for DXCC, they will
boycott.

I was asking about you guys, not what they will do.

I don't boycott any ham who follows the rules.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Exactly. And, I hadn't heard of any attempt to boycott a "country" due to
its position on CW. That seems like something that would only get thought
up right here in this newsgroup, though! GRIN

Anyway, that's taking the whole CW debate just way too far, IMNSHO.

I simply asked if anyone would consider boycotting no code HF
operators from other countries. Oz is already issuing licenses.
Asking a question is not proposing anything. However, making that
jump in logic is typical of usenet in general.