OK...So What Are YOU Going To DO About It...?!?!
 

There's a lot of negativism in this group about the ARRL proposal.

While not as verbose about it, I agree that this "proposal" was
poorly thought out and does not meet any "obvious" need within Amateur
Radio. It's a W5YI-ian like effort to create something new for the
sake of sales/membership.

My "answer" is a letter to the ARRL suggesting that this was NOT
a wise idea and COULD have been made less of a surprise to the Amateur
Community by discussing it first. I'll "cc" that letter to my SM.

Other than hurl epithets and insults, is anyone else going to do
anything remotely constructive? Or is this pretty much the usual
"I-ain't-gonna-do-nuttin-but-whine-like-a-pig" RRAP rhetoric being
bantied about?

73

Steve, K4YZ

"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...
There's a lot of negativism in this group about the ARRL proposal.

While not as verbose about it, I agree that this "proposal" was
poorly thought out and does not meet any "obvious" need within Amateur
Radio. It's a W5YI-ian like effort to create something new for the
sake of sales/membership.

My "answer" is a letter to the ARRL suggesting that this was NOT
a wise idea and COULD have been made less of a surprise to the Amateur
Community by discussing it first. I'll "cc" that letter to my SM.

Other than hurl epithets and insults, is anyone else going to do
anything remotely constructive? Or is this pretty much the usual
"I-ain't-gonna-do-nuttin-but-whine-like-a-pig" RRAP rhetoric being
bantied about?

73

Steve, K4YZ


You know the group so well, Steve! ;)

73/88, Kim W5TIT

Well you people have done such a fantastic job of destroying the hobby, I
say it's time to fire up NTI (No Test International) and just finish it off.

Face it, you people killed Ham Radio, it's over.

Ham Radio, RIP

"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...
There's a lot of negativism in this group about the ARRL proposal.

While not as verbose about it, I agree that this "proposal" was
poorly thought out and does not meet any "obvious" need within Amateur
Radio. It's a W5YI-ian like effort to create something new for the
sake of sales/membership.

My "answer" is a letter to the ARRL suggesting that this was NOT
a wise idea and COULD have been made less of a surprise to the Amateur
Community by discussing it first. I'll "cc" that letter to my SM.

Other than hurl epithets and insults, is anyone else going to do
anything remotely constructive? Or is this pretty much the usual
"I-ain't-gonna-do-nuttin-but-whine-like-a-pig" RRAP rhetoric being
bantied about?

73

Steve, K4YZ

"shephed" wrote in message ...

Well you people have...(SNIP)

Another anonymous sniper with more antagonistic, slanderous swill
to yet slop the trough with.

Be gone, Scumbag. We already have Lennie...We DON'T need you.

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

"shephed" wrote in message
.. .

Well you people have...(SNIP)

Another anonymous sniper with more antagonistic, slanderous swill
to yet slop the trough with.

Be gone, Scumbag. We already have Lennie...We DON'T need you.

Gotta love the warmth and charm of the legal licensed USA amateur
extra frothing at the mouth! :-) :-) :-)

Must be a sixth definition in 97.1, following something about "unique
ability to enhance good will..." :-)

LHA / WMD

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
.com...

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message
.com...

There's a lot of negativism in this group about the ARRL proposal.

Also a lot of positivism.

That they are trying to keep things moving from their
perspective, perhaps. But I don't think this requires a whole lot of
rethinking nor does it require any complex bandplanning.

I'm not sure what you mean, Steve.

The ARRL proposal focuses mostly on the entry-level license and the license
classes closed off to new issues. There's not a lot of bandplanning in it.

While not as verbose about it, I agree that this "proposal" was
poorly thought out and does not meet any "obvious" need within Amateur
Radio. It's a W5YI-ian like effort to create something new for the
sake of sales/membership.

I disagree! I think it has some good ideas and some bad ideas.

There's good stuff here, Jim, but I'm going to cut to the chase.

OK

On top of all this, the Tech written (Element 2) is full of arcane
stuff like RF exposure calculations, which displaces more basic stuff
that would serve a newcomer better.

I don't think that much of what is "written" is pertinent even if
it were "written" in the next 2 hours. As long as the question pools
are open and the "newcomer" can pick up a verbatim "Q&A study guide",
the tests are relatively irrelevant.

And that's not going to change. Been that way for 20 years, and FCC isn't
going to take back the work that it now gets done for free by unpaid
volunteers.

So the *only* answer is to make the test pools so big that it's easier for 99%
of new hams to just learn the material than to word-associate and rote-memorize
their way to a passing grade. And, in my experience, most newcomers really want
to learn the material. YMMV.

Yes, some "learning" will occur just from reading the question
over and over, but to what legitimate application can THAT kind of
learning be applied?

Some questions are pure memorization, like the band edges and other regs.

Repeat after me: "Lopressor is a beta blocker administerd SIVP
for the control of hypertension and AFIB with IVR."

"Lopressor is a beta blocker administered SIVP for the control of hypertension
and AFIB with IVR."

Got it - sort of.

Got that? Now, WHAT is a beta blocker?

Some kind of drug. Has to do with the mechanisms that cause high blood pressure
and /or hear attacks. Administered intravenously.

What was the underlying
etiology of the hypertension or the atrial fibrillation that produced
the irregular ventricular response?

Something to do with too much beta. Whatever beta is in this context.

I figured out all that from context and a hazy layman's exposure to cardiac
medicine. Do I really understand it? Of course not!

My "answer" is a letter to the ARRL suggesting that this was NOT
a wise idea and COULD have been made less of a surprise to the Amateur
Community by discussing it first. I'll "cc" that letter to my SM.

What about your Director and Vice Director - or better yet, the entire
BoD? And let 'em know exactly what's good and bad, and why.

Perhaps, Jim, but my take is that the FCC has expressed more than
it's fair share of frustration with the numerous licening strategies
that have been offered, all suggesting that "this one" will be the one
to open the flood gates of new licensees.

I don't see that. What I do see is the FCC taking its time and letting everyone
propose all sorts of stuff, and comment on same. NPRM? Maybe some months down
the road. Actual rules changes? Don't hold your breath or you'll need more than
beta blockers ;-)

Each has produced a momentary road bump followed by a rapid
return to a steady-if-unimpressive growth rate.

That's because none of them address, or can address, the underlying problems
that limit growth in amateur radio.

If/when the proposal becomes an RM, it'll be comment time......

Ditto.

Hope you're keeping warm Jim! It's embarrassing here...I spent
most of the evening with the back door open to let a cool drizzling
breeze pass through the house.

We've had 3 winter storms in the past 4 days. Last night was an ice storm
followed by several inches of new snow. Also lots of flu in this house despite
flu shots. Not pretty. See what you're missing?

Time to dig out.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...
(N2EY) wrote in message
. com...

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message
. com...

There's a lot of negativism in this group about the ARRL proposal.

Also a lot of positivism.

That they are trying to keep things moving from their
perspective, perhaps. But I don't think this requires a whole lot of
rethinking nor does it require any complex bandplanning.

While not as verbose about it, I agree that this "proposal" was
poorly thought out and does not meet any "obvious" need within Amateur
Radio. It's a W5YI-ian like effort to create something new for the
sake of sales/membership.

I disagree! I think it has some good ideas and some bad ideas.

There's good stuff here, Jim, but I'm going to cut to the chase.

On top of all this, the Tech written (Element 2) is full of arcane
stuff like RF exposure calculations, which displaces more basic stuff
that would serve a newcomer better.

I don't think that much of what is "written" is pertinent even if
it were "written" in the next 2 hours. As long as the question pools
are open and the "newcomer" can pick up a verbatim "Q&A study guide",
the tests are relatively irrelevant.

Passing the General written in 1958 was not difficult
at all for anyone with a memory and who spent limited time studying
the AMECO study guide or ARRL study guide which only had
some 5/6 pages of study material for General.

Yes, some "learning" will occur just from reading the question
over and over, but to what legitimate application can THAT kind of
learning be applied?

The Q&As aren't going away. Better to focus effort on expanding the
Q&A pool for things like formiula calculations such that memorizing
the formula...not the answer is the better way to learn.

My "answer" is a letter to the ARRL suggesting that this was NOT
a wise idea and COULD have been made less of a surprise to the Amateur
Community by discussing it first. I'll "cc" that letter to my SM.

What about your Director and Vice Director - or better yet, the entire
BoD? And let 'em know exactly what's good and bad, and why.

Perhaps, Jim, but my take is that the FCC has expressed more than
it's fair share of frustration with the numerous licening strategies
that have been offered, all suggesting that "this one" will be the one
to open the flood gates of new licensees.

I don't think the FCC cares if there is or isn't a floodgate of
new hams. The FCC wants stability over the next decade or
longer. The ARRL proposal would do exactly that...once and for a
long time forward.

Each has produced a momentary road bump followed by a rapid
return to a steady-if-unimpressive growth rate.

If/when the proposal becomes an RM, it'll be comment time......

Ditto.

Me too.

Hope you're keeping warm Jim! It's embarrassing here...I spent
most of the evening with the back door open to let a cool drizzling
breeze pass through the house.

Six more inches of snow last night....ugh.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message nk.net...

The Q&As aren't going away. Better to focus effort on expanding the
Q&A pool for things like formiula calculations such that memorizing
the formula...not the answer is the better way to learn.

I think most of us agree that it would be best if FCC took back the
testing process and no longer made the Q&A pool public information.
But it's clear that's not going to happen in any foreseeable future,
for a long list of reasons. (Most of which come down to "money", as
in "FCC isn't going to spend it on tests for hams").

There's also the issue that after 20 years of VECs, FCC would have
to be convinced that the system is failing, *and* that the only way
to fix it was to give the process back to FCC. Ain't gonna happen.

And there's nothing to stop Son Of Bash from doing what the original
did 30 years ago.

On top of all this, suppose that by some miracle FCC *did* take back
testing and test generation. Or maybe farm it out to a commercial
testing firm. What do you think a test would cost? I recall that
back in the '60s, when FCC imposed test fees on hams, the fee was
$9. Which doesn't sound like much until you adjust for inflation. So
it would probably be in the $50-100 range (or more) today. Not the kind
of thing to help our growth - particularly among young people!

Yet no matter how often these facts are brought up, there are calls
to end VE testing. Ain't likely to happen, folks, and even if it did you
might not be real happy with the result.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...
"shephed" wrote in message
...

Well you people have...(SNIP)

Another anonymous sniper with more antagonistic, slanderous swill
to yet slop the trough with.

Be gone, Scumbag. We already have Lennie...We DON'T need you.

Steve, K4YZ

Not anon at all.
My point is very valid, NCI and their like have killed a once great hobby.
The ARRL has abandoned the traditional Ham Radio (this is a matter of
survival on their part, they know the turn Ham Radio has taken and will
travel that path to save their jobs) and soon the radio manufacturers will
press for a more open market in which to sell their wares by wanting the
elimination of testing all together.

There is no "What now", it's too late, Ham Radio is dead.
Joke all you want about CB'ers taking over, but don't too shocked when it
happens. Thanks to Fred, Steve, and the likes.

As for the rest of your post, I won't stoop to your level to reply, sorry.




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 1/27/2004

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
.com...

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message
.com...

I don't think that much of what is "written" is pertinent even if
it were "written" in the next 2 hours. As long as the question pools
are open and the "newcomer" can pick up a verbatim "Q&A study guide",
the tests are relatively irrelevant.

And that's not going to change. Been that way for 20 years, and FCC isn't
going to take back the work that it now gets done for free by unpaid
volunteers.

I don't see where the FCC would have to "take back work". They'd
just have to say "The test pools are closed, adn publishing the
verbatim responses is illegal as it compromises the validity of the
test."

First off, they'd have to replace the entire question pool (all three tests)
because there are many copies of it already out there. And then they'd need a
study guide that wasn't exactly like the questions so we'd know what was on the
tests. Who is going to do all that work, and who is going to foot the bill?

Second, the work of VEs would be complicated by the need to keep the pools and
tests secret.

Third (and probably worst), there'd be nothing to stop Son Of Bash from doing
his thing all over again. In fact, it would be even easier - just let *one* VE
decide to break the rules, and the entire new pool would be on somebody's
website. And untraceable. Sure. 99.999% of VEs aren't going to do that - but as
Bash proved, it doesn't take many.

Any "work" would be that of the VE's to not allow the tests to be
compromised.

See above.

Repeat after me: "Lopressor is a beta blocker administerd SIVP
for the control of hypertension and AFIB with IVR."

"Lopressor is a beta blocker administered SIVP for the control of
hypertension and AFIB with IVR."

Lopressor is a brand name, not a generic drug name, right?

Got it - sort of.

My point exactly.

Got that? Now, WHAT is a beta blocker?

Some kind of drug. Has to do with the mechanisms that cause high blood
pressure and /or hear attacks. Administered intravenously.

MAY be administered intraveneously. Also available in PO (oral)
form, occassionally administered sublingually.

Under the tongue. Like you're supposed to take zinc.

What was the underlying
etiology of the hypertension or the atrial fibrillation that produced
the irregular ventricular response?

Something to do with too much beta. Whatever beta is in this context.

Nope. You did pretty good to here. THAT question was what OTHER
problems CAUSED the A-fib. The Lopressor will correct (temporarily)
the A-fib...

By blocking the excess beta - whatever beta is - but the real problem is
whatever is causing all that beta in the first place. I think.

I figured out all that from context and a hazy layman's exposure to cardiac
medicine. Do I really understand it? Of course not!

Again, my point exactly. Now, change that to any one of the
dozens of test questions for the Amateur exams and we have the same
thing...

Sure. Except that in the case of Lopressor, a mistake can easily kill a
patient. In the case of most ham radio questions, that's not going to happen.

Do you get Newsweek? Good letter/article from an ER nurse on page 12.

Perhaps, Jim, but my take is that the FCC has expressed more than
it's fair share of frustration with the numerous licening strategies
that have been offered, all suggesting that "this one" will be the one
to open the flood gates of new licensees.

I don't see that. What I do see is the FCC taking its time and letting
everyone propose all sorts of stuff, and comment on same. NPRM?
Maybe some months down
the road. Actual rules changes? Don't hold your breath or you'll need more
than beta blockers ;-)

Tell me about it.

'zactly.

I already credit the USMC for keeping me physically fit enough to
avoid most of the pitfalls I see in many of my patients "my age".

HOO-RAH!

I was told once that "there is no such thing as an 'ex-Marine', just ones that
are not on active duty at the moment....

Scares the be-jeebers out of me "coding" guys younger than me!

I know a tiny bit about what you mean, having gone to the funerals of
coworkers at [name of former employer deleted] who were younger
than I am now, and who died of MIs and such after repeated warnings
from health care professionals.

For me, it's running that keeps things in shape. This morning I was too sick -
first time that's been true in months. Tomorrow it's back on the road.

Each has produced a momentary road bump followed by a rapid
return to a steady-if-unimpressive growth rate.

That's because none of them address, or can address, the underlying
problems that limit growth in amateur radio.

I only see ONE underlying problem, Jim, and it's hardly a
"problem"...It's just human nature...Amateur Radio is a technical
hobby. Even in Amateur Radio's "Golden Ages" there were only certain
folks who got interested in it, and an even smaller number that got
interested and stayed!

That's one problem. Here are some mo

- Lack of publicity
- High cost of getting started*
- Competition for time and resources
- Antenna restrictions
- Certain elements of ham radio's appeal have disappeared**

* Yes, it's true that one can get on the air for very little money. But most
newcomers don't know this, and there aren't many who are going to build
an HT from an old TV set. It's true that a computer can cost as much as a
ham rig, but a computer is almost a necessity these days, and its cost can
often be rationalized by all the different things it can do. A ham rig has only
its one purpose, or maybe two if you count SWLing.

** There was an excellent article some time back about why people become
hams. The author cited three types of radio amateur: the experimenter/tinkerer,
the operator, and the communicator.

The experimenter/tinkerer likes the techno end of it, and in extreme cases is
almost never on the air because s/he's working on something new.

The operator likes the thrill of actually communicating by radio, with his/her
own station and skill. DXers and contesters are prime examples. For them,
the media is the message.

The communicator just wants to converse. The technology doesn't matter,
it's getting the message through.

Once upon a time, amateur radio attracted all three because there were
few other options open to the average person of average means. Go back
just 20-25 years - the average person didn't have a cell phone, (let alone a
picture-cellpbone or text messaging) or a computer, (let alone email), or a
fax, or cheap long distance telephone service, etc. etc..Today those things are
so common they are taken for granted. The communicators have lots of options
besides amateur radio, most of them cheaper and faster.

And as for experimenter/tinkerers - when the self-proclaimed "PROFESSIONALS IN
RADIO" use manufactured radios, how can we poor ignorant amateurs be expected
to build anything? Those of us who do build often find ourselves being
taunted and insulted by those self same professional appliance owners....

So what's left are (mostly) the operators.

It's no different than stamp collecting, hang gliding, or
motorcycle racing. Some people will be attracted to it, a great many
others won't. It's no big deal that we don't have ten million
licensees!

Agreed - but try to sell that!

Here's another point: The more hams we have, the more newbies we need to
replace those who drop out. With 683,000 US hams, if only 3% drop out each
year, we need 20,490 newcomers per year just to break even. To have 1% growth,
we need 30,735 newcomers per year.

If/when the proposal becomes an RM, it'll be comment time......

Ditto.

Hope you're keeping warm Jim! It's embarrassing here...I spent
most of the evening with the back door open to let a cool drizzling
breeze pass through the house.

We've had 3 winter storms in the past 4 days. Last night was an ice storm
followed by several inches of new snow. Also lots of flu in this house
despite flu shots. Not pretty.

It was blessedly short-lived but a nasty GI flu. If it was that bad with a flu
shot I don't want to be without one. I also got the anti-pneumonia vaccine some
years back - prolly time to re-up.

See what you're missing?

Time to dig out.

Don't consider it "digging out", Jim...Consider it cardiovascular
exercise!

It all counts. Neighbor and I dug out our shared driveway. Tomorrow I put the
shoes back on...

I'll be driving to work tonight in a windbreaker! (nyuknyuknyuk)

Wait till July...I got yer windbreaker right here!

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
nk.net...

The Q&As aren't going away. Better to focus effort on expanding the
Q&A pool for things like formiula calculations such that memorizing
the formula...not the answer is the better way to learn.

I think most of us agree that it would be best if FCC took back the
testing process and no longer made the Q&A pool public information.

First, even if the FCC took back the process, the questions would
end up in the public domain via internet sharing, etc.

But it's clear that's not going to happen in any foreseeable future,
for a long list of reasons. (Most of which come down to "money", as
in "FCC isn't going to spend it on tests for hams").

That's second. It just isn't going to happen because there hasn't
been any case made as to why it should. You and others
complain, but there just isn't any examples of gross abuse
or widespread problems. Are there occasional abuses, yes, but
clearly insufficient numbers to warrant even a concern on the
FCC's part.

There's also the issue that after 20 years of VECs, FCC would have
to be convinced that the system is failing, *and* that the only way
to fix it was to give the process back to FCC. Ain't gonna happen.

Agree 100%

And there's nothing to stop Son Of Bash from doing what the original
did 30 years ago.

As I said above...even easier today with the internet.

On top of all this, suppose that by some miracle FCC *did* take back
testing and test generation. Or maybe farm it out to a commercial
testing firm. What do you think a test would cost? I recall that
back in the '60s, when FCC imposed test fees on hams, the fee was
$9. Which doesn't sound like much until you adjust for inflation. So
it would probably be in the $50-100 range (or more) today. Not the kind
of thing to help our growth - particularly among young people!

Agree again.

Yet no matter how often these facts are brought up, there are calls
to end VE testing. Ain't likely to happen, folks, and even if it did you
might not be real happy with the result.

Agree yet again.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
nk.net...

The Q&As aren't going away. Better to focus effort on expanding the
Q&A pool for things like formiula calculations such that memorizing
the formula...not the answer is the better way to learn.

I think most of us agree that it would be best if FCC took back the
testing process and no longer made the Q&A pool public information.

First, even if the FCC took back the process, the questions would
end up in the public domain via internet sharing, etc.

I'm agreeing with ya, Bill!

But it's clear that's not going to happen in any foreseeable future,
for a long list of reasons. (Most of which come down to "money", as
in "FCC isn't going to spend it on tests for hams").

That's second.

I say it's first. Which should FCC spend $$ on - Riley or examiners? I say
Riley.

It just isn't going to happen because there hasn't
been any case made as to why it should.

Sure there has. It's self-evident that "secret" tests are
"better", all else being equal. Are they better enough to
get FCC to change? Of course not!

You and others
complain, but there just isn't any examples of gross abuse
or widespread problems. Are there occasional abuses, yes, but
clearly insufficient numbers to warrant even a concern on the
FCC's part.

Not talking about abuse at all. I'm talking about the effectiveness
of different test methods.

There's also the issue that after 20 years of VECs, FCC would have
to be convinced that the system is failing, *and* that the only way
to fix it was to give the process back to FCC. Ain't gonna happen.

Agree 100%

That's not a complaint.

And there's nothing to stop Son Of Bash from doing what the original
did 30 years ago.

As I said above...even easier today with the internet.

Yup. Probably be a whole bunch of little Bashes doing it in far less time.

On top of all this, suppose that by some miracle FCC *did* take back
testing and test generation. Or maybe farm it out to a commercial
testing firm. What do you think a test would cost? I recall that
back in the '60s, when FCC imposed test fees on hams, the fee was
$9. Which doesn't sound like much until you adjust for inflation. So
it would probably be in the $50-100 range (or more) today. Not the kind
of thing to help our growth - particularly among young people!

Agree again.

Yet no matter how often these facts are brought up, there are calls
to end VE testing. Ain't likely to happen, folks, and even if it did you
might not be real happy with the result.

Agree yet again.

"Be careful what you ask for - you might just get it".

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N8IE" wrote in message ...
"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...
"shephed" wrote in message
...

Not anon at all.
My point is very valid, NCI and their like have killed a once great hobby.

They have?

Hmmmm...I turned the radio on just as soon as I read this and
heard TONS of signals on HF and the local repeaters.

Local guys chatting about new license class just completed...

HF rocking with DX CW and SSB signals.

The ARRL has abandoned the traditional Ham Radio (this is a matter of
survival on their part, they know the turn Ham Radio has taken and will
travel that path to save their jobs) and soon the radio manufacturers will
press for a more open market in which to sell their wares by wanting the
elimination of testing all together.

And if they ONLY catered to "traditional" Ham Radio, what then?
They'd be catering to an ever-dwindling fraction of the Amateur Radio
community and THAT would be the death of their jobs!

There is no "What now", it's too late, Ham Radio is dead.
Joke all you want about CB'ers taking over, but don't too shocked when it
happens. Thanks to Fred, Steve, and the likes.

As for the rest of your post, I won't stoop to your level to reply, sorry.

You have already stooped LOWER than you think...by making
assertions that are easily disproven and are, at the very worst,
supermarket tabloid headlines.

Try again.

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

I am not an NCI supporter...

That's good!

I am resigned to the fact that we've
tossed a major skill down the drain,

"we've tossed"??!! I'm *NOT* part of that "we", and I don't think you
are either, Steve!

*Some* would like to toss that skill down the drain, but not all.

and I'd just like to minimize the damage.

That's good! One way to do that is to encourage rather than discourage
the development and use of that major skill by hams.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(William) wrote in message

Steve, the NPRM came out in 1998 with the writing on the wall. You've
had a long time to get used to the idea, and a long time to accept it.
You've suprised me recenty with a mature attitude toward the whole
ordeal - thanks.

It's been my "attitude" all along.

...which seems to have started only a week or so ago...after months
and months of "putz" and "scumminess" statements. :-)

Had the chips gone the other way we simply would have kept trying.

I doubt it...The whining and the cries of "FOUL" would have been
reverberating for decades.

"Vigilance in the defense of liberty is no vice." - B.G.

73, Brian

I shudda known.

Took you that long to discover the obvious?

LHA / WMD