Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
William wrote:
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:


In article ,



(Len Over 21) writes:



In article , Robert Casey
writes:



One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were
taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow
as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to
realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred
and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination.
Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test
that with paying passangers aboard.



Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic
NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this
newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light-
years) to amateur radio policy. :-)



So what, Len? Much of what you talk about doesn't come close to amateur
radio policy either.

That anyone should chide another on OT posting here in rrap is mildly
amusing.

Agreed! Len does more OT posting than anybody,


and is told more often than anybody that he is OT.

Not by me! AFAIC Lenover21 can post on anything he wishes to.

Glad to hear it. The same cannot be said for Kelly, Jim, Dave, or
dare I say Steve?

Really, there isn't a need for any of us to be sensitive about this
stuff. It is after all, USENET.

- Mike KB3EIA -

It's not being sensitive about being told. It's just that those doing
the telling are some of the worst offenders, i.e., PCTA double
standard.

Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: (William)
Date: 10/26/2004 5:04 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Mike Coslo wrote in message
...

Not by me! AFAIC Lenover21 can post on anything he wishes to.

Glad to hear it. The same cannot be said for Kelly, Jim, Dave, or
dare I say Steve?

Yes, you DARE say it, Sir Putzy Jr!.

I have never chastised Sir Scumbag about being "off topic" except when HE
is chastizing others for doing exactly the same thing HE does.

Really, there isn't a need for any of us to be sensitive about this
stuff. It is after all, USENET.

It's not being sensitive about being told. It's just that those doing
the telling are some of the worst offenders, i.e., PCTA double
standard.

Oh...You mean the SAME "double standard" that YOU just exercised here?

Steve, K4YZ

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,



(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were
taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow
as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to
realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred
and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination.
Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test
that with paying passangers aboard.

Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic
NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this
newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light-
years) to amateur radio policy. :-)

So what, Len? Much of what you talk about doesn't come close to amateur
radio policy either.

That anyone should chide another on OT posting here in rrap is mildly
amusing. When that someone is part of the Lennie/Steve/Brian-William
troika in *their* ongoing whizzing contest is much more amusing.

Try a quartet. :-)

Naw, the three of them do enough.

I'm not into any "whizzing contest" with the gunnery nurse. :-)

Hnarf!

Anyone can see you are.

YOU are the one making that charge.

Charge is such a nasty legalese sounding term. It's more like
"observation". And yes, I do make that observation.

It's a plain, simple fact.

I just call them as everyone else can see them.

Wouldn't it be better to shed light on what others may not be able to see?

Yep.

Or, as someone else wrote, "the replies just seem to write themselves!"

Heh heh heh.

Well, except to some who wish to turn this newsgroup into
a quasi-private Chat Room involving their own desires and
preferences..and to have them damn all others for not thinking
and feeling as they do. [yourself excluded]

That's a pretty good summation of what *you* want from this newsgroup,
Len.
After all, you're the one telling other people to "shut the hell up"..

I've thought that Lenover21 wanted to be the moderator in here. He
claims otherwise.

Tsk. Nice troll cast, but inaccurate.

No, completely accurate.

Now YOU tell us what the Titanic's sinking of 92 years ago has to
do with amateur radio policy of today?

Very very little.

Actually, quite a bit.

1912 was the year of the first U.S. radio regulating agency.

No, that's not true. Radio was regulated by the US and by international treaty
before 1912. The regulations were very vague and loose, but they did exist.

That's
about the only "relation" to the subject of the Titanic and a very
tenuous one...if at all. :-)

Wrong again, Len!

Because of the Titanic disaster, the existing loose regulations were tightened
up and much more closely defined. Licenses were required of all transmitting
stations, new procedures set up, new treaties and agreements put in place.

And it was because of the Titanic disaster that amateurs were limited to "200
meters and down" and 1 kW input to their transmitters. Those limitations caused
amateurs to organize themselves into groups like ARRL (1914), to push for
legislative protection, and to explore what could be done with those supposedly
"useless" wavelengths.

Had there been no Titanic or similar disaster, it's very probable that the
loose state of radio regulatory affairs would have continued until the outbreak
of WW1.

And it's also very possible that without the Titanic disaster, amateur radio
would not exist today, or even after WW1.

Perhaps that's why Len gets so worked up over mention of the Titanic.

Or perhaps it's the fact that the rescue was effected by Morse Code used on
radio that gets Len so upset.

For the bleeding-heart imaginary sailors aboard, I won't cry
great crocodile tears of a thousand-plus humans who perished
on the Titanic in 1912. Nope.

"Bleeding-heart imaginary sailors"? Who would that be?

Yeah, what's with that?

Tsk. You two don't really READ what you've written? :-)

Jimmie wanted me to show ten kinds of respect and sorrow for all
the passengers and crew of the Titanic who perished in 1912!

When one would have been sufficient. Respect doesn't make a person a
"bleeding heart".

Len laughed at the disaster when I wrote that hitting the iceberg head-on would
have probably saved all aboard. And he refuses to show any respect for those
who perished.

Just three nights earlier than the Titanic disaster the liner Niagara plowed
head-on into an iceberg at almost the same spot where Titanic sank. Although
passengers were thrown to the deck and the ship was damaged, and an SOS was
sent, no lives were lost and the ship continued to New York under its own
power.

I'll just reflect that the subject
made a LOT of money for Linda Hamilton's ex-husband

You mean James Cameron? If so, why not just use his name?

You seem to have a serious problem calling people by their names. Perhaps
you don't have the guts to do it.

Tsk. "Serious problem?" More tsk. :-)

Yes, Len. You have that problem.

Not much show-biz action in PA...but there is in this neck o' the woods.

And the importance of that is?

and
employed many Mexican laborers on the set of "Titanic"...
many many years later with a little gilt statuette awarded for
Best Motion Picture to the producer-director. No crying great
tears on-stage on that Oscar Night.

What possible significance does that have?

And is that on topic for rrap? ;^)

Tsk. More PCTA extra Double Standard.

How? Just asking a question.

Linda is quite quirky in a cute sort of way... or is that quite cute in
a quirky sort of way?

Why do you wish to continue talking about Linda Hamilton?

Why not? She was very good in "Mr. Destiny"

Well you brought her to the conversation. 8^)

Does she have a ham license? [pun intended]

[just think what fun the ARRL news page would have with...drum
roll...HAM ACTOR! :-)

Like Andy Devine...

Boeing doesn't test fly
new aircraft with commercial paying passengers.

Not many aircraft companies were busy working out Test
Proceedures for test-flying new aircraft in 1912... :-)

How did Bill Boeing's company get into ham radio policy?

You guys just can't focus! :-)

Not a matter of focus. Just some discussion among friends. And the
discussions among friends tend to go where they will.

Free speech. What a concept.

Boeing innovated the pre-flight checklist around 1940 or
thereabouts after they lost a prototype Flying Fortress (and
their chief test pilot) on takeoff.

Of course there was the PROFESSIONAL pilot who tried to roll a B-52 at low
altitude.

Did you see the case study of that one, Jim? Spooky! Too bad so many of
the folk flying with him knew they were probably going to die some day
with him at the yoke.

So...this is now a FLYING newsgroup?

No, but there are some on Netnews, I'm sure.

Or are you PCTAs just "high?"

Ick, getting high is a sure fire method of wasting one's life.

Remember "8 Miles High"?

Not to worry. U.S. amateur radio regulations are Up To Date.

Yes, they are.

Seems like it to me!

For maybe, 1913... :-)

For 2004.

I took the tests recently, all within the past 5 years, and a couple
within 3 years. They are up to date enough, covering satellite ops, all
manner of relevant band and technical questions dealing with present day
equipment. They are up to date for at least mid 2001.

They still require all amateurs to test for beloved morse code
cognition capability in order to have priveleges of operating
below 30 MHz...in the ham bands.

Why does that bother you so much?

Tsk. Doesn't bother me much.

It sure seems to. You're obsessed by it.

I haven't gotten an amateur radio license yet. :-)

That's a good thing!

Why should I sell my soul for some high-rate morsemanship? :-)

"Sell your soul"? One cannot sell what one does not posess. ;-)

Besides, on January 19, 2000, you told us you were going for Extra "right out
of the box".

Ahh, maybe there is the problem. You don't have to sell your soul, just
study the material. I had great difficulty with Element 1 preparation,
but it didn't do me a bit of damage. Here I am, soul intact , and just
as fat dumb and happy as ever! 8^)

Thoroughly modern, too!

It seems that some amateurs
bent on constantly re-living the past (in almost anything) think
that morse code skill is still the epitome of "radio operation" in
the year 2004.

Perhaps some do.

Jimmie Who do.

What person are you referring to, Len?

Many more think that a simple test of Morse code skill at a very basic
level is a worthwhile requirement for an amateur license.

Only because THEY had to do it...therefore everyone else has to
do the same! :-)

Nope. They think it's a good idea for other reasons.

Nahh, I think they should take it because that is the rule at present.

Why does that bother you so much, Len?

Why is Jimmie so bothered that he has to keep asking that?

"You can not answer a question with another question"

Note how Len avoids the question about why the code test bothers him so much.

Oh, Bother..... W.T. Pooh

Yup!

Very "progressive." State of the Art.

Len, do you live in a "State Of The Art" house? Drive a "State Of The Art"
car? Wear "State Of The Art" clothes? Is your computer "State Of The Art",
complete with broadband connection?

Far more modern in all respects on all items compared to 1912. :-)

In other words: No to all of the above.

If we owns PC's, we isn't state of the art.

Yep.

Tsk. Bad grammar to boot...up.

Yup, kind of illustrating the point that many people seem to think that
they are some kind of high tech wizard because they own a PC or cell
phone, or other such icons.

Well done, Mike!

Try "If we own PCs, we are not state of the art." :-)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I kind of like the other way if you
don't mind. 8^)

Your English syntax and grammar is NOT state of the art...

Oh, but they are as necessary!

Exactly!

Heck, the only HF radio equipment you've admitted to owning is over 20
years
old. Definitely not "State Of The Art", yet you lecture others about it.

Tsk. Jimmie have loss of memory. Poor fella.

To whom do you refer?

Has to "recycle" all his
radio construction in order to do "state of the art" TUBE designs in the
1990s. Tsk. With a double degree... :-)

Doesn't "have to". Chooses to.

Besides, it wouldn't matter what sort of homebrew rig I produced - Len would
have lots of disparaging things to say about it.

What homebrew HF radio transceivers have *you* produced since the mid 1990s,
Len, using only your own time and resources?

Despite their virtual obsolescence, hollow state technology is quite
interesting, at least to me.

I find it very interesting, too. Very useful, too.

Random though mode on:

I have a 1987 Transciever. IC-745. Suits me just fine. All digital
(excluding the necessary analog bits)

Wow, even digital radios are getting old hat.

"Why", the Grinch said as a smile lit his face, "Maybe for everything,
everymode all has it's place."

I have a chunk of galena setting on the shelf in front of me - maybe
I'll make a cat's whisker detector and radio from it

Random thought mode off.......

Put a carbon mike in your antenna lead and you can do AM like
Reggie F. in his Big Broadcast of 1906! :-)

AM never really appealed to me. Takes a lot of energy for all you get
out of it. But I do like historical processes and equipment as a
diversion after working all day with much more modern techniques. Kinda fun.

I've done AM on 75 meters, and it's a lot of fun when the band isn't crowded.
Been in some really nice roundtables where the other folks know how to develop
an idea and express their views.

Wow! "State of the Art!"

I suppose at one time it was!

Amaze your friends and neighbors by being able to talk without wires
for at least 10 miles! :-)

Hehe, AM is probably just about at the bottom of the heap (with
apologies to all the AM'ers out there)

It's another tool in the toolbox.

Have a Happy, your Grinchness...

You also, Lenover21.



I do have a question. I had called you Lennie once, and I think you
didn't particularly care for that. I've been calling you Lenover21, but
that sounds kind of formal if a screen name can be called formal.

Do you have a preference? Does simply "Len" work? Or "Leonard"?

Yes, Len - what would you prefer to be called? I call you "Len" and you answer
with insults, so should I call you "Leonard" or "Mr. Anderson"?

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

Mike Coslo wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:


Odd that in all the arguments, that one is overlooked. I would
postulate that the number one reason that the Titanic sunk at all is
that the compartments had the open top design. Were they sealed, the
Ship would probably just taken on a major list, and ridden low in the
water. But almost all the people would have survived.

Boink! Good show Mike! Another engineering screwup.

Not at all. Ocean liners aren't submarines. All that was needed were watertight
bulkheads that went one deck higher. But they didn't.

More what-ifs . . stroke, stroke . . .

Sealing the compartments at the top would have involved all sorts of problems.
For example - what would you do for air intakes?

Are you kidding?? It's called ventilation piping and has been around
since long before the Titanic was designed. ALL compartment areas in
carriers which are below the hanger deck are completely sealable, air
conditioned, heated and humidity-controlled by marine HVAC systems for
instance. Have you *ever* been on a ship??

Look up a ship called the "Great Eastern" for an interesting view of what could
be done.

sigh . . never mind . . .

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:


Really, there isn't a need for any of us to be sensitive about this
stuff. It is after all, USENET.


TSK. NO. VERY SERIOUS! Might be better than World Serious!

This newsgroup is all about certain PCTAs needing a private chat
room to damn the NCTAs to eternal hell for not loving morse.


Remember, all of us are going to hell in somones religion! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:


Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:


In article ,




(Len Over 21) writes:


In article , Robert Casey
writes:


One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were
taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow
as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to
realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred
and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination.
Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test
that with paying passangers aboard.

Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic
NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this
newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light-
years) to amateur radio policy. :-)

So what, Len? Much of what you talk about doesn't come close to amateur
radio policy either.

That anyone should chide another on OT posting here in rrap is mildly
amusing. When that someone is part of the Lennie/Steve/Brian-William
troika in *their* ongoing whizzing contest is much more amusing.

Try a quartet. :-)

I'm not into any "whizzing contest" with the gunnery nurse. :-)

YOU are the one making that charge.

Charge is such a nasty legalese sounding term. It's more like
"observation". And yes, I do make that observation.


Then I advise that your seeing an opthalmologist for an
eye examination is a good idea. That way you could observe
the several fracases that nursie starts with ANYONE who
disagrees with him...besides Brian, try Hans and Dieter.

Takes at least two people to make a fight. Steve and mayself don't get
into verbal battles. And I'm certainly not afraid of him. If I disagree,
I'll tell him so. And despite what "William" wants me to do, I'm not
going to step into one of you three's battles and slap his hand. You are
all big boys now, and responsible for your own behavior!


It's all been public. Nursie is eager and chomping at the bit
to FIGHT with anyone.

Okay, if you and Brian aren't, then show it. But you enjoy it, IMO, so
why defend it. If you like having verbal sparring matches with Steve
(the boys down at the shop used to call 'em whizzing contests) then have
at it. Want to have a nasty toned battle of wits? Enjoy! 8^)

Its the complaints and defenses I don't get.


I just call them as everyone else can see them.

Wouldn't it be better to shed light on what others may not be able to

see?

Tsk. See that opthalmologist.

Warning: You could be a victim of presbyopia and not know it...


Or, as someone else wrote, "the replies just seem to write themselves!"

Heh heh heh.


Gosh...wonder who wrote that original phrase? :-)

It wasn't Mike Coslo. It wasn't nursie. It wasn't Brian. It wasn't Rev.
Jim, our Artist of the State. It wasn't Kellie. It wasn't Hans. It
wasn't Dieter. It wasn't Jim Hampton. It wasn't Dee. It wasn't Kim.
OK, that about exhausts the regulars in here. :-)



Now YOU tell us what the Titanic's sinking of 92 years ago has to
do with amateur radio policy of today?

Very very little.


Actually, NONE.

However, the Titanic disaster is a favorite subject of his lordship,
Sir James. As Lord High Admiral of the newsgroup (sailing these
turbid waters every day), he has decreed the Titanic disaster IS a
worthy subject for amateur radio policy.

There we have it.

I enjoy talking on any subject with Jim.



When one would have been sufficient. Respect doesn't make a person a
"bleeding heart".


True enough. But only in the literal sense.

Hello? Can you see some sarcasm in my remarks? :-)

Of course. And there was some kind of something in my retort (limited
retort?) 8^)

Just a habit of mine to not speak ill of the dead.

As Yogi Berra said "If you don't go to your friend's funerals, they
won't go to yours!"




How did Bill Boeing's company get into ham radio policy?

You guys just can't focus! :-)

Not a matter of focus. Just some discussion among friends. And the
discussions among friends tend to go where they will.


So...you've joined the Society of Friends?

We quake at the thought...

Good people, all the Quakers I met.



But, of curse, you regulars all OWN this newsgroup. Despite it going
wherever the Internet carries it. What you dictate as Right and Proper
MUST be observed at all times!





Or are you PCTAs just "high?"

Ick, getting high is a sure fire method of wasting one's life.


I'm "high" on life itself. No drugs or substances needed.

Been a lonnng time since I heard that one!


Nor any morse code fantasies as the epitome of hobby radio arts.


Never had a Morse code fantasy in my life.

Linda Hamilton has entered my thoughts on an occasion or two! ;^)

:-)

8^)



I took the tests recently, all within the past 5 years, and a couple
within 3 years. They are up to date enough, covering satellite ops, all
manner of relevant band and technical questions dealing with present day
equipment. They are up to date for at least mid 2001.


You missed my point on that.

The present-day U.S. amateur regulations are just fine and dandy
to those who want to keep the morse code test for a license
examination.

You seem to give the Morse test the same amount of weight as
Pseudo-Conservatives give to the mythical "Liberal". This critter is
responsible for all the ills in the country, despite there being almost
no liberals left. Somehow, some way, the one or two liberals left manage
to gum everything up.


Other than to this circle of "friends," somewhere in the neighborhood
of 700 thousand (give or take) licensed amateurs MIGHT have some
disagreement with that "up to date."

There are presently 18 ("count 'em, 18") petitions for consideration
on changes to U.S. amateur radio regulations made public by the
FCC. It should be obvious (except to the oblivious) that all is NOT
"up to date" in those regulations.



Ahh, maybe there is the problem. You don't have to sell your soul, just


study the material.


Why? :-)

Each person must answer their own "Why". I figured that since I only
have so many years on this earth, I would take the time and learn Morse
code. Spent 6 months of an hour or so a day. The rewards have been that
I have had my (Morse code tested) license for 3 years now. That's three
years out of my life that I wouldn't have had it if I refused to learn it.

YMMV

Your "Why" would indicate that you simply aren't interested in the ARS
to the level that you would take the effort to get the license.

That's okay. If you don't want to be a Ham, no one is can stop you. Or
even a hamme! ;^)


I'm really only interested in ending the U.S. amateur radio license exam
morse code test.

I do NOT need to "study material on morsemanship" to do that.

Nope, you don't have to. Purely voluntary stuff.

I do NOT need to "study material on any other test element" just to
get a federal merit badge saying I am "authorized" something or
other.

Purely voluntary stuff there.



You seem to forget that I was ON HF very legally and
correctly over a half century ago, over four decades ago, over three
decades ago, and even earlier this year...all without having ANY
requirement to "study morsemanship material."

I could never forget! 8^)

Of course if you are happy, then that is great. I've only been on HF
for a few years now. Enjoying every minute of it.

I must confess I don't personally compartmentalize it into HF or Not
HF. It's all good, MF, HF, VHF, UHF!



I had great difficulty with Element 1 preparation,
but it didn't do me a bit of damage.


I always study for my blood tests. So far I've passed every time.


Good job, that! 8^)





I do have a question. I had called you Lennie once, and I think you
didn't particularly care for that. I've been calling you Lenover21, but
that sounds kind of formal if a screen name can be called formal.


What do you see on my "signature" line?

I've seen

I've seen LHA / WMD

I've seen LHA

Sometimes nothing

My Newsreader wants to call you Len Over 21




Tsk. If you can't understand my preferences, then that trip to an
opthalmologist for you is necessary. [remember, watch out for
presbyopia...]


Which of your preferences?

If you pick up an IEEE Membership Directory, you wil see my legal
name in there. Been in there since 1973. That's the formal version.

So is that what you want to be called?


Or you can call me any name, nasty or otherwise, that you care to
use. Even enclose it in quote marks as "Dave" does it. Just don't
call me late for dinner.

I don't call people nasty names. Just what they prefer to be called.
that's why I asked


Shirley you jest. Roger that. Go to the John. Etc.

N2EY wrote:

Yes, Len - what would you prefer to be called? I call you "Len" and you answer
with insults, so should I call you "Leonard" or "Mr. Anderson"?



I take it you saw his answer to me. It appears there is a great deal of
sensitivity on the subject.

Best guess at the moment is to call him , I guess.


- mike KB3EIA -

Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 10/26/2004 12:32 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Best guess at the moment is to call him , I guess.

"Putz" takes up less bandwidth and is to-the-point!

73

Steve, K4YZ

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: (William)
Date: 10/26/2004 5:04 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Mike Coslo wrote in message
...

Not by me! AFAIC Lenover21 can post on anything he wishes to.

Glad to hear it. The same cannot be said for Kelly, Jim, Dave, or
dare I say Steve?

Yes, you DARE say it, Sir Putzy Jr!.

I have never chastised Sir Scumbag about being "off topic" except when HE
is chastizing others for doing exactly the same thing HE does.

"I HAVE NEVER..."

Hi, hi!

Then you always say "EXCEPT WHEN I DID."

More Hi, hi's!

By Golly, I guess you really DiDit!

Really, there isn't a need for any of us to be sensitive about this
stuff. It is after all, USENET.

It's not being sensitive about being told. It's just that those doing
the telling are some of the worst offenders, i.e., PCTA double
standard.

Oh...You mean the SAME "double standard" that YOU just exercised here?

Steve, K4YZ

No double standard. I did not chastise. I pointed out a fact. A
fact that you don't like. Too bad.

Mike Coslo wrote:




Of course there was the PROFESSIONAL pilot who tried to roll a B-52 at
low
altitude.


Did you see the case study of that one, Jim? Spooky! Too bad so many
of the folk flying with him knew they were probably going to die some
day with him at the yoke.

I saw a picture of an Air Force plane that was about to
fly right into the ground at their airport. Seems the
pilots were doing some silly frat boy stunt (mooning the
guys in the control tower) and lost control. It was a
plane similar if not in fact a B52. This happened years
ago.



Is your computer "State Of The Art", complete with broadband connection?


If we owns PC's, we isn't state of the art.

Once a model of a PC hits the stores, it's already
obsolete.



Heck, the only HF radio equipment you've admitted to owning is over 20
years
old. Definitely not "State Of The Art", yet you lecture others about it.


Random though mode on:

I have a 1987 Transciever. IC-745. Suits me just fine. All digital
(excluding the necessary analog bits)

Wow, even digital radios are getting old hat.

Radios age much better than PCs.