Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11   Report Post  
Old February 14th 05, 05:03 PM
Dave Heil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Todd Daugherty wrote:

Amateur radio operators, The ARRL, and The FCC think that certain
things shouldn't air.


More correctly, most amateur radio operators, the ARRL, the FCC and most
of the public think that certain things shouldn't air. Your choice: To
air or to err.

Amateur's who can't see the facts are blind by their own
stupidity.


People who can't spell or construct a sentence should be wary of calling
others "stupid".

Amateur radio is going to die, regardless to what anyone think.


That's your rant and you're sticking with it, despite what the facts
say.

The
reason amateur radio is going to die is because Amateur radio has nothing to
offer.


There are thousands and thousands who disagree with you, Todd. Maybe
what you really mean is that amateur radio has nothing to offer you.
Feel free to move on. Find another interest.

The FCC can change the system to where all a person has to do is
apply for a license and pay a fee but THAT will not save ham radio unless
amateur radio has something to offer. The point of this paper is that
amateur operators are going to have to get their heads out of their asses
and realize they are going to have to compete against the other service like
the internet.


I find it difficult to carry on a discussion with one who feels that
because his cranium is inserted into his rectum, everyone else is in the
same fix.

Every few months, some boy genius like you shows up in one of the
amateur radio newsgroups like a shooting star, only to burn up on enty
into Earth's atmosphere.

Dave K8MN
  #12   Report Post  
Old February 14th 05, 06:43 PM
Bathrooman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

For more than 50 years, some hams have been yelling "Ham Radio is
Dying!" "Ham Radio is Dying!" They came up with all kinds of bright
ideas. Incentive licensing...school clubs...extra-easy study
guides...dumbing down the licensing tests...no code licenses...on and
on. Why do some hams believe ham radio is dying? They are bored with
the hobby themselves! They put together some equipment, strung up
antennas, exchanged signal and weather reports, chased certificates,
collected QSL cards and after a few years or more of this they ask: "Is
this all there is?" Bah Humbug...yup that's about all it is. So what?
What more do you want it to be?

  #13   Report Post  
Old February 14th 05, 07:11 PM
Caveat Lector
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Instead of predicting "The Death Of Amateur Radio" and hashing over useless
statistics --
How about we promote Amateur Radio and mentor new folks?
How many doom sayers here help the hobby with training, elmering, and
emergency services ?
In Southern Calif -- we have three classes running at elementary and high
schools, lots of Emergency training as well.

I can tell you that Amateur Radio was highly valuable and praised during the
Southern Calif fires a few years back -- despite the generalization below of
"boring stuff".
Its only boring if you are a bore.

--
Caveat Lector (Reader Beware)
Help The New Hams
Someone Helped You
Or did You Forget That ?



"Bathrooman" wrote in message
ups.com...
For more than 50 years, some hams have been yelling "Ham Radio is
Dying!" "Ham Radio is Dying!" They came up with all kinds of bright
ideas. Incentive licensing...school clubs...extra-easy study
guides...dumbing down the licensing tests...no code licenses...on and
on. Why do some hams believe ham radio is dying? They are bored with
the hobby themselves! They put together some equipment, strung up
antennas, exchanged signal and weather reports, chased certificates,
collected QSL cards and after a few years or more of this they ask: "Is
this all there is?" Bah Humbug...yup that's about all it is. So what?
What more do you want it to be?



  #14   Report Post  
Old February 14th 05, 08:12 PM
Caveat Lector
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well lets see if these Ham Radio QSO's that I have had -- would be of
interest to you:
1. A QSO with a Navy dirigible crew member -- flew in the 1930's airships.
2. A QSO with an archeologist in the Central America -- just discovered new
ruins.
3. A WWII Luftwaffe pilot - flew a ME-109
4. QSO with a Swedish Ham -- we talked about Soloman Andre's balloon flight
to the North pole -- in 1897
5. A QSO with a British soldier in the Falklands -- we talked about
Shackletons ordeal in 1908 and the Falkland war
6. An anthropologist in New Guinea -- we talked about a tribe there that was
virtually in the stone age
7. A missionary in the Amazon -- we talked about the tribe he was helping
8. A chap in Australia that was in the outback studying the aborigines
9. A Russian officer in an arctic weather station --- brrr -- we talked
about the incredible working conditions there

Lots more "boring stuff"

If the above is of no interest to you I suggest you have very limited
interests.

--
Caveat Lector (Reader Beware)
Help The New Hams
Someone Helped You
Or did You Forget That ?



"Bathrooman" wrote in message
ups.com...
For more than 50 years, some hams have been yelling "Ham Radio is
Dying!" "Ham Radio is Dying!" They came up with all kinds of bright
ideas. Incentive licensing...school clubs...extra-easy study
guides...dumbing down the licensing tests...no code licenses...on and
on. Why do some hams believe ham radio is dying? They are bored with
the hobby themselves! They put together some equipment, strung up
antennas, exchanged signal and weather reports, chased certificates,
collected QSL cards and after a few years or more of this they ask: "Is
this all there is?" Bah Humbug...yup that's about all it is. So what?
What more do you want it to be?



  #15   Report Post  
Old February 14th 05, 08:19 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Todd Daugherty wrote:
The Death of Amateur Radio

By

Todd Daugherty N9OGL

I've been asked on the newsgroup rec.radio.amateur.policy
to back up my statements regarding the death of amateur radio and the

FCC's
suppression of free speech on the radio. Therefore, I've deiced to

write
this paper on the subject. Now, I know there are amateur radio

operators who
will not read this article or will write it off as the writes by some

crack
pot. But one must remember everyone has an opinion; this happens to

be mine.

OK, let's see what you've got, Todd.


Amateur radio is slowing dying; now many amateurs would disagree

with
that statement however, this is a harsh reality.


OK - how is it "dying"?

Now as I stated above I
have been asked to "prove it" so that what I'm attending to do.

Amateur
radio is dying because it is unable to keep up with commercial

services.

How do you define "keep up with"?

On
February of 2000 I participated in a discussion entitled "What the

heck is
Packet radio go for anyway" which was started by someone named

"Inquisitor"
anyway I pointed out that Packet Radio didn't have the variety as the
internet. If packet was to grow packet would have to basically

compete with
the internet.


Why?

The internet is pretty much ubiquitous in the USA and other developed
countries, if you live where there is reliable telephone service.
Broadband access is expanding rapidly and so is mobile access. There's
no way hams can match the infrastructure of any internet provider.

One amateur radio operator Charles Brabham N5PVL made this
statement in responds to mine:

N9OGL:" My point is Packet does not have the variety like the

internet and
when a person comes up with a new idea for packet or a new program

idea for
packet it is seemed to be frowned upon by other operators. So packet

radio
will remain in last place behind the Internet, and Wireless systems."

N5PVL: "I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Packet Radio is

not a
commercial communications network, and so does not "compete" with

commercial
communications networks in any way.


He's right!

Packet is for Amateur Radio operators who enjoy digital

communications
*independent* of commercial communications networks and the Internet.


Exactly!

Of course it's different... It's supposed to be, for a number of

reasons. If
it offered exactly the same thing as the commercial nets, there would

be no
reason for it to exist at all.

Try thinking this stuff through, every once in a while."


Sounds like good advice.

Now the reason I bring this up is simply that this misguided amateur

radio
operator WAS trying to prove a point which he could not; simply for

two
reasons.


Looks to me like he proved his point. If you want packet radio to be
something other than it is, lead the way by example.

The first is that most of the BBS systems on packet were on the
forwarding system and the vast majority of messages on the BBS

systems were
all the same. Regardless to what Mr. Brabham said this was a harsh

reality.
What Mr. Brabham didn't realize was at the time of that post I had

been
running TWO BBS systems on packet. Most packet operators didn't want

no
"individuals" running a BBS system and not use the forwarding system.

Today,
here in Illinois packet radio is nothing more then a vast memory. All

the
Nodes and BBS systems are gone. Gone for two reasons the first is the

BBS
operators were running their forwarding system on the user frequency.

The
second reason is as I stated in my post that there was no variety and

all
amateur radio operators went to the internet.


Which proves the point about competition.

Packet Radio was a prelude of
what will happen to amateur radio. Like N5PVL stated "I hate to be

the one
to break it to you, but Packet Radio is not a commercial

communications
network, and so does not "compete" with commercial communications

networks
in any way." This seems to be the attitude of all amateur radio

operators
when it comes to competing with other services.


Because it's true. Amateur radio, or *any* radio service, can only
survive by offering what other services cannot.

I remember a time, perhaps 20 years ago, when a good number of new hams
got their licenses for "honeydo" purposes. Today the same
communications needs are handled by cell phone. Some of those hams are
gone, others discovered that ham radio is more than the reason they
were originally licensed.

For amateur radio to survive
they are going to have to compete with the internet or there will be

no
amateur radio in near future.


Why? I'm both on the air and online. Each medium offers things the
other does not.

Go to streets of your town as
ask the average person on the street if they had a choice between the
Internet and Amateur radio which one would they pick? The vast

majority of
people would pick the internet.


Of course. Think about *why*.

Also - why must it be one or the other? Why not both?

The reason is the internet provides a vast
variety of information unlike amateur radio. People can talk via

email, chat
rooms, voice communication and other systems over the internet. With
Internet 2 coming out the Internet with grow ever more.


That's one reason. Here are some mo

1) Most people already know about the internet and what it can do. Many
people do not know amateur radio exists, or have only a vague idea of
what it is.

2) Most people access the internet via a personal computer or a
wireless-enabled PDA-type device like a Blackberry. Those devices have
uses far beyond those of internet access.

3) No license. No antenna. Worldwide access 24/7.


Why should someone
take the time to get a license to talk to people all over the world

via
radio when they can do it on the internet?


Because it's different. And only because it's different.

For amateur radio to grow amateur
radio operators are going to have to get out of this not competing

attitude.

Why?

One of the problems that helps propagate this no competing attitude

is both
the amateur and FCC's view on content control.

Section 326 of the Communication Act of 1934 prohibits the FCC

for
controlling the content of ANY radio station. This also applies to

the
amateur radio service.


Where, exactly, does it prohibit the FCC from controlling content? If
so,
why does Howard Stern have such problems? Why was there such a flap
about
Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction"?

The various courts have repeatedly ruled that content control *is* part
of
FCC's authority. The arguments today are over where the line is, not
whether
FCC can draw a line.

However, this seems NOT to be the case. When I
announced on the newsgroup about my Information bulletin I received a

post
from Riley Hollingsworth the FCC chief enforcer of the amateur radio
service. Telling me to let him know when I go on the air so he can

send me a
"QSL CARD". The QSL card he was of course talking about was a warning
letter.


That was nice of him. He could have just let you break the rules and
then
started an enforcement proceeding.

This of course is not the first time Mr. Hollingsworth who works for
the FCC tried to suppress Free Speech.


Sorry, unlimited free speech protection does not extend to the radio
spectrum.

One of the most known FCC free speech
suppression cases is the Liberty Net. Here's an article from

Newsline:

"FCC vs. The Liberty Net Riley Hollingsworth and the FCC are

questioning if
a controversial 75 meter SSB net really has any place on the ham

bands. The
group is called the Liberty Net. It operates nightly at 3.950 MHZ

and is
primarily an open discussion or right wing politics and conservative

causes.
But, in a May 7th letter to Victor Misek, W1WCR,Hollingsworth

requests that
the Hudson NewHampshire ham review the Basis and Purpose of Amateur

Radio as
outlined in Section 97.1 of the Commissions rules. He then tells

Misek to
explain to the Commission how the operation of the Liberty Net can be
justified. But it's another Hollingsworth statement that draws the
proverbial line in the sand between the FCC and the Liberty Net.
Hollingsworth tells Misek - and we quote -- "We are unable to

determine how
transmissions of this group met the standards of, or contribute to

the
purpose of, the allocation of frequencies for the Amateur Radio

Service."
In other words, the FCC appears to be questioning whether the content

of
communications by those involved in the Liberty Net meet the minimum
requisite requirements to be transmitted in the ham radio bands.And
Hollingsworth goes even further. He suggests that the Liberty Net

might
want to consider moving to the Internet or wait to wait and see if

the
Commission creates a low power FM broadcast service. If it does, the

net
might then want to apply for a broadcasting license grant. (FCC)


How is he wrong? I can't do routine business communications on the
ham bands, either.

The part one should look at is the part in which Hollingsworth stated

that
the Liberty Net should look at the internet or apply for a low power

FM
license. Apparently Mr. Hollingsworth never heard of Section 326.


I think he knows more about it than you do, Todd.

Now Mr.
Hollingsworth isn't the only FCC official that has done this; in 1990

the
FCC sent letters out to 19 Net and Bulletin stations on 20 meters and

of
course the ARRL a.k.a. The Amateur Radio Nazi Party deiced to stick

their
Gestapo free speech suppression nose in it.


Ding! Godwin's Law violated. You lose, Todd.

Stating in ARRL Letter and World
Radio "The League maintains that the disputes can resolved by

enforcing
existing FCC regulations: One-way Broadcast, if they go beyond the

accepted
norms for such transmissions on the Amateur bands their illegal." So

who's
to say is the "ACCEPTED NORM"??


FCC, of course. And the accepted norm is pretty well-defined for
one-way transmissions:

1) Non-commercial in nature (ever notice how ARRL doesn't use W1AW to
solicit memberships or publication sales?)

2) Of *specific* interest to the *amateur radio* community

3) On a published schedule of transmissions (so everybody has a chance
to know where and when)

Would your transmissions meet all of those criteria?

The ARRL, why not the FCC could give the
ARRL the power and therefore Free speech could be suppressed.


What is it that you want to say?

The first
Amendment bars the government from stomping on free speech, but it

doesn't
apply to the ARRL which is a national organization from doing it.

Who's the
one pushing to K1MAN off the air?? The ARRL and its members.


Nope. It's FCC.

I was asked on
the newsgroup to prove how I'm being suppressed. Well, when you have

a FCC
official threaten you with a warning letter over your Information

bulletin
which hadn't even begun. Then the idea if suppression of Free Speech

by a
Federal agency is a primary example of my right to voice my opinion

is being
suppressed by the FCC.


What is it that you want to say in your bulletin, Todd? How does it
meet the criteria listed above?

73 de Jim, N2EY



  #16   Report Post  
Old February 14th 05, 08:23 PM
Michael Coslo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Todd Daugherty wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Todd Daugherty wrote:

The Death of Amateur Radio

By

Todd Daugherty N9OGL


It is interesting that what you propose to do would hasten your "Death
of Amateur Radio" in my opinion.

If we get a few hundred more such as yourself that believe that they
need to broadcast their opinions over the amateur bands, more and more
Amateurs will find something else to do with their leisure time, as they
have no room to transmit as the bands fill up with "bulletin free speech
transmissions. All the while transforming the Amateur bands into some
sort of mutant version of the AM broadcast band.



No where in my paper do I state that amateurs should broadcasting.


All they have to do is define their activities as bulletins.

There are
some including the FCC who wishes to keep the service to where all you do is
give a signal report, location, ect.


I haven't heard any of that.


As I stated in my paper a good example
of this was packet radio. Packet is pretty much died around here because all
of the content on them was "For Sale" stuff. Packet would of survive if
BBS's were set up to cater to certain topics or discussion groups.


Packet was/is so incredibly slow compared to other digital
transmissions. When I became a Ham, I looked at it and decided that at
it's transmission speed, there wasn't a lot of use for it.


You note that you look for a free space to transmit in. So what? K1MAN
doesn't. He opens up on whoever is on the frequency and threatens those
who don't move. How many more "free speech advocates" will decide that
anyone on "their frequency" is an infringement on their free speech?


Information Bulletins are legal no matter what you or anyone believes.
Interference which K1MAN is doing is not legal.


So I guess we just define everything as an information bulletin! 8^)


I wonder if wattage limits are an infringement on a persons free
speech? Limiting it limits the number of people who can be reached.

Suggestion that Lib net members use an alternative method of getting
their views out is not infringement of their free speech, it is a
suggestion. And not a bad one at that. No one is forcing them off the
air, just suggesting a better venue for their views.



The FCC shouldn't even suggest it.


Hollingsworth has often commented on situations that are detrimental to
Ham radio. Certainly the Lib Net is one of those. A parent listening in
on that bunch is not likely to want their children having anything to do
with the hobby.


Again the FCC is barred from controlling
the content of any station. Again if they can have alternative perhaps ALL
amateurs should move off the radio spectrum and uses the alternative....the
Internet.


Why the one extreme or the other outlook? Suggesting that people make
the Ham bands a pleasant place to operate doesn't make for elimination
of free speech.

Death of Amateur Radio? Perhaps you have a bigger part than you
realize........

- Mike KB3EIA -


Todd N9OGL



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


  #17   Report Post  
Old February 14th 05, 10:08 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Todd Daugherty wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Todd Daugherty wrote:
The Death of Amateur Radio

By

Todd Daugherty N9OGL


It is interesting that what you propose to do would hasten your

"Death
of Amateur Radio" in my opinion.

If we get a few hundred more such as yourself that believe that

they
need to broadcast their opinions over the amateur bands, more and

more
Amateurs will find something else to do with their leisure time, as

they
have no room to transmit as the bands fill up with "bulletin free

speech
transmissions. All the while transforming the Amateur bands into

some
sort of mutant version of the AM broadcast band.


No where in my paper do I state that amateurs should broadcasting.


"amateurs should broadcasting"?

There are
some including the FCC who wishes to keep the service to where all

you do is
give a signal report, location, ect.


That's simply not true! I've had many long and enjoyable QSOs on a
variety of subjects, with never a problem on content from FCC. The only
limits on content
were "no pecuniary interest" and keeping it "G-rated".

As I stated in my paper a good example
of this was packet radio. Packet is pretty much died around here

because all
of the content on them was "For Sale" stuff. Packet would of survive

if
BBS's were set up to cater to certain topics or discussion groups.


Such as?

You note that you look for a free space to transmit in. So what?

K1MAN
doesn't. He opens up on whoever is on the frequency and threatens

those
who don't move. How many more "free speech advocates" will decide

that
anyone on "their frequency" is an infringement on their free

speech?

Information Bulletins are legal no matter what you or anyone

believes.

If the bulletins meet the specific criteria I outlined in another post,
they're legal.

Interference which K1MAN is doing is not legal.


Agreed!

I wonder if wattage limits are an infringement on a persons free
speech? Limiting it limits the number of people who can be reached.

Suggestion that Lib net members use an alternative method of

getting
their views out is not infringement of their free speech, it is a
suggestion. And not a bad one at that. No one is forcing them off

the
air, just suggesting a better venue for their views.


The FCC shouldn't even suggest it.


Yes, they should, if they see the content and behavior as detrimental
to the ARS. Which they do.

Again the FCC is barred from controlling
the content of any station.


That's simply not true.

Again if they can have alternative perhaps ALL
amateurs should move off the radio spectrum and uses the

alternative....the
Internet.


For certain subjects, that's the right medium.

Death of Amateur Radio? Perhaps you have a bigger part than you
realize........

Interesting!

In fact, we're starting to see what may be the "death of the internet"
- or at least the death of its potential. Viruses, popups, identity
theft and other shenanigans are causing many people I know to become
disenchanted with it.

73 de Jim, N2EY

  #18   Report Post  
Old February 14th 05, 11:17 PM
Todd Daugherty
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
oups.com...

Todd Daugherty wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Todd Daugherty wrote:
The Death of Amateur Radio

By

Todd Daugherty N9OGL

It is interesting that what you propose to do would hasten your

"Death
of Amateur Radio" in my opinion.

If we get a few hundred more such as yourself that believe that

they
need to broadcast their opinions over the amateur bands, more and

more
Amateurs will find something else to do with their leisure time, as

they
have no room to transmit as the bands fill up with "bulletin free

speech
transmissions. All the while transforming the Amateur bands into

some
sort of mutant version of the AM broadcast band.


No where in my paper do I state that amateurs should broadcasting.


"amateurs should broadcasting"?

There are
some including the FCC who wishes to keep the service to where all

you do is
give a signal report, location, ect.


That's simply not true! I've had many long and enjoyable QSOs on a
variety of subjects, with never a problem on content from FCC. The only
limits on content
were "no pecuniary interest" and keeping it "G-rated".

As I stated in my paper a good example
of this was packet radio. Packet is pretty much died around here

because all
of the content on them was "For Sale" stuff. Packet would of survive

if
BBS's were set up to cater to certain topics or discussion groups.


Such as?

A BBS with discussion on antenna designing, Another BBS with discussion on
on experimenting. Another BBS with amaeur policy. These are just to name a
few there was a issue CQ VHF that went into greater detail about the set up.
The point is to have all the for sale stuff on one BBS and a diverse of
other BBS on other
subjects. I tried years ago to set something up like that however a few
local amateurs threated to go to the FCC and claim that the system is
interferning with their system.
You note that you look for a free space to transmit in. So what?

K1MAN
doesn't. He opens up on whoever is on the frequency and threatens

those
who don't move. How many more "free speech advocates" will decide

that
anyone on "their frequency" is an infringement on their free

speech?

Information Bulletins are legal no matter what you or anyone

believes.

If the bulletins meet the specific criteria I outlined in another post,
they're legal.

The problem is however, that there are amateur radio operators who feel that
information bulletins which deal with amateur radio issues shouldn't be
opinionated and it is those same amateurs operators when the bulletin is
transmitting then begin jamming the Information bulletin because they feel
the transmission is illegal.

Interference which K1MAN is doing is not legal.


Agreed!

I wonder if wattage limits are an infringement on a persons free
speech? Limiting it limits the number of people who can be reached.

Suggestion that Lib net members use an alternative method of

getting
their views out is not infringement of their free speech, it is a
suggestion. And not a bad one at that. No one is forcing them off

the
air, just suggesting a better venue for their views.


The FCC shouldn't even suggest it.


Yes, they should, if they see the content and behavior as detrimental
to the ARS. Which they do.

Again the FCC is barred from controlling
the content of any station.


That's simply not true.

yes and no Under Section 326 of the Communication Act the FCC is barred to
control the content of any station. The only content the FCC is allowed to
control is obscene and indecent material and that's it.

Again if they can have alternative perhaps ALL
amateurs should move off the radio spectrum and uses the

alternative....the
Internet.


For certain subjects, that's the right medium.

Death of Amateur Radio? Perhaps you have a bigger part than you
realize........

Interesting!

In fact, we're starting to see what may be the "death of the internet"
- or at least the death of its potential. Viruses, popups, identity
theft and other shenanigans are causing many people I know to become
disenchanted with it.

I really dout the internet will die. As a matter of fact Internet 2 is now
out (well right now only some Universities (206 to be exact) and government
agencies have it...it will probably be commercialized in about two to three
years.). Internet 2 will have a lot more applications and downloading will
be faster. (people will be able to download a full length movie within
minutes instead of days) so I really dout the Internet will die anytime
soon.


Todd N9OGL

73 de Jim, N2EY





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #19   Report Post  
Old February 15th 05, 12:24 AM
Tony VE6MVP
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:23:29 -0500, Michael Coslo
wrote:

As I stated in my paper a good example
of this was packet radio. Packet is pretty much died around here because all
of the content on them was "For Sale" stuff. Packet would of survive if
BBS's were set up to cater to certain topics or discussion groups.


Packet was/is so incredibly slow compared to other digital
transmissions. When I became a Ham, I looked at it and decided that at
it's transmission speed, there wasn't a lot of use for it.


What's better than packet then?

Tony
  #20   Report Post  
Old February 15th 05, 12:48 AM
bb
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dave Heil wrote:
Todd Daugherty wrote:


The
reason amateur radio is going to die is because Amateur radio has

nothing to
offer.


There are thousands and thousands who disagree with you, Todd. Maybe
what you really mean is that amateur radio has nothing to offer you.
Feel free to move on. Find another interest.


Heil actually has a point, smug as it is.

I think what we are seeing is the start of this decade's chicken little
dance.

If only we could introduce Todd to WA8ULX.

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1415 ­ September 24, 2004 Radionews Broadcasting 0 September 26th 04 07:09 AM
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1400 ­ June 11, 2004 Radionews General 0 June 16th 04 08:35 PM
209 English-language HF Broadcasts audible in NE US (04-APR-04) Albert P. Belle Isle Shortwave 0 April 5th 04 05:20 AM
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1379 – January 16, 2004 Radionews Shortwave 0 January 18th 04 10:37 PM
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1379 – January 16, 2004 Radionews Dx 0 January 18th 04 10:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017