wrote:
From: "K4YZ" on Tues 7 Jun 2005 01:56

And once again you prove the REST of us right when we call you a
self-serving blight on ALL Veterans. A liar for the ages.

What you ARE, is a disgrace to the uniform you wore and a footprint
on the graves of men who DID serve their country unselfishly.

Scumbag.

...the sun sets on the Tomb of the Unknown Solder...(SNIP)

Hopefully it will be setting on Lennie "Defile a Veteran" Anderson
soon..

Steve, K4YZ

Dan/W4NTI wrote:

"KC8GXW" wrote in message
...


Dan/W4NTI wrote:


And for all those that are "confused".....here it is;

300/Fmhz = length in meters.

thus......300/4.0Mhz = 75meters.

300/3.75Mhz= 80meters.

and........300/3.5Mhz = 85.7meters.

see?

Dan/W4NTI



But you should know what the 300 stands for, not it just being a number!
I'll bet I'm wrong, being a no code cb'er, but the 300 is the speed of
light in meters! to be more percise 299792458 meters per second.



Golly, gee whiz, so you would be happier if it is written as:

299792458 / FMhz ?

Fine by me

Dan/W4NTI

Maybe I don't understand. What is "299792458 / FMhz" ?

Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote:
In article
Cmd Butt Cornholer wrote:

Userbeam Remailer wrote:

"Wogie Wussman" "volumns" - Butt Cornholer makes good spells!


Get los(whines)



Go **** yourself, you incontinent, senile imaginary "pilot's
license" boy, nobody wants to see your frequent misspellings,
you illiterate son of a bitch.


Hi wogie, retaken any ham exams lately?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A.Melon AKA the fatboy two-test wogie wrote:


Hi, baby raper Butt Cornholer, flew any model airplanes and
thought you had a "pilot's license" as well as lying about
having a commercial license lately, obsolete license boy?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA!

Still got the pilot's certificate wogie boy. Still have the First Class
Phone although it is now expired. So what happened to that Second Class
ticket you claimed to have? Seems it morphed into a *Restricted* Radio
Operator *Permit*, you know, the one that required no testing, just fill
out an FCC form. Wahhhh whooooo, musta been real proud of all the work
you put into it to get that one, huh wogie? Worked any DX with that
*Permit* lately wogie? Caused any malicious interference lately wogie?
Riley would probably like to correspond with you again, maybe ask you
retake the ham exam again wogie, so you can be a shinning example of
just how easy it is to get a ham license. If wogie can do it, then
*anyone* can.
You know what they say, 'third time's a charm'.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA!

By the way, my Commercial Phone ticket was issued on July 13, 1960,
Dallas, Texas...Date of Expiration July 13, 1965 at three o'clock A.M.
Eastern Standard Time, signed by the following FCC officials...Marion E.
Apple, Issuing Officer and Ben F. Waple (Acting) Secretary.

Now how about some data on that Second Class you claim wogie?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA!

Jim Hampton wrote:
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
k.net...

"Cmd Buzz Corey" wrote in message
...

Dan/W4NTI wrote:

wrote in message
egroups.com...


KC8GXW wrote:


But you still have to pay the VE fee, and have earned that
Tech in the first place. Not a giveaway or a free upgrade.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I was just being sarcastic because I have been told I have a

give

away tech license!

Well, whoever told you that was full of beans and didn't know
what s/he was talking about. Probably just sour grapes.

73 de Jim, N2EY


I said that. And I mean it. The tests today are a joke. Why you

ask?

Because the questions and answers are right there in front of the

person.

Sure he has to study a lot of questions. But there they are on the

test.

A give away.

And lets not even talk about the CW situation.

It's NOT numbers we need, it people that respect the traditions of ham
radio and want to continue them. Its people that love ham radio and
don't want to use to to order a pizza.

Call me old fashioned and out of touch. It won't be the first time.

Dan/W4NTI



Is there really any need for much technical knowledge to obtain a ham
license anymore? Why a need for technical knowlege when setting up and
operating a station today is simply plug-an-play? How many hams constuct
any equipment they use on the air any more? The most tech knowledge that
might be required is maybe how to build and put up and adjust an

antenna.

Perhaps the test should focus more on rules, regulations and proper
operating procedures. The most technical that hams get today is knowing
how many frequencies they can store in the radios memory.


I am not all that concerned about the "technical knowledge" side of the
test.
I think basic technical knowledge is all that is really necessary. Like
being
able to cut a simple dipole, understand the terminology, have a working
knowledge in block diagram format, for what is happening inside that

radio.

And I totally agree that the test should be heavy on rules, regs, and

PROPER

OPERATING PROCEDURES....like don't talk CB Crap on HF SSB. \

As you say Dan, with the joke they use for testing today, no technical
knowledge is required anyway, just memorize the answers to the questions
and off you go. So maybe if the tests were geared more to regs and
operating procedures, then even with the memoriziation some of it might
soak in and maybe there would less cb type operating on the ham bands.


We agree it lots here, eh?


It is pretty bad when as I heard not long ago on a 2 meter reperter, "I
just got my license, can someone tell me what frequencies I can

operate?"

Cheeese.


Or what I heard on the 75meter EKTRA band......I wanna cut a new dipole
for 80m phone (First off what is 80 meter phone?)(I always thought it was
75meter phone). Out of the 5 people in the group, one had it right.
Amazing.


Even wogie wussman passed the test, that in itself speaks volumns about
how easy the they are.

He should have done real good the second time around...yuk yuk.

Dan/W4NTI




Hello, again, Dan

Yep, 75 is phone, 80 is CW. At least that was the reference back in the
days.

I've never been able to figure out why people get their chops busted
for referring to "80 meter phone".

Shall we set up a sked on 41 meters, 29 meters, 21 meters, 14 meters, 12
meters, (hey that one is right) or the 10.7 to 10.09 meter bands?


My ARRL frequency chart doesn't show a 75 meter band either.


- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:

I've never been able to figure out why people get their chops busted
for referring to "80 meter phone".

Because 80 is CW/data and 75 is phone/image.

Look at FCC rules 97.301. They actually list 80 and 75 as different
bands, like 40 and 20. I'm not making this up.

Shall we set up a sked on 41 meters, 29 meters, 21 meters, 14 meters, 12
meters, (hey that one is right) or the 10.7 to 10.09 meter bands?

41 meters is actually SWBC, even though it's the top of "our" 40 meter
band ;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote


I've never been able to figure out why people get their chops busted for
referring to "80 meter phone".


The wavelength of 80 meters translates to a frequency of 3.750 Mhz, which (for
right now) just happens to be the precise dividing point between CW/Data and
CW/Phone bands. If the phone band-edge drops down to say 3.700, then 80 meters
will be a phone frequency.

I wonder if WWV will mind if I stroke up my AL-1200 on 15 meters, 20 meters or
30 meters?

dit dit
de Hans, K0HB

Bet the freebanders don't know that... else they sure are acting like
they don't...

John

wrote in message
oups.com...
Mike Coslo wrote:

I've never been able to figure out why people get their chops busted
for referring to "80 meter phone".

Because 80 is CW/data and 75 is phone/image.

Look at FCC rules 97.301. They actually list 80 and 75 as different
bands, like 40 and 20. I'm not making this up.

Shall we set up a sked on 41 meters, 29 meters, 21 meters, 14 meters,
12
meters, (hey that one is right) or the 10.7 to 10.09 meter bands?

41 meters is actually SWBC, even though it's the top of "our" 40 meter
band ;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:


I've never been able to figure out why people get their chops busted
for referring to "80 meter phone".


Because 80 is CW/data and 75 is phone/image.

Look at FCC rules 97.301. They actually list 80 and 75 as different
bands, like 40 and 20. I'm not making this up.

I don't doubt you. But it seems a little odd to decide that phone is 75
and CW and data is 80. If you are at the bottom of the band you are at
85 meters. Same difference. (actually more, percentage-wise) So why
would hams who insist on the precision of 75 phone and 80 CW not also
insist on 85 meter CW?


Shall we set up a sked on 41 meters, 29 meters, 21 meters, 14 meters, 12
meters, (hey that one is right) or the 10.7 to 10.09 meter bands?


41 meters is actually SWBC, even though it's the top of "our" 40 meter
band ;-)

I get 42.8 meters at 7.0 MHz, and 41.067 meters at 7.3 MHz. Yeah, were
in the mix there....

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

I've never been able to figure out why people get their chops busted for referring to "80 meter phone".

Because 80 is CW/data and 75 is phone/image.

Look at FCC rules 97.301. They actually list 80 and 75 as
different bands, like 40 and 20. I'm not making this up.

I don't doubt you. But it seems a little odd to decide that
phone is 75 and CW and data is 80.

Oddly enough, in the "old days" the frequencies were simply
listed - no mention of wavelength at all. Using the old
designators, 3500 to 4000 kc. was A1, 3500 to 3800 kc. was F1,
3800 to 4000 kc. was A3, etc.

If you are at the bottom of the band you are at
85 meters. Same difference. (actually more, percentage-wise)
So why
would hams who insist on the precision of 75 phone and 80 CW
not also insist on 85 meter CW?

Precision has nothing to do with it. They're just simple shorthand
names that go way back.

Shall we set up a sked on 41 meters, 29 meters, 21 meters, 14 meters, 12
meters, (hey that one is right) or the 10.7 to 10.09 meter
bands?

41 meters is actually SWBC, even though it's the top of "our" 40 meter band ;-)

I get 42.8 meters at 7.0 MHz, and 41.067 meters at 7.3 MHz. Yeah, were
in the mix there....

As the SWBC moves away, things get better on 40.

---

OK, here's one to toss around:

Right now we have 9 HF/MF bands, plus some spot frequencies in
the "60 meter" region.

Suppose that at some point we hams had the choice of either:

1) New, very narrow bands elsewhere in the HF/MF spectrum (say, 2.5 to
2.6 MHz, 6.0 to 6.1 MHz, etc..

or

2) Widening of existing bands and/or change to worldwide amateur. Such
as 7.0-7.4 becomes worldwide exclusive amateur, 10.1 to 10.2 does the
same, 14.0 to 14.4 (which the band used to be), etc.

Which would be preferable, if we wound up with the same number of kHz
overall?

73 de Jim, N2EY