Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #51   Report Post  
Old August 5th 05, 06:42 PM
an old friend
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote:
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
an old friend wrote:
wrote:

cut
and you spport the Morse code test and therefore you opose me on the
field at all


Not you personally.


yes you mean me personaly

in supporting the current system and its predeceasor you personaly
oppose me and anyone like me

your statement "Nothing personal" is dishonest

I also support written tests. There are folks I know who have
repeatedly flunked the written tests - something about "math
trouble" - "never been good with numbers and rote memorization"


and I oppose there being real math on the test since it isn't needed in
this day and age

the only realy rote memorizetion pretains to the rules and the rules
are of ocourse to some arbitaru

Why should they have to learn all that stuff?


and much of it, they should not have too at least with it they some
choice I have elsewhere outlined my thoughts


VEs are empowered to use all sorts of accomodations in the
tests (both written and Morse Code) if needed. In fact, a Morse
Code *sending* test can be substituted.


which doesn't meet the ADA standards of accomodation at all, since that
law allows me anything that will in fact work, my choice would be a
code reader


ADA is about rights. A ham radio license is a privilege.


Bull**** what do you know of the ADA?

ADA says In part and oversimplfies of course I have the RIGHT that any
barrair in my way (wether oof a RIGHT or aPrevldege I can earn) be
justified. It is a prevledge to have a drivers license, therefore
anything in the way of applaicnt must be justified, a blind man can't
drive, therefore ADA doesn't help, someone with NO morse Skill can
still operate a radio, therefore he has the right that any barrar be
truely needed



Have you ever asked the VEs for any accomodations?


can't you read.

I have taken and FAILED test sent A LETTER at a time I have done so on
number of occasions


based my expeences in the past that is about all that would do it


However that aside you insist I develope some varraint of a skill that
I can't use.


Can't or won't?


can't

proven many times


My station is at least one if not several such tool but you
don't wish to allow it without ahvng that ONE tool

I have no idea what you are trying to say.


becuase you think Morse code is just a trival bit of work to learn, and
for some it is


For some the written tests are trivial, for others they are not.
Shall they be eliminated because some people can't seem to pass them?


you just are not reading or thinking Jim



and lacking that skill you would choose to sideline my station which is
able right now to work HF (I have up a G5RV conected to my ft 847
satelite rig which is also HF cappable


If someone buys a rig and sets up an antenna, does that give them the
right to demand a license?


no and your question is nonsense, and insulting

anyone has the RIGHT that any barrair in their way be fair after all I
can even operate with Morse code which the purpose of the test I can't
pass

It is one the few occasion I can realy see much use
in the mode during an emergency gives the user the low signal abilities
of RTTY or PSK 31 but allowing the station in the affected area to
despense with a PC

If the operators know Morse Code, there's no reason for a PC at either station.

agreed but so what

A tool that is with someone always is the most useful.


The above noted for later reference as "A"

but only if it is ever with that person. even if through some
accomdated test I passed it I would not have a tool to use


So? Doesn't change the fact that a tool that is with someone always is
the most useful.


and you miss the point


this doesn't justify keeping me from being there and using my
sation to help the pcles staion

No one is saying you cannot use a PC for Morse Code.


but you are supporting not allowing me access to specturm


I am supporting Morse Code testing. Also written testing. It's not
about you personally.


you are lying

your statement is dishonest

Thus it is 'better" in some ways, indeed I am a much better operator of
computer morse than manual and it would make my staion a bteer station
by your standards (more modes more abilities)

In that regard, it is "better". But it is not universally "better",
just as an automobile is not universally "better" than a bicycle.

I have never said it was

it is your side that varies from stating or impling that Manaul is always better which just isn't so

Where have *I* ever said Morse Code is always better?


in the post I am replying to you make a statement to that effect it
survies above as noted as "A"


"A tool that is with someone always is the most useful."? Has nothing
to do with what you are saying.




so where your beef?

The idea that machine operation is somehow universally better.

and my beef is your insitance that manual morse is always better

*Where* have *I* said that?


at A


"A tool that is with someone always is the most useful."

Doesn't fit.

it is not your cup of tea sure fine

Consider a bicycle. If another wheel is added, the rider doesn't need
to worry about falling over, so the skill required to ride it is
greatly reduced.
Add a small gasoline engine and a suitable transmission, and
pedaling becomes much easier. A simple cover will protect the rider
from rain
and other inclement weather.

Eventually you wind up with a small, three-wheeled automobile that
could win
the Tour de France. Except it's not a bicycle anymore, and its rider
isn't
a cyclist by any stretch of the imagination.

Or consider the piano. Pianos and similar keyboard instruments have
been around
for hundreds of years. It takes considerable skill and practice to play
them, and
reading sheet music is a skill of its own.

With modern computers and software, however, one can simply have a
machine that
scans in the sheet music and turns it into a "performance" - without
all those
lessons, practice, etc.

break
all depends on what you want, to listen or to play

Point is, there's a big difference.

which by analogy is up to me. Id rather listen than play that tune

and what about Manual Morse justifies making ME play that tune?

The same things about all the other things hams are required to learn.


no becuase I blow everything On AM or on SSB or FM and still get a
license


Maybe not. Nobody knows exactly which questions are on the written
test.


so what you take it again and get another set of questions, no rule say
you have to pass on the first try

never said anyone was entitled to a sure thing, just a fair shot

Code testing is deferent nothing else in Ham radio has that
status so your staement is simply not true


The point is that you still have to learn stuff you'll probably never
use just to pass the written test.


and I unlike you oppose testing that type


--

Suppose you were given the following test:

You're sitting at a table with pencil and paper, and your choice of
speaker or headphones.

Through the headphones you hear a series of words spoken slowly and
clearly, spaced so there is one word every 2 seconds or so.

All you have to do is write down the first letter of each word.

The test always uses a standard phonetic alphabet, too.

So if you heard:

"Sierra....Tango.....Alpha.....Romeo.....Tango.... .....Whiskey.....India.....Tango.....Hotel"

you would write down

"START WITH..."

etc.

The test goes on for 5 minutes, but all you need is one minute correct
to pass the test.

Could you pass such a test? Is there anyone who can converse in
English, and who is literate in that language, who could not
pass such a test?


I might well not be able to, that is the meaning of Dyslexiod Aphasia,
I would hear the S in might write Y it all but certain I would suffer
from one of these occurances if a minute was 27 letters, any time I am
changing media there is high chance for making such errors, there is a
decent chance if I am just coping writen text, indeed to take your test
seeing the writen word one at a time and trying to copy them first
leters I can make such errors I fequenly do in the newsgroup find
myself unable to copy corectly a word on the screen


We see that all the time here.


indeed you do



Does not mean I can't read text and understand it and tell you about
later

Often what you write here is very unclear or even incomprehensible.


now you are being insulting

it is uncalled for

All the Morse Code test does is to replace the words with specific
sounds. Instead of "Sierra", for example, you would hear three short
beeps.

What is so impossible about that?


get it though your head, I have failed exactly that test a number of
times Jim


Which one - the verbal one?


the morse test
nad for that matter if I am copiing enough letters the verbal (wether
in the span of any given minute I realy don't know)


I could see that if someone had an auditory or cognition problem,
they might have trouble with both tests. But it seems incredible
that people who would have no trouble with the first claim the
second to be impossible, or even very difficult, for them.


In My


Why did you capitalize "My"?


I don't know I just did

now if you'd like to at least pretend you were discusing this issue
rather than brating me about it, drop it

case it is a set of learning disablities, varies people have
varies abilities
when you add morseyou have tranlating . to "e" which might make it to
the page as "y" when you sart with letters .- which I think is "a" I
may hear -. think "a" (becuase dyslexics reverse stuff) and might not
get even that "a" to the paper right


I do better with keyboards where I am tring to learn not the . is "e"
but is the trhid finger of left hand up one key (the touch tpye
position of "e" of course)


Would you accept the same argument about the written tests? Some people
just can't seem to pass those.


no becuase it isn't true of anyone that can operate the radio
afterward, you find me a REAL person that can't pass the test in some
form, as I undersatnd they be read and ansered aloud I look at it and
reconsider

the key word of course is "seem"

as I sate else (another thread I believe I would change the writtens
quite a bit, Idealy I suppose I should be pushing for it NOW along with
code, but being human I fight first what can be fought and affects most



Of course for some folks, "can't" actually means "won't" or
"don't want to".



  #52   Report Post  
Old August 5th 05, 06:47 PM
an old friend
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote:
an old friend wrote:
I might well not be able to, that is the meaning of Dyslexiod Aphasia,
I would hear the S in might write Y it all but certain I would suffer
from one of these occurances if a minute was 27 letters, any time I am
changing media there is high chance for making such errors, there is a
decent chance if I am just coping writen text, indeed to take your test
seeing the writen word one at a time and trying to copy them first
leters I can make such errors I fequenly do in the newsgroup find
myself unable to copy corectly a word on the screen


One last comment.

Back in 1990, FCC created medical waivers at the behest of a now-dead
King wanting a favor from then-president Bush. FCC waived the 13 and 20
wpm Morse Code tests if the applicant could show a doctor's letter.

Canada has recently made the Morse Code test part of the overall
scoring
rather than a stand alone test.

More than 5 years ago, I proposed here a "Chinese menu" form of license
testing that would allow much greater flexibility in testing.

But the near-unanimous reply from NCTAs has always been that the Morse
Code test must be completely eliminated - no compromises, no more
waivers, no score-blending, etc.


in correct Fred Maia, W5YI (i may be blowing the name but the call is
right) proposed something Like the new Canada system, publishing this
on the Old NCI website

As Far as I know NCI is calling Canada a victory for us

In fact, some NCTAs and their organizations, like NCVEC and NCI, went
a step further and pushed for lower *written* test standards such as
free
license upgrades and a "Communicator" license.


now you are fibbing about the NCI position, and NCI hardly control
NCVEC

and the ARRL wanted one time upgrades, as well, haven't seen a word out
of you about that


What's next?


who knows, but that you pose the question tells a lot about you,
nothong I find esp favorable either

it shows something of the Luddite fear of change that the Nocoders
accuse the Procoders of

  #53   Report Post  
Old August 5th 05, 11:38 PM
Dee Flint
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Smith" wrote in message
news
AOF:

Look, they pose the most excellent argument, to their own argument, if you
look closely...

First, they say there that CW is a useful current protocol, and that it is
useful, then they say people are going to flock to use it and keep CW
alive no matter what...


I've seen no one say that people will "flock to use it". However there is
reason to think that enough people will choose to use it to keep this as an
active mode.

Then, they turn around and argue to keep the test, why? Because deep
inside their brain, at the center where the denial does not exist, they
realize without forcing people to learn morse, not many will (darn few in
my best estimate.)


I'd expect avid QRP enthusiasts and contesters to have quite a bit of
interest.

However, I agree that "Joe Average" may not pursue it unfortunately if not
required to learn a very minimal, basic level of performance. Due to all
the activities of those trying to eliminate the test, he may falsely believe
it to be beyond his abilities. We may end up with only the very elite
operators, i.e. those who learn easily and progress to lightning speeds.
The casual ragchewer (i.e. the person who operates at around 13wpm or so)
may find slim pickings.

Isn't it quite obvious? They fool themselves (else they are liars), but
if they fool you, think how others will judge the weight of your
intellect...

It is all pretty clear, think about it...

John


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


  #54   Report Post  
Old August 6th 05, 01:25 AM
John Smith
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dee:

"Joe BelowAverage", "Joe SixPack", his bother-in-law "Joe Geriatric", his
cousins, "Joe CW-ReligiousFreak", "Joe Control-Freak", etc are already
amateurs... in amongst them are a few, currently active and current
hardware techs (but not many these days)...

"Joe ComputerSavvy" will be working on other protocols for data xfer on
HF... and running a computer wan on HF... probably actively petitioning
for changes to allow such...

And, of course, we all expect "Joe ChickenBander" to be there... as much
a BS'er as any you can now find on 160-80-75-and-on-up...

And, "Joe RepeaterUser" will probably continue to dwindle, repeaters pale
the most when compared to the internet, their only possible use for local
lan/wan...

I am hoping all radio will go digital audio packet (for all phone)--one
freq can be used for multiple QSOs' at a time, with no interfearence
between, no ear will be of use anymore (packets are decoded and sent
though the sound card), the computer becomes the "shack gear"... and hams
are forced to update... some are already playing with this in the Ghz...

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 18:38:48 -0400, Dee Flint wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
news
AOF:

Look, they pose the most excellent argument, to their own argument, if you
look closely...

First, they say there that CW is a useful current protocol, and that it is
useful, then they say people are going to flock to use it and keep CW
alive no matter what...


I've seen no one say that people will "flock to use it". However there is
reason to think that enough people will choose to use it to keep this as an
active mode.

Then, they turn around and argue to keep the test, why? Because deep
inside their brain, at the center where the denial does not exist, they
realize without forcing people to learn morse, not many will (darn few in
my best estimate.)


I'd expect avid QRP enthusiasts and contesters to have quite a bit of
interest.

However, I agree that "Joe Average" may not pursue it unfortunately if not
required to learn a very minimal, basic level of performance. Due to all
the activities of those trying to eliminate the test, he may falsely believe
it to be beyond his abilities. We may end up with only the very elite
operators, i.e. those who learn easily and progress to lightning speeds.
The casual ragchewer (i.e. the person who operates at around 13wpm or so)
may find slim pickings.

Isn't it quite obvious? They fool themselves (else they are liars), but
if they fool you, think how others will judge the weight of your
intellect...

It is all pretty clear, think about it...

John


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


  #55   Report Post  
Old August 6th 05, 04:44 PM
Alun L. Palmer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"an old friend" wrote in
oups.com:


wrote:
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
What you folks are describing is just a form of RTTY using
Morse Code as the encoding method, rather than ASCII or Baudot
or some other scheme.

indeed we are

Glad you agree

Of course it can be done, and has been done. Why it would be
done is another issue. It is certainly not a "better way".

that does depend on the goal, and the operator.

True enough.

Personaly I find the
idea of the manual morse and compter morse interacting the only
redeeming virtue of the mode (please I know you disagree but go
along for a minute)

It's just *one* good thing about Morse Code (the ease and
flexibility of human-machine interface. There are many more good
things (redeeming virtues?) of Morse Code.

IYO


Not just my opinion. The good things about Morse Code are an
objective fact.

Of course that doesn't mean Morse Code *must* be tested, any
more than the good things about, say, a standard phonetic alphabet
means it must be tested.

not in mine

it is a fact manual morse is quite useless to me and others


If you have a mcahine that can interface with someone using manual
Morse Code, whom you otherwise could not contact at all, how can that
manula Morse Code be useless to you?


because it is useless to me, simple fact, and i will never know wether
it is usefull to any other particular person, unless they tell me and I
believe them


That someone could use the simple assembly of the QRP rig
to reach out to a station like mine reading fby machine and
sending it back the same way.

One more tool in the toolbox.

and yet you opose allowing me in the playing feild at all


That's simply not true!

All anyone has to do to get the license is to pass the required tests.


and you spport the Morse code test and therefore you opose me on the
field at all


VEs are empowered to use all sorts of accomodations in the
tests (both written and Morse Code) if needed. In fact, a Morse
Code *sending* test can be substituted.


which doesn't meet the ADA standards of accomodation at all, since that
law allows me anything that will in fact work, my choice would be a
code reader

based my expeences in the past that is about all that would do it


However that aside you insist I develope some varraint of a skill that
I can't use.

My station is at least one if not several such tool but you don't
wish to allow it without ahvng that ONE tool


I have no idea what you are trying to say.


becuase you think Morse code is just a trival bit of work to learn, and
for some it is

and lacking that skill you would choose to sideline my station which is
able right now to work HF (I have up a G5RV conected to my ft 847
satelite rig which is also HF cappable


It is one the few occasion I can realy see much use
in the mode during an emergency gives the user the low signal
abilities of RTTY or PSK 31 but allowing the station in the
affected area to despense with a PC

If the operators know Morse Code, there's no reason for a PC
at either station.

agreed but so what


A tool that is with someone always is the most useful.


The above noted for later reference as "A"

but only if it is ever with that person. even if through some
accomdated test I passed it I would not have a tool to use


this doesn't justify keeping me from being there and using my sation
to help the pcles staion


No one is saying you cannot use a PC for Morse Code.


but you are supporting not allowing me access to specturm


Thus it is 'better" in some ways, indeed I am a much better
operator of computer morse than manual and it would make my
staion a bteer station by your standards (more modes more
abilities)

In that regard, it is "better". But it is not universally
"better", just as an automobile is not universally "better" than a
bicycle.

I have never said it was

it is your side that varies from stating or impling that Manaul is
always better which just isn't so


Where have *I* ever said Morse Code is always better?


in the post I am replying to you make a statement to that effect it
survies above as noted as "A"


so where your beef?

The idea that machine operation is somehow universally better.

and my beef is your insitance that manual morse is always better


*Where* have *I* said that?


at A


it is not your cup of tea sure fine

Consider a bicycle. If another wheel is added, the rider
doesn't need to worry about falling over, so the skill
required to ride it is greatly reduced.
Add a small gasoline engine and a suitable transmission, and
pedaling becomes much easier. A simple cover will protect the
rider from rain
and other inclement weather.

Eventually you wind up with a small, three-wheeled automobile
that could win
the Tour de France. Except it's not a bicycle anymore, and its
rider isn't a cyclist by any stretch of the imagination.

Or consider the piano. Pianos and similar keyboard instruments
have been around
for hundreds of years. It takes considerable skill and
practice to play them, and
reading sheet music is a skill of its own.

With modern computers and software, however, one can simply
have a machine that
scans in the sheet music and turns it into a "performance" -
without all those
lessons, practice, etc.

break
all depends on what you want, to listen or to play

Point is, there's a big difference.

which by analogy is up to me. Id rather listen than play that tune

and what about Manual Morse justifies making ME play that tune?


The same things about all the other things hams are required to learn.


no becuase I blow everything On AM or on SSB or FM and still get a
license Code testing is deferent nothing else in Ham radio has that
status so your staement is simply not true


--

Suppose you were given the following test:

You're sitting at a table with pencil and paper, and your choice of
speaker or headphones.

Through the headphones you hear a series of words spoken slowly and
clearly, spaced so there is one word every 2 seconds or so.

All you have to do is write down the first letter of each word.

The test always uses a standard phonetic alphabet, too.

So if you heard:

"Sierra....Tango.....Alpha.....Romeo.....Tango.... .....Whiskey.....Indi
a.....Tango.....Hotel"

you would write down

"START WITH..."

etc.

The test goes on for 5 minutes, but all you need is one minute correct
to pass the test.

Could you pass such a test? Is there anyone who can converse in
English, and who is literate in that language, who could not pass such
a test?


I might well not be able to, that is the meaning of Dyslexiod Aphasia,
I would hear the S in might write Y it all but certain I would suffer
from one of these occurances if a minute was 27 letters, any time I am
changing media there is high chance for making such errors, there is a
decent chance if I am just coping writen text, indeed to take your test
seeing the writen word one at a time and trying to copy them first
leters I can make such errors I fequenly do in the newsgroup find
myself unable to copy corectly a word on the screen

Does not mean I can't read text and understand it and tell you about
later



All the Morse Code test does is to replace the words with specific
sounds. Instead of "Sierra", for example, you would hear three short
beeps.

What is so impossible about that?


get it though your head, I have failed exactly that test a number of
times Jim

I could see that if someone had an auditory or cognition problem, they
might have trouble with both tests. But it seems incredible that
people who would have no trouble with the first claim the second to be
impossible, or even very difficult, for them.


In My case it is a set of learning disablities, varies people have
varies abilities
when you add morseyou have tranlating . to "e" which might make it to
the page as "y" when you sart with letters .- which I think is "a" I
may hear -. think "a" (becuase dyslexics reverse stuff) and might not
get even that "a" to the paper right

I do better with keyboards where I am tring to learn not the . is "e"
but is the trhid finger of left hand up one key (the touch tpye
position of "e" of course)


Of course for some folks, "can't" actually means "won't" or "don't
want to".


so to answer your title I doubt I could pass the test phoenetic test
you describe, unless it was realy slow, and certainly not with any test
anxeity



I agree with you, but you won't get very far with Jim.

I especially liked the bit about using a code reader as a handicap
accomodation for the Morse test! I am a VE and never thought of that! Can
you imagine if we had tried to get that past the ARRL VEC - they would have
flipped for sure, but I think it may well meet the rules.

It's all academic now, or will be soon. The NPRM abolishes the code test,
and the R&O will do the same. The pro-code test side have lost the war.
Roll on VC Day (Victory over the Code Day, LOL!).

73 de Alun, N3KIP

(A 20wpm Extra who wasted years learning Morse code that I will probably
never use)


  #56   Report Post  
Old August 6th 05, 05:56 PM
an old friend
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Alun L. Palmer wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in
oups.com:


wrote:
an old friend wrote:

hack
so to answer your title I doubt I could pass the test phoenetic test
you describe, unless it was realy slow, and certainly not with any test
anxeity



break
I agree with you, but you won't get very far with Jim.


sadly I fear you are right, and Jim is the most reasonable of the
devoted Procoders

but the target (mine anyway YMMV) is more moderate lurker in the NG
anyway no matter who one is addressing directly

I do have some (dwidnling fast) hope that prehaps some of the procoders
can be presauded to accept the new folks without basshing em over the
head over how they are unworthy not having done....

I especially liked the bit about using a code reader as a handicap
accomodation for the Morse test! I am a VE and never thought of that! Can
you imagine if we had tried to get that past the ARRL VEC - they would have
flipped for sure, but I think it may well meet the rules.


I am certain as is a Lawyer I know, if I were not certain other means
would prevail (even thought hey have taken longer than I thought) I
would likely have tried the formal complaint under DoJ rules to find
out


It's all academic now, or will be soon. The NPRM abolishes the code test,
and the R&O will do the same. The pro-code test side have lost the war.
Roll on VC Day (Victory over the Code Day, LOL!).


now or soon it is time to pick up the peices,


73 de Alun, N3KIP

(A 20wpm Extra who wasted years learning Morse code that I will probably
never use)


  #57   Report Post  
Old August 11th 05, 04:15 AM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Are you asking now?


Yes, I'm asking (again).

  #60   Report Post  
Old April 16th 10, 11:04 AM
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Apr 2010
Posts: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by View Post
From: John Smith on Aug 3, 10:51 pm
[color=blue][i]

In 1970 (at an RCA division in Van Nuys, CA) I got a chance to
do programmed calculations on an HP 9100 desk calculator...did
some statistics runs on aircraft collision avoidance estimates,
part of a long-range R&D project at RCA devised by the late
Jack Breckman (a genius type who could extemporaneously speak
in ordered paragraphs).

NSA BSA
Mr. Smith --

David Breckman here. I registered on this site for one express purpose, which was to contact you about my father, Jack Breckman. This post of yours that mentions him by name (and in the most flattering of terms) came up as a hit in a Google search I was conducting about him earlier in the evening.

Dad died in the summer of '73 when I was just seven years old, so I didn't know him particularly well, and the only memories I have of him now, nearly forty years on, are foggy at best.

But in the last year or so (belatedly) I have been trying to talk or correspond with as many people as I can who may've known or had occasion to work with him -- people very much like yourself.

By all accounts, Dad was a gentle and exceptionally gifted man, and a wonderful husband and father. But firsthand accounts are scarce, and I am naturally interested in learning more about him. So with your permission -- and at your convenience -- I would love to follow up with you on the subject of Jack Breckman. Would this be possible?

You can reach me at my email:

I would be grateful for ANYTHING you can tell me about him. Even vague, fleeting impressions would be helpful.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours (gratefully),

David Breckman
Sherman Oaks, CA


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
New Morse training tape KHB General 46 August 11th 05 01:07 PM
Morse Code: One Wonders... and Begins to Think ! [ -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . ] RHF Shortwave 0 January 5th 04 02:49 PM
Response to "21st Century" Part One (Code Test) N2EY Policy 6 December 2nd 03 03:45 AM
Some comments on the NCVEC petition D. Stussy Policy 13 August 5th 03 04:23 AM
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. Keith Policy 1 July 31st 03 03:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017