an old friend wrote:
John Smith wrote:
AOF:

Frankly, I have been much more interested in the lady hams equipment
myself... I think the FCC got that one right!

John

these days I am payng more attention to a certain future lady ham's
equipment myself although I would not care to share her with the FCC

Oh?

Your "partner" has a sister? Lucky him.

an aside It would be nice if you pruned some the endless stuff is
piling up at the end of your post, slows down my conection something
feirce indeed tonight I have felt like I was back on Dailup

shudder

Geeze...

Even when YOU repost six-exchanges worth of re-quotes, it still
only takes me a split second to get the page up.

I imagine what slows down YOUR connection is trying to read what
we write. It's in English, and yours is...well..NOT English...Or not
much like it, any way...

Steve, K4YZ

John Smith wrote:
Kelly:

You make a pathetic antagonist, also...

Well yes "John", thank you for the compliment. Particularly as it comes
from you "John", the latest master of mindless antagonism to pass thru
our neighborhood. I bow to your expertise in the field.


John

w3rv

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:


Well, there you go, "John". I'm trying to keep an open mind in reading
your material. It isn't easy.


Easy? It's impossible. Even Don Quixote would write this strange unit
off as a loon.

I don't know if John is a loon or if, as I orginally surmised, he is
simply a troll.

He's obviously just another transparent USENET master baiter and
nothing more.

He is strange and he has bonded with Leonard. Water
always seeks its own level.

Wash my mouf' but Sweetums stays on topic at least once in awhile. This
whatever-he-is "John" thingey is a whole 'nother ballgame who swims
much deeper in the muck than Sweetums does . .


Dave K8MN

w3rv

Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:


In other words "John" "lead, follow or quit whining, trolling and
sucking up pointless bandwidth" on the topic.

Like that is going to happen! 8^P Sounds like an interesting idea
though. An anonymous leader......

Heh. Yeah, like the lion in The Wizard of Oz.


- Mike KB3EIA -

w3rv

Mike Coslo wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

an_old_friend wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:


Bill Sohl wrote:


cuting


then you need to read some the treaty requirements, the same treaty
that has been the only keeping code testing the ARS for a couple of
decades

Didn't we cover this before somewhere? There is a long history of
dancing around the treaty requirements. Like medical waivers for
starters....


nope you are simply in error. The waivers (only for speeds above 5wpm)
needed no dance

Oops! I am indeed in error on that!

most gracious of you to adknowledge that

and so rare on the newsgroup

- Mike KB3EIA -

K4YZ wrote:
an old friend wrote:
John Smith wrote:
AOF:

Frankly, I have been much more interested in the lady hams equipment
myself... I think the FCC got that one right!

John

these days I am payng more attention to a certain future lady ham's
equipment myself although I would not care to share her with the FCC

Oh?

Your "partner" has a sister? Lucky him.

still can't keep the genders straight

no my partner, my current partner is female, what the gender of the
next one may be well who knows. I'll deal with that when I need to


an aside It would be nice if you pruned some the endless stuff is
piling up at the end of your post, slows down my conection something
feirce indeed tonight I have felt like I was back on Dailup

shudder

Geeze...

Even when YOU repost six-exchanges worth of re-quotes, it still
only takes me a split second to get the page up.

I imagine what slows down YOUR connection is trying to read what

you imagine some realy strangethings stvie but we all know that ,
except of course you

we write. It's in English, and yours is...well..NOT English...Or not
much like it, any way...

at last my replies have something to do with the topic, unlike many of
yours


Steve, K4YZ

an_old_friend wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

an_old_friend wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:


an_old_friend wrote:


Mike Coslo wrote:



Bill Sohl wrote:


cuting



then you need to read some the treaty requirements, the same treaty
that has been the only keeping code testing the ARS for a couple of
decades

Didn't we cover this before somewhere? There is a long history of
dancing around the treaty requirements. Like medical waivers for
starters....


nope you are simply in error. The waivers (only for speeds above 5wpm)
needed no dance

Oops! I am indeed in error on that!


most gracious of you to adknowledge that

No problem Mark. I really didn't do my homework on that one.


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
(SNIP)
I raise these questions because there are some pretty powerful tools
available to people who feel otherwise.

What pretty powerful tools are you thinking of
and for what use? You lost me on that last comment.

Yeah, after rereading it I wasn't very clear, Bill. I just fear that some
of the Anti-Morse arguments might be adapted to gain other, less desirable
changes in Amateur radio.
- Mike KB3EIA -

OK, I understand your thoughts but so far we've not seen
any such move and, if we do, count me on your side in
opposition to such changes.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK