Because you can never be certain that the ham will NOT
ever build anything. Additionally, all hams have technical
responsibility for their stations and the RF signals they
transmit.


If the FCC is to trust us with the legal ability to
pop the covers off our transmitters and make
adjustments and modifications, we need to have passed
tests to show that we have basic knowledge of RF and
such. That we'd know how to run and maintain a clean
operation.

It's quite rare that the FCC busts a ham for faulty
equipment anymore.

robert casey wrote:


Because you can never be certain that the ham will NOT
ever build anything. Additionally, all hams have technical
responsibility for their stations and the RF signals they
transmit.


If the FCC is to trust us with the legal ability to
pop the covers off our transmitters and make
adjustments and modifications, we need to have passed
tests to show that we have basic knowledge of RF and
such. That we'd know how to run and maintain a clean
operation.

It's quite rare that the FCC busts a ham for faulty
equipment anymore.

you know the last time the FCC busted a ham for faulty equipment

AOF:

Hey! You got proof the FCC is interested in an amateurs equipment? What,
is it a gay organization now?

John

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:40:09 -0700, an_old_friend wrote:


robert casey wrote:


Because you can never be certain that the ham will NOT
ever build anything. Additionally, all hams have technical
responsibility for their stations and the RF signals they
transmit.


If the FCC is to trust us with the legal ability to
pop the covers off our transmitters and make
adjustments and modifications, we need to have passed
tests to show that we have basic knowledge of RF and
such. That we'd know how to run and maintain a clean
operation.

It's quite rare that the FCC busts a ham for faulty
equipment anymore.

you know the last time the FCC busted a ham for faulty equipment

John Smith wrote:
AOF:

Hey! You got proof the FCC is interested in an amateurs equipment? What,
is it a gay organization now?

John

not at all they are as interested in Feamle hams equipment as well as,
male hams, nothing gay there. a Bit nosey prehaps not gay


On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:40:09 -0700, an_old_friend wrote:


robert casey wrote:


Because you can never be certain that the ham will NOT
ever build anything. Additionally, all hams have technical
responsibility for their stations and the RF signals they
transmit.


If the FCC is to trust us with the legal ability to
pop the covers off our transmitters and make
adjustments and modifications, we need to have passed
tests to show that we have basic knowledge of RF and
such. That we'd know how to run and maintain a clean
operation.

It's quite rare that the FCC busts a ham for faulty
equipment anymore.

you know the last time the FCC busted a ham for faulty equipment

AOF:

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

John

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:19:28 -0700, an_old_friend wrote:


John Smith wrote:
AOF:

Hey! You got proof the FCC is interested in an amateurs equipment? What,
is it a gay organization now?

John

not at all they are as interested in Feamle hams equipment as well as,
male hams, nothing gay there. a Bit nosey prehaps not gay


On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:40:09 -0700, an_old_friend wrote:


robert casey wrote:


Because you can never be certain that the ham will NOT
ever build anything. Additionally, all hams have technical
responsibility for their stations and the RF signals they
transmit.


If the FCC is to trust us with the legal ability to
pop the covers off our transmitters and make
adjustments and modifications, we need to have passed
tests to show that we have basic knowledge of RF and
such. That we'd know how to run and maintain a clean
operation.

It's quite rare that the FCC busts a ham for faulty
equipment anymore.

you know the last time the FCC busted a ham for faulty equipment

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

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

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

AOF:

I have nothing but words of encouragement, to court that ladies
fondness... and step into the light...

John

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:59:05 -0700, 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

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