|
Echos from the past, code a hinderence to a ticket
Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old key tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes... http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN LIARS!" John |
John Smith wrote: Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old key tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes... http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN LIARS!" Omission of relevant facts can be a form of lying. Here's the whole story: I read that bit of W5YI propaganda, and also the original articles in "200 Meters And Down" and the QSTs of the time. (have you done so?) The referenced article does not give all the relevant facts. For one thing, the article claims that "higher speed" code testing has been used to "limit the number of hams since the very beginning of ham licensing". The fact is that all US hams were licensed in the US by 1912, 24 years before the 1936 happenings cited. The code test speed after 1919 was 10 wpm, and the 1936 increase to 13 wpm - hardly a quantum leap. To get a clear picture of what was actually happening, it is important to understand what ham radio was like back in those days. After WW1, ham radio almost ceased to exist. It was brought back to life by the dedicated efforts of a few enthusiasts. Amateur radio was not even recognized by international treaty until 1927. The 1927 treaty resulted in stricter new rules and much-narrowed bands. By 1929 there were about 16,000 hams in the US. Almost all of them were on the 160, 80, 40, and 20 meter bands. A typical ham transmitter was a self-controlled power oscillator, and a typical ham receiver was a three tube regenerative. Sure, more advanced techniques existed, but few hams could afford them in thos Great Depression years. Code skill was important in almost all radio services. 10 wpm was not considered as anything like professional level - 25 or 30 wpm was more like it. (This was with semiautomatic keys for sending and manual typewriters for highspeed copy). 1929 saw two big changes to ham radio. The treaties signed in 1927 came into effect, which cut deeply into the 40 and 20 meter hambands (70% of 40 was lost, and 80% of 20). The treaties also required much cleaner signals from ham rigs. The Great Depression followed soon afterwards. But the Depression and the new regs had a surprising effect on ham radio. The number of hams took a sharp upturn in the early thirties. By 1935 there were over 46,000 hams - almost TRIPLING the number of just five years earlier! But the turnover in amateur radio was approaching 40% per year. This meant that most hams were raw newcomers, with relatively little technical knowledge or operating skills. A ham with 5 years on the air was a veteran, one with 10 years was a grizzled old timer. Problems of interference and crowding abounded. Complaints from other services threatened the existence of ham radio. The problem was that thousands of newcomers were learning just enough to pass the tests, assembling simple stations with little understanding of proper design, adjustment, or operation, and putting them on the air. Many of these newcomers lost interest quickly, particularly when the limitations of their knowledge and skills became apparent. The newly formed FCC was concerned, as was the ARRL. The action proposed by the ARRL to the FCC was in two parts: Raise the code speed SLIGHTLY, (10 to 12-1/2 wpm) and make the written test more comprehensive. The changes to the written tests are all but ignored by the NCI article. The goal was NOT to limit the total number of hams, nor to hinder or deter anyone from getting a license, but to control the flood of newcomers, and make sure that the new folks had the necessary skills and knowledge. Look at the complete picture, and the action of the FCC in 1936 makes sense. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY:
Nice attempt at "spin doctoring" for the weak minded... It is like fishing, you bait your hook, toss it in the water and see what bites... John On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:36:54 -0700, N2EY wrote: John Smith wrote: Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old key tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes... http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN LIARS!" Omission of relevant facts can be a form of lying. Here's the whole story: I read that bit of W5YI propaganda, and also the original articles in "200 Meters And Down" and the QSTs of the time. (have you done so?) The referenced article does not give all the relevant facts. For one thing, the article claims that "higher speed" code testing has been used to "limit the number of hams since the very beginning of ham licensing". The fact is that all US hams were licensed in the US by 1912, 24 years before the 1936 happenings cited. The code test speed after 1919 was 10 wpm, and the 1936 increase to 13 wpm - hardly a quantum leap. To get a clear picture of what was actually happening, it is important to understand what ham radio was like back in those days. After WW1, ham radio almost ceased to exist. It was brought back to life by the dedicated efforts of a few enthusiasts. Amateur radio was not even recognized by international treaty until 1927. The 1927 treaty resulted in stricter new rules and much-narrowed bands. By 1929 there were about 16,000 hams in the US. Almost all of them were on the 160, 80, 40, and 20 meter bands. A typical ham transmitter was a self-controlled power oscillator, and a typical ham receiver was a three tube regenerative. Sure, more advanced techniques existed, but few hams could afford them in thos Great Depression years. Code skill was important in almost all radio services. 10 wpm was not considered as anything like professional level - 25 or 30 wpm was more like it. (This was with semiautomatic keys for sending and manual typewriters for highspeed copy). 1929 saw two big changes to ham radio. The treaties signed in 1927 came into effect, which cut deeply into the 40 and 20 meter hambands (70% of 40 was lost, and 80% of 20). The treaties also required much cleaner signals from ham rigs. The Great Depression followed soon afterwards. But the Depression and the new regs had a surprising effect on ham radio. The number of hams took a sharp upturn in the early thirties. By 1935 there were over 46,000 hams - almost TRIPLING the number of just five years earlier! But the turnover in amateur radio was approaching 40% per year. This meant that most hams were raw newcomers, with relatively little technical knowledge or operating skills. A ham with 5 years on the air was a veteran, one with 10 years was a grizzled old timer. Problems of interference and crowding abounded. Complaints from other services threatened the existence of ham radio. The problem was that thousands of newcomers were learning just enough to pass the tests, assembling simple stations with little understanding of proper design, adjustment, or operation, and putting them on the air. Many of these newcomers lost interest quickly, particularly when the limitations of their knowledge and skills became apparent. The newly formed FCC was concerned, as was the ARRL. The action proposed by the ARRL to the FCC was in two parts: Raise the code speed SLIGHTLY, (10 to 12-1/2 wpm) and make the written test more comprehensive. The changes to the written tests are all but ignored by the NCI article. The goal was NOT to limit the total number of hams, nor to hinder or deter anyone from getting a license, but to control the flood of newcomers, and make sure that the new folks had the necessary skills and knowledge. Look at the complete picture, and the action of the FCC in 1936 makes sense. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
From: John Smith on Fri 5 Aug 2005 09:00
Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old key tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes... http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN LIARS!" ...or, as one 7 hostile (personality) action murine would have it, "LIAR PUTZ, LIAR PUTZ, LIAR PUTZ!!!" :-) --- John, it may interest you to note that NCI was conceived and begun by Bruce Perens, himself a 20 WPM tested Extra...a few years BEFORE the release of 98-143 and dropping of the present code test to 5 WPM. It isn't that No Code International is that influential, but that it is a coming-together of LIKE-MINDED INDIVIDUALS from all over the world to banish the administrations' "necessity" for a morse code test. The IARU got convinced and was a major mover and shaker to rewrite S25 and to make morse testing optional in S25.5. Carl Stevenson of NCI was on the scene in Geneva two years ago to help push that along. Elimination of a federal test for morsemanship started as a small snowball decades ago. It has been rolling along steadily for years, gathering momentum, gathering mass, and now has become HUGE. We must pity those who stand in its path since this is no Tienanmen Square and the no-code-test "tanks" aren't stopping for anything or anybody. squish, squish ave mar |
The problem was that thousands of newcomers were learning just enough to pass the tests, assembling simple stations with little understanding of proper design, adjustment, or operation, and putting them on the air. Many of these newcomers lost interest quickly, particularly when the limitations of their knowledge and skills became apparent. The newly formed FCC was concerned, as was the ARRL. The action proposed by the ARRL to the FCC was in two parts: Raise the code speed SLIGHTLY, (10 to 12-1/2 wpm) and make the written test more comprehensive. The changes to the written tests are all but ignored by the NCI article. Code won't help here, but testing for knowledge does. As the FCC lets us build and maintain our transmitter, we need to know a few things. Like: Basic knowledge of oscillator and amplifier circuits, and what happens if such are not designed or adjusted right (harmonics and such problems). Technical stuff the CB "freebanders" with "Linayers" should know but don't. Basic troubleshooting skills (probable faults in given situations). Basic circuit theory. Also block diagram level systems (like the parts of a superheterodyne receiver). KNowledge of RFI and probable causes. Repeater management. Bandwidth of various modes (SSB, FM, etc) and why you don't set the transceiver frequency at 14.349 in USB mode (your signal will leak over the band edge into another service's band). Rules and regs like IDing and no pecuniary interest (which really protects our bands from business invaders). No broadcasting (the web is a better medium for this anyway). Enough knowledge to be tested so a candidate can be trusted to operate transmitters and not screw up the radio spectrum for other users. |
John Smith wrote:
N2EY: Nice attempt at "spin doctoring" for the weak minded... It is like fishing, you bait your hook, toss it in the water and see what bites... John At least that's how you do it, "John". Dave K8MN On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:36:54 -0700, N2EY wrote: John Smith wrote: Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old key tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes... http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN LIARS!" Omission of relevant facts can be a form of lying. Here's the whole story: I read that bit of W5YI propaganda, and also the original articles in "200 Meters And Down" and the QSTs of the time. (have you done so?) The referenced article does not give all the relevant facts. For one thing, the article claims that "higher speed" code testing has been used to "limit the number of hams since the very beginning of ham licensing". The fact is that all US hams were licensed in the US by 1912, 24 years before the 1936 happenings cited. The code test speed after 1919 was 10 wpm, and the 1936 increase to 13 wpm - hardly a quantum leap. To get a clear picture of what was actually happening, it is important to understand what ham radio was like back in those days. After WW1, ham radio almost ceased to exist. It was brought back to life by the dedicated efforts of a few enthusiasts. Amateur radio was not even recognized by international treaty until 1927. The 1927 treaty resulted in stricter new rules and much-narrowed bands. By 1929 there were about 16,000 hams in the US. Almost all of them were on the 160, 80, 40, and 20 meter bands. A typical ham transmitter was a self-controlled power oscillator, and a typical ham receiver was a three tube regenerative. Sure, more advanced techniques existed, but few hams could afford them in thos Great Depression years. Code skill was important in almost all radio services. 10 wpm was not considered as anything like professional level - 25 or 30 wpm was more like it. (This was with semiautomatic keys for sending and manual typewriters for highspeed copy). 1929 saw two big changes to ham radio. The treaties signed in 1927 came into effect, which cut deeply into the 40 and 20 meter hambands (70% of 40 was lost, and 80% of 20). The treaties also required much cleaner signals from ham rigs. The Great Depression followed soon afterwards. But the Depression and the new regs had a surprising effect on ham radio. The number of hams took a sharp upturn in the early thirties. By 1935 there were over 46,000 hams - almost TRIPLING the number of just five years earlier! But the turnover in amateur radio was approaching 40% per year. This meant that most hams were raw newcomers, with relatively little technical knowledge or operating skills. A ham with 5 years on the air was a veteran, one with 10 years was a grizzled old timer. Problems of interference and crowding abounded. Complaints from other services threatened the existence of ham radio. The problem was that thousands of newcomers were learning just enough to pass the tests, assembling simple stations with little understanding of proper design, adjustment, or operation, and putting them on the air. Many of these newcomers lost interest quickly, particularly when the limitations of their knowledge and skills became apparent. The newly formed FCC was concerned, as was the ARRL. The action proposed by the ARRL to the FCC was in two parts: Raise the code speed SLIGHTLY, (10 to 12-1/2 wpm) and make the written test more comprehensive. The changes to the written tests are all but ignored by the NCI article. The goal was NOT to limit the total number of hams, nor to hinder or deter anyone from getting a license, but to control the flood of newcomers, and make sure that the new folks had the necessary skills and knowledge. Look at the complete picture, and the action of the FCC in 1936 makes sense. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old key tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes... http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN LIARS!" John It obviously didn't work did it. Not only is the total number of hams far greater today than then but as a percent of the population we are more numerous than then. It simply goes to prove that anyone who wanted to be a ham could. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dave:
Well, there is debate and argument for good and reason, and then there is not... Then there is religious devotion to a test which serves only a select few... It would be interesting if the powers that be were to decide in keeping CW--and then explain why they alone in the world community made that decision, frankly, I would be happy not to have that task... There are plentiful examples of insanity in this world... that old book which bears the title something like "The Emperor Wore No Clothes" is as meaningful today as the day it was written... John "Dave Heil" wrote in message nk.net... John Smith wrote: N2EY: Nice attempt at "spin doctoring" for the weak minded... It is like fishing, you bait your hook, toss it in the water and see what bites... John At least that's how you do it, "John". Dave K8MN On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:36:54 -0700, N2EY wrote: John Smith wrote: Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old key tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes... http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN LIARS!" Omission of relevant facts can be a form of lying. Here's the whole story: I read that bit of W5YI propaganda, and also the original articles in "200 Meters And Down" and the QSTs of the time. (have you done so?) The referenced article does not give all the relevant facts. For one thing, the article claims that "higher speed" code testing has been used to "limit the number of hams since the very beginning of ham licensing". The fact is that all US hams were licensed in the US by 1912, 24 years before the 1936 happenings cited. The code test speed after 1919 was 10 wpm, and the 1936 increase to 13 wpm - hardly a quantum leap. To get a clear picture of what was actually happening, it is important to understand what ham radio was like back in those days. After WW1, ham radio almost ceased to exist. It was brought back to life by the dedicated efforts of a few enthusiasts. Amateur radio was not even recognized by international treaty until 1927. The 1927 treaty resulted in stricter new rules and much-narrowed bands. By 1929 there were about 16,000 hams in the US. Almost all of them were on the 160, 80, 40, and 20 meter bands. A typical ham transmitter was a self-controlled power oscillator, and a typical ham receiver was a three tube regenerative. Sure, more advanced techniques existed, but few hams could afford them in thos Great Depression years. Code skill was important in almost all radio services. 10 wpm was not considered as anything like professional level - 25 or 30 wpm was more like it. (This was with semiautomatic keys for sending and manual typewriters for highspeed copy). 1929 saw two big changes to ham radio. The treaties signed in 1927 came into effect, which cut deeply into the 40 and 20 meter hambands (70% of 40 was lost, and 80% of 20). The treaties also required much cleaner signals from ham rigs. The Great Depression followed soon afterwards. But the Depression and the new regs had a surprising effect on ham radio. The number of hams took a sharp upturn in the early thirties. By 1935 there were over 46,000 hams - almost TRIPLING the number of just five years earlier! But the turnover in amateur radio was approaching 40% per year. This meant that most hams were raw newcomers, with relatively little technical knowledge or operating skills. A ham with 5 years on the air was a veteran, one with 10 years was a grizzled old timer. Problems of interference and crowding abounded. Complaints from other services threatened the existence of ham radio. The problem was that thousands of newcomers were learning just enough to pass the tests, assembling simple stations with little understanding of proper design, adjustment, or operation, and putting them on the air. Many of these newcomers lost interest quickly, particularly when the limitations of their knowledge and skills became apparent. The newly formed FCC was concerned, as was the ARRL. The action proposed by the ARRL to the FCC was in two parts: Raise the code speed SLIGHTLY, (10 to 12-1/2 wpm) and make the written test more comprehensive. The changes to the written tests are all but ignored by the NCI article. The goal was NOT to limit the total number of hams, nor to hinder or deter anyone from getting a license, but to control the flood of newcomers, and make sure that the new folks had the necessary skills and knowledge. Look at the complete picture, and the action of the FCC in 1936 makes sense. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
commander buzzard logic:
.... yawn ... John "Cmdr Buzz Corey" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: Nice attempt at "spin doctoring" for the weak minded... It is like fishing, you bait your hook, toss it in the water and see what bites... Nice try at 'spin doctoring' yourself, but it doesn't fly. |
Dee:
I think it more reflects the readily availability of manufactured equipment as compared to equip constructed by ones own hand. I also think it has to do with an economy which allows one to support such hobbies, and the abundant free time individuals have to devote to such hobbies. I also think it has to do with education and the masses do not find radio a "dark mystery" anymore, etc, etc... It has to do with a lot of things... one I don't even consider is a factor which has helped the popularity of ham radio is CW... indeed, it has served as a hindrance... only the degree which it has hindered is left to be argued, in my humble opinion--and shortly we are due to find out... indeed, without some sort of "shot in the arm" amateur radio would continue its' course and go the way of the dodo bird... John "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old key tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes... http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN LIARS!" John It obviously didn't work did it. Not only is the total number of hams far greater today than then but as a percent of the population we are more numerous than then. It simply goes to prove that anyone who wanted to be a ham could. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
John Smith wrote: Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old key tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes... http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN LIARS!" John When Hans proposed that in the brave new world of a No-Code HF License, that one should have to take a Morse Code Test to use CW, Jim/N2EY said that a Morse Code Test would be a -barrier- to Morse Code use. Hi! It's always been a barrier. |
John Smith wrote:
Nice attempt at "spin doctoring" for the weak minded... It is like fishing, you bait your hook, toss it in the water and see what bites... Nice try at 'spin doctoring' yourself, but it doesn't fly. |
Minor correction "John Smith". If the USA decided not to drop CW, it
would NOT be alone in world. Russia and her ex Soviet Block nations have all decided to keep CW. Dan/W4NTI "John Smith" wrote in message ... Dave: Well, there is debate and argument for good and reason, and then there is not... Then there is religious devotion to a test which serves only a select few... It would be interesting if the powers that be were to decide in keeping CW--and then explain why they alone in the world community made that decision, frankly, I would be happy not to have that task... There are plentiful examples of insanity in this world... that old book which bears the title something like "The Emperor Wore No Clothes" is as meaningful today as the day it was written... John "Dave Heil" wrote in message nk.net... John Smith wrote: N2EY: Nice attempt at "spin doctoring" for the weak minded... It is like fishing, you bait your hook, toss it in the water and see what bites... John At least that's how you do it, "John". Dave K8MN On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:36:54 -0700, N2EY wrote: John Smith wrote: Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old key tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes... http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN LIARS!" Omission of relevant facts can be a form of lying. Here's the whole story: I read that bit of W5YI propaganda, and also the original articles in "200 Meters And Down" and the QSTs of the time. (have you done so?) The referenced article does not give all the relevant facts. For one thing, the article claims that "higher speed" code testing has been used to "limit the number of hams since the very beginning of ham licensing". The fact is that all US hams were licensed in the US by 1912, 24 years before the 1936 happenings cited. The code test speed after 1919 was 10 wpm, and the 1936 increase to 13 wpm - hardly a quantum leap. To get a clear picture of what was actually happening, it is important to understand what ham radio was like back in those days. After WW1, ham radio almost ceased to exist. It was brought back to life by the dedicated efforts of a few enthusiasts. Amateur radio was not even recognized by international treaty until 1927. The 1927 treaty resulted in stricter new rules and much-narrowed bands. By 1929 there were about 16,000 hams in the US. Almost all of them were on the 160, 80, 40, and 20 meter bands. A typical ham transmitter was a self-controlled power oscillator, and a typical ham receiver was a three tube regenerative. Sure, more advanced techniques existed, but few hams could afford them in thos Great Depression years. Code skill was important in almost all radio services. 10 wpm was not considered as anything like professional level - 25 or 30 wpm was more like it. (This was with semiautomatic keys for sending and manual typewriters for highspeed copy). 1929 saw two big changes to ham radio. The treaties signed in 1927 came into effect, which cut deeply into the 40 and 20 meter hambands (70% of 40 was lost, and 80% of 20). The treaties also required much cleaner signals from ham rigs. The Great Depression followed soon afterwards. But the Depression and the new regs had a surprising effect on ham radio. The number of hams took a sharp upturn in the early thirties. By 1935 there were over 46,000 hams - almost TRIPLING the number of just five years earlier! But the turnover in amateur radio was approaching 40% per year. This meant that most hams were raw newcomers, with relatively little technical knowledge or operating skills. A ham with 5 years on the air was a veteran, one with 10 years was a grizzled old timer. Problems of interference and crowding abounded. Complaints from other services threatened the existence of ham radio. The problem was that thousands of newcomers were learning just enough to pass the tests, assembling simple stations with little understanding of proper design, adjustment, or operation, and putting them on the air. Many of these newcomers lost interest quickly, particularly when the limitations of their knowledge and skills became apparent. The newly formed FCC was concerned, as was the ARRL. The action proposed by the ARRL to the FCC was in two parts: Raise the code speed SLIGHTLY, (10 to 12-1/2 wpm) and make the written test more comprehensive. The changes to the written tests are all but ignored by the NCI article. The goal was NOT to limit the total number of hams, nor to hinder or deter anyone from getting a license, but to control the flood of newcomers, and make sure that the new folks had the necessary skills and knowledge. Look at the complete picture, and the action of the FCC in 1936 makes sense. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Dee: I think it more reflects the readily availability of manufactured equipment as compared to equip constructed by ones own hand. I also think it has to do with an economy which allows one to support such hobbies, and the abundant free time individuals have to devote to such hobbies. I also think it has to do with education and the masses do not find radio a "dark mystery" anymore, etc, etc... It has to do with a lot of things... one I don't even consider is a factor which has helped the popularity of ham radio is CW... indeed, it has served as a hindrance... only the degree which it has hindered is left to be argued, in my humble opinion--and shortly we are due to find out... indeed, without some sort of "shot in the arm" amateur radio would continue its' course and go the way of the dodo bird... John There is no longer any need to keep repeating the false mantras that "ham radio is dying" and "Morse code stops people from becoming hams" since the FCC will be eliminating the code test. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee:
We are possibly talking about 300,000 hams in the us, that is NOT a large number for a good hobby... compare that to millions of bicyclists, millions of fishermen, millions of bowlers, etc, etc... perhaps skydivers are near that number, 300,000, but only because many of us are too damn smart and won't jump out of a plane with a large sized piece of ripstop nylon attached to us! How you quote such dismal numbers in amateur radio as if they/it are something to be proud of does nothing but amaze me! As I have pointed out before, there are MAGNITUDES more illegal aliens here than hams! John On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 18:16:05 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old key tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes... http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN LIARS!" John It obviously didn't work did it. Not only is the total number of hams far greater today than then but as a percent of the population we are more numerous than then. It simply goes to prove that anyone who wanted to be a ham could. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee:
Those "false mantras" are what the FCC and world woke up to, and believed... A course in logic should be given before one can use their amateur license! John On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 20:11:41 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Dee: I think it more reflects the readily availability of manufactured equipment as compared to equip constructed by ones own hand. I also think it has to do with an economy which allows one to support such hobbies, and the abundant free time individuals have to devote to such hobbies. I also think it has to do with education and the masses do not find radio a "dark mystery" anymore, etc, etc... It has to do with a lot of things... one I don't even consider is a factor which has helped the popularity of ham radio is CW... indeed, it has served as a hindrance... only the degree which it has hindered is left to be argued, in my humble opinion--and shortly we are due to find out... indeed, without some sort of "shot in the arm" amateur radio would continue its' course and go the way of the dodo bird... John There is no longer any need to keep repeating the false mantras that "ham radio is dying" and "Morse code stops people from becoming hams" since the FCC will be eliminating the code test. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Dee: We are possibly talking about 300,000 hams in the us, that is NOT a large number for a good hobby... compare that to millions of bicyclists, millions of fishermen, millions of bowlers, etc, etc... perhaps skydivers are near that number, 300,000, but only because many of us are too damn smart and won't jump out of a plane with a large sized piece of ripstop nylon attached to us! There are over 600,000 hams in the US. How you quote such dismal numbers in amateur radio as if they/it are something to be proud of does nothing but amaze me! As I have pointed out before, there are MAGNITUDES more illegal aliens here than hams! John In this day and age, any technical or semi-technical hobby is lucky to have any members at all. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dan:
What communist counties do is almost always in the interest of the shadow gov't really running the country. That is supposed to be surprising? John On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 00:06:36 +0000, Dan/W4NTI wrote: Minor correction "John Smith". If the USA decided not to drop CW, it would NOT be alone in world. Russia and her ex Soviet Block nations have all decided to keep CW. Dan/W4NTI "John Smith" wrote in message ... Dave: Well, there is debate and argument for good and reason, and then there is not... Then there is religious devotion to a test which serves only a select few... It would be interesting if the powers that be were to decide in keeping CW--and then explain why they alone in the world community made that decision, frankly, I would be happy not to have that task... There are plentiful examples of insanity in this world... that old book which bears the title something like "The Emperor Wore No Clothes" is as meaningful today as the day it was written... John "Dave Heil" wrote in message nk.net... John Smith wrote: N2EY: Nice attempt at "spin doctoring" for the weak minded... It is like fishing, you bait your hook, toss it in the water and see what bites... John At least that's how you do it, "John". Dave K8MN On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:36:54 -0700, N2EY wrote: John Smith wrote: Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old key tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes... http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN LIARS!" Omission of relevant facts can be a form of lying. Here's the whole story: I read that bit of W5YI propaganda, and also the original articles in "200 Meters And Down" and the QSTs of the time. (have you done so?) The referenced article does not give all the relevant facts. For one thing, the article claims that "higher speed" code testing has been used to "limit the number of hams since the very beginning of ham licensing". The fact is that all US hams were licensed in the US by 1912, 24 years before the 1936 happenings cited. The code test speed after 1919 was 10 wpm, and the 1936 increase to 13 wpm - hardly a quantum leap. To get a clear picture of what was actually happening, it is important to understand what ham radio was like back in those days. After WW1, ham radio almost ceased to exist. It was brought back to life by the dedicated efforts of a few enthusiasts. Amateur radio was not even recognized by international treaty until 1927. The 1927 treaty resulted in stricter new rules and much-narrowed bands. By 1929 there were about 16,000 hams in the US. Almost all of them were on the 160, 80, 40, and 20 meter bands. A typical ham transmitter was a self-controlled power oscillator, and a typical ham receiver was a three tube regenerative. Sure, more advanced techniques existed, but few hams could afford them in thos Great Depression years. Code skill was important in almost all radio services. 10 wpm was not considered as anything like professional level - 25 or 30 wpm was more like it. (This was with semiautomatic keys for sending and manual typewriters for highspeed copy). 1929 saw two big changes to ham radio. The treaties signed in 1927 came into effect, which cut deeply into the 40 and 20 meter hambands (70% of 40 was lost, and 80% of 20). The treaties also required much cleaner signals from ham rigs. The Great Depression followed soon afterwards. But the Depression and the new regs had a surprising effect on ham radio. The number of hams took a sharp upturn in the early thirties. By 1935 there were over 46,000 hams - almost TRIPLING the number of just five years earlier! But the turnover in amateur radio was approaching 40% per year. This meant that most hams were raw newcomers, with relatively little technical knowledge or operating skills. A ham with 5 years on the air was a veteran, one with 10 years was a grizzled old timer. Problems of interference and crowding abounded. Complaints from other services threatened the existence of ham radio. The problem was that thousands of newcomers were learning just enough to pass the tests, assembling simple stations with little understanding of proper design, adjustment, or operation, and putting them on the air. Many of these newcomers lost interest quickly, particularly when the limitations of their knowledge and skills became apparent. The newly formed FCC was concerned, as was the ARRL. The action proposed by the ARRL to the FCC was in two parts: Raise the code speed SLIGHTLY, (10 to 12-1/2 wpm) and make the written test more comprehensive. The changes to the written tests are all but ignored by the NCI article. The goal was NOT to limit the total number of hams, nor to hinder or deter anyone from getting a license, but to control the flood of newcomers, and make sure that the new folks had the necessary skills and knowledge. Look at the complete picture, and the action of the FCC in 1936 makes sense. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Dee:
I differ with that figure, I think it is inflated about half, this is VERY apparent when tuning the bands... something is OBVIOUSLY wrong with that figure. I suspect it is like our "unemployment figure" here in the USA, that ONLY depicts those who are "drawing" unemployment, not those who have used up their unemployment, only worked part time and are not eligible, those who have given up on looking for work, etc... Those figures are "cooked" and those in the know--KNOW IT! John On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 20:39:25 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Dee: We are possibly talking about 300,000 hams in the us, that is NOT a large number for a good hobby... compare that to millions of bicyclists, millions of fishermen, millions of bowlers, etc, etc... perhaps skydivers are near that number, 300,000, but only because many of us are too damn smart and won't jump out of a plane with a large sized piece of ripstop nylon attached to us! There are over 600,000 hams in the US. How you quote such dismal numbers in amateur radio as if they/it are something to be proud of does nothing but amaze me! As I have pointed out before, there are MAGNITUDES more illegal aliens here than hams! John In this day and age, any technical or semi-technical hobby is lucky to have any members at all. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
John Smith wrote:
Dee: I differ with that figure, I think it is inflated about half, this is VERY apparent when tuning the bands... something is OBVIOUSLY wrong with that figure. I suspect it is like our "unemployment figure" here in the USA, that ONLY depicts those who are "drawing" unemployment, not those who have used up their unemployment, only worked part time and are not eligible, those who have given up on looking for work, etc... Those figures are "cooked" and those in the know--KNOW IT! John You purport to be an active radio amateur and you didn't even have a realistic idea of how many hams there are in the United States? Do you think the FCC and ARRL are in collusion and they've whipped up some massive coverup of the number of licensees? Sheesh! Dave Heil |
John Smith wrote:
Dee: I differ with that figure, I think it is inflated about half, this is VERY apparent when tuning the bands... Good grief!! So you can tell from listening to the bands how many hams there are. WOW!! Do you think all 600,000+ licensed operators are on at the same time? Do you even think all 600,000 are active on the bands? Which bands to you tune? Do you think you can hear all the stations that are on 40 meters? Do you think you can hear all the stations that are on 20, 15, 10 meters at any one time? Can you hear all the 2 meter, 440, and other UHF activity going on all over the country? Do you think? As of July 31, 2005 Novice - 27,975 (-43.28%) (-21,354) Tech/+ - 317,655 (-5.02%) (-16,800) General - 136,435 (+20.81%) (+23,490) Advanced - 75,812 (-24.28%) (-24,236) Extra - 106,900 (+35.74%) (+28,150) Total All Classes - 664,040 |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message k.net... John Smith wrote: Dee: I differ with that figure, I think it is inflated about half, this is VERY apparent when tuning the bands... something is OBVIOUSLY wrong with that figure. I suspect it is like our "unemployment figure" here in the USA, that ONLY depicts those who are "drawing" unemployment, not those who have used up their unemployment, only worked part time and are not eligible, those who have given up on looking for work, etc... Those figures are "cooked" and those in the know--KNOW IT! John You purport to be an active radio amateur and you didn't even have a realistic idea of how many hams there are in the United States? Do you think the FCC and ARRL are in collusion and they've whipped up some massive coverup of the number of licensees? Sheesh! Dave Heil And he obviously hasn't been on the bands during a major contest! Wall to wall signals is inadequate to describe the activity. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dave:
Anyone with a computer can grab the statistics off the FCC and arrl sites, who is left which trusts them, if you, don't include me. No, I was born at different time, when you got real data, real numbers, real people to stand behind it, I understand the youngsters might be confused by all this, but all us old timers have a real past when everything was different. We have a bit more "history" to go by.... I guess you can just chuck me into the "conspiracy nuts" group, I don't trust the figure, politicians, and news anymore... if I have to appoligize for it, so be it... but don't consider it a half-felt one... Frankly, I like progress, don't much care for liars and "spin doctors." John On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 03:34:26 +0000, Dave Heil wrote: John Smith wrote: Dee: I differ with that figure, I think it is inflated about half, this is VERY apparent when tuning the bands... something is OBVIOUSLY wrong with that figure. I suspect it is like our "unemployment figure" here in the USA, that ONLY depicts those who are "drawing" unemployment, not those who have used up their unemployment, only worked part time and are not eligible, those who have given up on looking for work, etc... Those figures are "cooked" and those in the know--KNOW IT! John You purport to be an active radio amateur and you didn't even have a realistic idea of how many hams there are in the United States? Do you think the FCC and ARRL are in collusion and they've whipped up some massive coverup of the number of licensees? Sheesh! Dave Heil |
Dee:
Nope, never have seen all the bandwidths in as much use as back during the 70's and early 80's, did you have a ticket back then? My gawd, those oldtimers have forgotten what a real "pileup" means! Congestion worse than imagined in my worst nightmare! Never have had interest in "contesting", much prefer just a gentle argument around stuff which "seems to matter"... never had a wall covered with QSL cards, only asked the ones who interested me, which I wanted to be reminded of, to correspond--hell, guess I am "not with it", but never have been, don't count one me now to "get with it." lack-a-daisyial-grin-and-a-wink... that "different drummer" has always caught my attention, started listening as a youth, never quit... I have never been afraid to be different, if there is just one of me--so be it! John On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 00:51:27 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: "Dave Heil" wrote in message k.net... John Smith wrote: Dee: I differ with that figure, I think it is inflated about half, this is VERY apparent when tuning the bands... something is OBVIOUSLY wrong with that figure. I suspect it is like our "unemployment figure" here in the USA, that ONLY depicts those who are "drawing" unemployment, not those who have used up their unemployment, only worked part time and are not eligible, those who have given up on looking for work, etc... Those figures are "cooked" and those in the know--KNOW IT! John You purport to be an active radio amateur and you didn't even have a realistic idea of how many hams there are in the United States? Do you think the FCC and ARRL are in collusion and they've whipped up some massive coverup of the number of licensees? Sheesh! Dave Heil And he obviously hasn't been on the bands during a major contest! Wall to wall signals is inadequate to describe the activity. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee Flint wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Dee: I think it more reflects the readily availability of manufactured equipment as compared to equip constructed by ones own hand. I also think it has to do with an economy which allows one to support such hobbies, and the abundant free time individuals have to devote to such hobbies. I also think it has to do with education and the masses do not find radio a "dark mystery" anymore, etc, etc... It has to do with a lot of things... one I don't even consider is a factor which has helped the popularity of ham radio is CW... indeed, it has served as a hindrance... only the degree which it has hindered is left to be argued, in my humble opinion--and shortly we are due to find out... indeed, without some sort of "shot in the arm" amateur radio would continue its' course and go the way of the dodo bird... John There is no longer any need to keep repeating the false mantras that "ham radio is dying" and "Morse code stops people from becoming hams" since the FCC will be eliminating the code test. Perhaps a *new* mantra will come out? - Mike |
Dave Heil wrote:
You purport to be an active radio amateur and you didn't even have a realistic idea of how many hams there are in the United States? Do you think the FCC and ARRL are in collusion and they've whipped up some massive coverup of the number of licensees? Sheesh! This approach has been in evidence early on. Facts are of secondary importance to opinion. If we are told that there are not the number of hams claimed on the database, then that is the truth. If that means that the FCC is lying, that is the truth. If we are told that the only thing needed to go digital on HF is to hook up that 56K modem to the rig, then that is the truth. If we are told that Ham radio is dying, then that is true. You can't argue with someone who makes up the facts as they go along, so why do it? - Mike KB3EIA - BTW, CQ has an article on HF digital transmission. Seems that they have got it all wrong too. They have a method that works, but it is pretty slow for images (or files) of any appreciable size. Jim might note that they do some bandwidth tricks in similar manner as he proposed per our conversation in here earlier. Not exact, but along the same lines Hopefully we will see an article from those who know the right way to HF digital soon. 8^) |
Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old key tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes... http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN LIARS!" John break It obviously didn't work did it. Not only is the total number of hams far greater today than then but as a percent of the population we are more numerous than then. It simply goes to prove that anyone who wanted to be a ham could. proves nothing the sort the use of the word "proof" is this Newsgroup is shocking (and some folks complain my use of words is bad i just mispell them rather than male there meaning) without consideing the population growth rates when certain changes were made you can't tell where wed be IF say the FCC (and the US) had screew the s25 and reducing testing to "---...---" and saying if you can rudersatnd that means distress you have passed a code test (which would have met the letter of the treaty) how many ham would swould there today? I don't know but a lot more I think, I can't prove it, or course but I don't use the word "proof" so litely Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
John Smith wrote: Dee: Those "false mantras" are what the FCC and world woke up to, and believed... A course in logic should be given before one can use their amateur license! Sorry John you are Wrong, even in jest, even the thought of a logic or testing hams of the meaning of the word "proof" could be the final nail in the coffin John On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 20:11:41 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Dee: I think it more reflects the readily availability of manufactured equipment as compared to equip constructed by ones own hand. I also think it has to do with an economy which allows one to support such hobbies, and the abundant free time individuals have to devote to such hobbies. I also think it has to do with education and the masses do not find radio a "dark mystery" anymore, etc, etc... It has to do with a lot of things... one I don't even consider is a factor which has helped the popularity of ham radio is CW... indeed, it has served as a hindrance... only the degree which it has hindered is left to be argued, in my humble opinion--and shortly we are due to find out... indeed, without some sort of "shot in the arm" amateur radio would continue its' course and go the way of the dodo bird... John There is no longer any need to keep repeating the false mantras that "ham radio is dying" and "Morse code stops people from becoming hams" since the FCC will be eliminating the code test. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
John Smith wrote: Dee: I differ with that figure, I think it is inflated about half, this is VERY apparent when tuning the bands... something is OBVIOUSLY wrong with that figure. I suspect it is like our "unemployment figure" here in the USA, that ONLY depicts those who are "drawing" unemployment, not those who have used up their unemployment, only worked part time and are not eligible, those who have given up on looking for work, etc... Those figures are "cooked" and those in the know--KNOW IT! th book are cooked in about the manner you describe (the recipe of the cooking varies slightly accross the nations )and is then seasonaly cooked on top of that John On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 20:39:25 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Dee: We are possibly talking about 300,000 hams in the us, that is NOT a large number for a good hobby... compare that to millions of bicyclists, millions of fishermen, millions of bowlers, etc, etc... perhaps skydivers are near that number, 300,000, but only because many of us are too damn smart and won't jump out of a plane with a large sized piece of ripstop nylon attached to us! There are over 600,000 hams in the US. How you quote such dismal numbers in amateur radio as if they/it are something to be proud of does nothing but amaze me! As I have pointed out before, there are MAGNITUDES more illegal aliens here than hams! John In this day and age, any technical or semi-technical hobby is lucky to have any members at all. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Mike:
As usual, you got everything backwards... digital is not analog, end of story. The modem on the mic just points out hams are too lazy, or two limited to even be able to kludge a simple digital project together, when the parts are just laying around. Hell, you have to use such stuff, real digital equip is few are far between and there are so few hams the call for such equip is almost non-existant, and that is sure not much motivation for manufacturers to build any! Your arguments are lame, you are confused, you are just ****ed that some real numbers are going to come to amateur radio. You know the old brass pounders are going to be setting out there chatting with the fewer and fewer of themselves which survive each and every new coming year, time is their enemy and the hope of progress... John On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 09:47:57 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: Dave Heil wrote: You purport to be an active radio amateur and you didn't even have a realistic idea of how many hams there are in the United States? Do you think the FCC and ARRL are in collusion and they've whipped up some massive coverup of the number of licensees? Sheesh! This approach has been in evidence early on. Facts are of secondary importance to opinion. If we are told that there are not the number of hams claimed on the database, then that is the truth. If that means that the FCC is lying, that is the truth. If we are told that the only thing needed to go digital on HF is to hook up that 56K modem to the rig, then that is the truth. If we are told that Ham radio is dying, then that is true. You can't argue with someone who makes up the facts as they go along, so why do it? - Mike KB3EIA - BTW, CQ has an article on HF digital transmission. Seems that they have got it all wrong too. They have a method that works, but it is pretty slow for images (or files) of any appreciable size. Jim might note that they do some bandwidth tricks in similar manner as he proposed per our conversation in here earlier. Not exact, but along the same lines Hopefully we will see an article from those who know the right way to HF digital soon. 8^) |
commander buzzard:
.... yawn ... John On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 20:53:20 -0700, Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote: John Smith wrote: Dee: I differ with that figure, I think it is inflated about half, this is VERY apparent when tuning the bands... Good grief!! So you can tell from listening to the bands how many hams there are. WOW!! Do you think all 600,000+ licensed operators are on at the same time? Do you even think all 600,000 are active on the bands? Which bands to you tune? Do you think you can hear all the stations that are on 40 meters? Do you think you can hear all the stations that are on 20, 15, 10 meters at any one time? Can you hear all the 2 meter, 440, and other UHF activity going on all over the country? Do you think? As of July 31, 2005 Novice - 27,975 (-43.28%) (-21,354) Tech/+ - 317,655 (-5.02%) (-16,800) General - 136,435 (+20.81%) (+23,490) Advanced - 75,812 (-24.28%) (-24,236) Extra - 106,900 (+35.74%) (+28,150) Total All Classes - 664,040 |
Dan/W4NTI wrote: Minor correction "John Smith". If the USA decided not to drop CW, it would NOT be alone in world. Russia and her ex Soviet Block nations have all decided to keep CW. and you WANT the US to keep such company Dan/W4NTI "John Smith" wrote in message hack |
From: b.b. on Aug 5, 4:12 pm
John Smith wrote: Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old key tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes... http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN LIARS!" When Hans proposed that in the brave new world of a No-Code HF License, that one should have to take a Morse Code Test to use CW, Jim/N2EY said that a Morse Code Test would be a -barrier- to Morse Code use. Hi! It's always been a barrier. True for many, Brian...and unworthy of keeping in federal radio regulations about amateur radio. Also true is that Jimmie has never refuted that quotation. It may be that he has come to believe reality? Well, that may be a bit too much to hope for... too for |
From: "Dee Flint" on Fri 5 Aug 2005 18:16
"John Smith" wrote in message Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old key tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes... http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN LIARS!" It obviously didn't work did it. Not only is the total number of hams far greater today than then but as a percent of the population we are more numerous than then. UNTRUE, Dee. The peak in license numbers happened a few days longer than TWO YEARS AGO. The number of total U.S. radio amateur licenses are now over 6 thousand LESS than they were two years ago. It simply goes to prove that anyone who wanted to be a ham could. Yes, Dee, and you too can become a concert violinist, an artist-illustrator, a champion athlete, an intellectual somebody IF YOU WORK REALLY REALLY HARD AT IT...plus one tiny things: A physical aptitude ability to do that. bee bop |
From: on Aug 5, 3:06 am
an old friend wrote: 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. Tsk, tsk, no discrimination between Hardware and Wetware MODEMS? :-) It's pretty clear you won't believe them. It should be clear to you that lots of US don't believe YOU! 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" WT Docket is NOT about the written test elements. Please try to stay on track... ADA is about rights. A ham radio license is a privilege. "ADA" is the callsign assigned to the Headquarters, United States Army, Pacific (USARPAC). That callsign has a proud heritage dating from 1946. Have you ever asked the VEs for any accomodations? Are VEs hoteliers? Innkeepers? If someone buys a rig and sets up an antenna, does that give them the right to demand a license? If a tree falls on a florist, will he make a bouquet? So? Doesn't change the fact that a tool that is with someone always is the most useful. Is morse code for sale at Sears? Under the Craftsman label? I am supporting Morse Code testing. Also written testing. It's not about you personally. WT Docket is NOT about the written test elements. Please try to stay on track... "A tool that is with someone always is the most useful." Doesn't fit. Have you thought of getting a tool that FITS into today's radio world? No? Got the Time Machine fixed finally? The point is that you still have to learn stuff you'll probably never use just to pass the written test. WT Docket is NOT about the written test elements. Please try to stay on track... Often what you write here is very unclear or even incomprehensible. No problem. Often what YOUR ideas are in here is unclear, OLD, and incomprehensible to those of us living in REALITY. old dit |
Omission of relevant facts can be a form of lying. No worse than advertising. |
John Smith wrote:
Dee: I differ with that figure, I think it is inflated about half, this is VERY apparent when tuning the bands... something is OBVIOUSLY wrong with that figure. I suspect it is like our "unemployment figure" here in the USA, that ONLY depicts those who are "drawing" unemployment, not those who have used up their unemployment, only worked part time and are not eligible, those who have given up on looking for work, etc... The IRS knows to better accuracy the amount of people earning W2 income. If they wanted to and allowed to, they could say that X% of people who paid taxes before are now unemployed, some out of work for 2 years or more. And how many people are earning less income than last year. Pretty soon I'll be paying income tax again. IE, found a job commensurate with my education/skills. I start in 2 weeks. Well, I guess President Bush made good on his promise to cut my taxes, I paid zero last year. Though I'd like to have some income.... Ham radio still has another major obstacle than the code. Antenna restrictions. CCRs and such. |
I differ with that figure, I think it is inflated about half, this is VERY apparent when tuning the bands... I doubt that it's any more inflated today than it was decades before. Good grief!! So you can tell from listening to the bands how many hams there are. WOW!! Do you think all 600,000+ licensed operators are on at the same time? Only on the frequency I'm trying to snag that rare DX on.. :-) But to a first order approximation the ratio of people actually transmitting right now to the total number of hams would be essentially constant. |
the use of the word "proof" is this Newsgroup is shocking Don't know about this newsgroup, but in math class "proofs" were things that claimed to verify that some assertion was in fact true. I never really figured out how proofs actually worked or why I should care. As proofs never showed on tests. All the "proof" I ever needed was that some process applied to a test problem would yield a "correct" answer and I'd get a decent grade. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com