wrote in message
oups.com...
[snip]
How many folks on rrap have an 80 meter setup? As in "at least a G5RV
that works on 80, 35 feet up at least") There's W4NTI, N2EY, K8MN,
K0HB, and probably W3RV.

I do ... 160m-70cm here ... with digital modes as well as voice.

[snip]

Let's cut to the chase. It's about more room for 'phone and
less for Morse Code and digital modes. Some folks talk big
about "new directions" and "modernization" and "fresh ideas",
but what they really mean is more bandspace for SSB.

I, for one, do NOT support more bandspace for SSB ... I think it's
unnecessary.
The main problems are on contest weekends and a lot of those problems are
caused by too much testosterone and not enough operating courtesy from
*some( but not all) contesters and the "retaliations" from some equally
discourteous non-contesters.


Is that what is best? More room for SSB and AM, less for
CW and digital modes?

No ... see above.

--
73,
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
------------------------------------------------------
Life Member, ARRL
Life Member, QCWA (31424)
Member, TAPR
Member, AMSAT-NA
Member, LVARC (Lehigh Valley ARC)
Member, Lehigh County ARES/RACES
Fellow, The Radio Club of America
Senior Member, IEEE
Member, IEEE Standards Association
Chair, IEEE 802.22 WG on Wireless Regional Area Networks
------------------------------------------------------

wrote:
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
wrote in message
cut
There's another effect going on, too:

Good 80 meter antennas are pretty big to folks used to VHF and 10 meter
type stuff. The popular G5RV is a compromise antenna on 80, at best.
The band doesn't really come into its own until after dark. Etc.

How many folks on rrap have an 80 meter setup? As in "at least a G5RV
that works on 80, 35 feet up at least") There's W4NTI, N2EY, K8MN,
K0HB, and probably W3RV.

and KB9RQZ, and I believe N9OGL as well

Out of how many?

more than half the newsgroup if the NG was a reprentive sample then not
bad

cut


FCC won't go for that. Read the NPRM - they specifically state that
they think 3 license classes is the right number, and that we'll
get to three classes by attrition. They specifically denied
auto-upgrades, new entry level licenses, etc.

Then only extra's do CW. I have no solution for that. If the FCC don't
want it, it won't happen.

The trick is to offer the FCC something that doesn't contradict the way
they
think. Telling them to dump the Extra is a nonstarter because they're
convinced
it's a good thing. The idea of devoting 15% of each band to be Morse
Code only hasn't been presented to them. They might go for it as a way
to eliminate QRM
complaints. "Here's a Morse-Code-only preserve, folks the only QRM
you'll have is from each other!".

Other modes have similar protection. Look at the 'phone subbands - data
modes are not allowed there! Morse Code ops avoid the 'phone subbands -
when't the last time you heard real Morse Code operation in a 'phone
subband?

Last night in fact it was of course in The area where the bandplan
calls 2M SSB calling, some joker sending a signal that read in part
"get off the air" and "CW Rules", my contact says this a common a
common occourance. before that on FD on 6m and on 10M and 15 M

All you hear in the 'phone subbands are SSB, a bit of AM, some SSTV,
and maybe some digital voice and narrow FM. Some might even say those
rules are 'welfare' for analog voice modes.

If those modes can be protected from digital/data QRM, why can't a much
smaller part of each band be set up as a Morse Code preserve?

becuase enough morse code users don't respect those "preserves" Nor do
I BTW support the existance of the current mandated bandplan either so
why should I support making it worse

But the FCC has rejuected micromanaging spectrum further

They also said that more frequencies was the best incentive.

The FCC has NO IDEA what is good for Ham radio. Nor do they give a RIP.

Doesn't matter - they make the rules. If we ask for something that goes
along with their mindset we just might get it. Asking for something
they
have already said is not on their agenda has little or no chance or
success.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

robert casey wrote:

I still like my suggestion......bottom 25 of ALL HF bands....CW ONLY.
No
digital, etc. That way those that want can.


We could and should do this as a gentlemen's' agreement. No
need for FCC micromanagement here.

well in the eyes of those that see CW under attack they do see still
see a need for a coded reservation, and they fear that they will lose
everything out side of it

It seems true that many, if not most, CW fans fear that other modes will
"over-run" them if the ARRL's "plan" for regulation by bandwidth goes
forward in its present form. I have always stated truthfully here that I
would never support any proposal to ban or restrict the use of CW in any
way, shape, or form and that position still stands. I *also* firmly believe
that CW and other modes should NOT be "squeezed out of existence" or
"over-run by Winlink/PactorIII robots" as many fear will happen if the
"plan" adopted by the ARRL BoD in July were to become FCC regulation.

Works for me!

As a candidate for the ARRL Atlantic Division director's position, I have
gone on record publicly (on the QRP-L reflector and on qrz.com and now here
on r.r.a.p) that, had I been on the ARRL BoD in July, I would NOT have voted
for "the plan" because I believe that the fact that virtually NOBODY seems
to like it indicates to me that it's broken and needs to be fixed if it's to
go forward at all.

Or at least rewritten so that it's clear what is being proposed in the
first place.

Bandplans and band usage are complicated issues where the ARRL or anyone
else is highly unlikely to be able to please everyone - the objective needs
to be to work with the different interest groups towards compromises that
allow us to get to something that at least a significant majority can accept
and say "I can live with that." If I become a member of the ARRL BoD I
would work with all of the interested parties in an effort to forge that
sort of result.

With all due respect, that's what everybody says. The trouble is with
the specifics. You've given us some good specifics, like support of a
'reasonable' subband for Morse Code only, and a similar 'reasonable'
subband for 'robots'.
The devil is in "what's reasonable"?

In addition to significantly improving the general level of technical
knowledge and skill of hams,

That was a prime reason for "incentive licensing" 40 years ago!

growing our numbers (both licensees and ARRL
members), protecting our spectrum, and getting more people trained for and
involved in emergency communications, one of the MOST pressing problems we
face is to reverse the trend of "compartmentalizing" ourselves into
"factions" whose whole world revolves around one mode or one activity,
because the resulting "turf wars," suspicion/mistrust/paranoia, in-fighting,
and attacks on each other divide us in ways that both are bad for the ARS as
it's seen externally and bad for the ARS internally as we get along with (or
don't) each other.

We should ALL be "hams" (period) and work together cooperatively and
constructively going forward into the future on the truly important issues
facing ham radio and the ARRL.

The trouble is that ham radio covers such a wide range of activities
that
there's trouble finding common ground in some cases.

For example, you have folks who want to use equipment and modes that
are
decades old, and folks who think anything less than their concept of
SOTA is "obsolete". Folks who want more room for SSB (and even "hi-fi
SSB") and folks who want more room for digital. Folks who don't even
have a computer in the shack and folks who never actually listen to a
signal (they watch it on the waterfall display).

Appliance ops and homebrew-from-scratch folks. DXers, contesters,
ragchewers, emcomm folks. Those who are stuck with compromise and
stealth antennas and those with tons of aluminum aloft.

How do you get all those folks to see that there is value in what each
of them brings to the table?

ALL hams should treat each other with
respect and courtesy, regardless of license class or operating preferences.
Experienced hams need to welcome new hams with the spirit of patience and
helpfulness that "Elmering" embodies, rather than treating them as some
inferior form of life.

As mentioned before - that goes both ways.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
As far as "dumbing down" goes - I don't buy it -

OK, here's some sample test questions:

From the 1976 ARRL License Manual:

Study Question #31:
Draw a schematic diagram of a circuit having the following components:
(a) battery with internal resistance,
(b) resistive load,
(c) voltmeter,
(d) ammeter.

Study Question #32:
From the values indicated by the meters in the above circuit, how can
the value of the resistive load be determined? How can the power
consumed
by the load be determined?

Study Question #33:
In the above circuit, what must the value of the resistive load be in
order for the maximum power to be delivered from the battery?

Study Question #34:
Draw the schematic diagram of an RF power amplifier circuit having the
following components:
(a) triode vacuum tube,
(b) pi-network output tank,
(c) high voltage source,
(d) plate-current meter,
(e) plate-voltage meter,
(f) rf chokes,
(g) bypass capacitors, coupling capacitor.

Study Question #35:
What is the proper tune-up procedure for the above circuit?

Of course those questions seem simple if someone has reasonable
knowledge and experience with the radio technology of the times. The
last two questions are
still arguably somewhat relevant because there are still vacuum-tube
based amplifiers on the market and in wide use by hams.

But the most interesting thing about those questions is that they are
just *some* of the study questions for the *Novice* exam of 1976. Took
up less
than a page. How many pages of explanation would it take to
teach the above material in detail?

The actual exam did not use these questions. Instead, it might show,
for
example, a schematic of the amplifier circuit similar to, but not
exactly like
the one shown in the license manual, with 5 of the components labeled
"a" thru "e". The question would be something like, "which is the
coupling
capacitor?" "which is an rf chokes?" "what is function of the capacitor

labelled ''d' in the circuit above?"

And that's at the *Novice* level. The raw beginner, with limited
privileges.

Does anyone think that the current entry-level exams are tougher than
that?

The breadth of material has increased but the depth has decreased. The
number of questions has decreased and the nature of the test has
changed.

Here's proof:

Written test requirements before April 15, 2000:

Novice: 1 test, 30 questions
Tech/Tech Plus: 2 tests, 30/35 questions (65 total)
General: 3 tests, 30/35/35 questions (100 total)
Advanced: 4 tests, 30/35/35/50 questions (150 total)
Extra: 5 tests, 30/35/35/50/40 questions (190 total)

Written test requirements after April 15, 2000:
Tech: 1 test, 35 questions
General: 2 tests, 35/35 questions (70 total)
Extra: 3 tests, 35/35/50 questions (120 total)

I did this from memory so the number of questions may not be perfect,
but the trend is very clear. Fewer tests and fewer questions across
the board.

Back when I took the exams (1967-1970) the Novice was about 20
questions, and all of the other classes about 50 questions each. About
170 total questions. The exact number of questions on the test was not
known in advance back then, nor were the exact Q&A.

Of course we're not going to see a return to 'secret' tests, because
FCC doesn't have the resources, nor do they see the need. And tests
alone are not the only indicator of knowledge and skill, of course.
There were folks who "tightened all the loose screws" in those days,
too.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
oups.com...
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Dan/W4NTI wrote:

[snip]

How many folks on rrap have an 80 meter setup? As in "at least a G5RV
that works on 80, 35 feet up at least") There's W4NTI, N2EY, K8MN,
K0HB, and probably W3RV.

Out of how many?

For 80m, I'm set up so I can choose between a G5RV, 80m skyloop, ground
mounted vertical, or random wire.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Len:

You might have said, I missed it if that is the case, when/if CW is dead,
are you going to grab your extra ticket?

Maybe, maybe not. That's MY option, not based on the puerile
taunts of middle-schoolers who are of middle age going "nyah,
nyah, can't get a ticket, can't get a ticket!!!" :-)

Hmmm...I started out in HF communications with much more "action"
than the average, doing 24/7 comms with high-power (up to 40 KW)
transmitters shooting across the Pacific, plus doing VHF, UHF,
and - finally - multi-channel microwave radio relay over a half
century ago...winding up as an operations and maintenance
supervisor NCO. Then, on release from active duty, getting a
First 'Phone at an FCC field office (no COLEMs then) and working
four broadcast stations as vacation relief or on weekends or full
time for WREX-TV to gain enough money to come out west...having
already interviewed for and secured a job at Hughes Aircraft.
That led to a whole career, major major change to electronics
engineering winding up as senior staff in design. I'm supposed
to get a ham license to "prove I know something about radio?!?!?"

I don't have anything to "prove" to a bunch of yokels who want
to recreate the 1930s and 1940s in radiotelegraphy! Geezus,
gimme a break from those neanderthallers! What the fork do
think a ham license IS...some kind of Nobel Award for Science?!?
:-)

Amateur radio is fun, a recreational avocation done not for money
but for personal pleasure. It involves NO different radio physics
than any other radio service but it allows all the choice of
buying state-of-the-art radios to use or in building them from
their own designs. It requires a license to transmit RF due to a
federal law (an act of Congress) that created a federal regulatory
agency for ALL civil radio. The mindset of many hase been
"conditioned" by a certain membership organization to be much,
much more, a virtual lifestyle that has gotten too deep into the
myth and fantasy of long-ago times and dreams of glory and heroism
that never happened.

One argument is that "a ham can have their OWN station." Yes, I've
had "my own station" or properly, one-third of it in a business
partnership with two others. I've built/converted three "stations"
and checked them thoroughly befoe selling them, never once "using"
them or caring to use them. I've designed and built two other
transceivers for CB, one a prototype for a CB company in Burbank
that went bankrupt when faced with off-shore CB products cut them
out of profit action.

"I can work the world on radio with an amateur license!!!" Yes,
and I could pick up a handset in Tokyo, at ADA Control, and talk
to Seattle, Anchorage, San Francisco, Hawaii, or Okinawa any time
of the day or night, as I did for a while in 1955...without any
"license" or even any specific HF with/without SSB schooling of
any kind. I can "talk" to the rest of the world any time I want
to on the Internet, and have, plus being able to share images
with dozens of long-time friends (from pre-Internet days) faster
than by surface mail, uninterrupted by vagaries of the ionosphere.

"I can explore new radio territory and advance the state of the
radio art" with a ham license. What the fork do some of these
cretins think I was DOING FOR A LIVING since 1956? Without a ham
license I've legally transmitted RF on frequencies ranging through
EM bands from LF into EHF, on up to 4mm wavelengths. Gotten one
patent as sole inventor, had a terrific time in the labs and in the
field, still do it once in a while.

I once "worked a station" ON the moon. No moonbounce stuff. I
have to learn morse code in order to do THAT as an amateur?!?
(I don't have to test for morse code at VHF and up, just for
frequencies below 30 MHz...where I began doing HF communications
a half century before...without having to know or use morse code
then or any time afterwards)

If so, ya wanna meet down on 3.840 and give art a run for his money--in a
gentlemanly way of course. Don't go with disruptive actions myself...
debate and argument yes, trouble no... suspect you might be the same...
could be fun, ya never know... grin

No. If anyplace on ham bands, it would be on 20m where a bunch
of ex-RCA Corporation folks hang out on Saturday mornings. Talk
there is shared-interest stuff, not the personal polemics of
self-propelled radio potentates. Listen for KD6JG and W6MJN,
among others. I know them by their real names, not callsigns.

"I can be FEDERALLY-AUTHORIZED with MY OWN CALLSIGN if I get a
ham license!!!" Wow, ain't that something (like I've already
done that, but not with a ham license). I know where to get a
good ham sandwich nearby, the vendors needing only a Health
Department license to operate. [great pastrami at one place]

I DO need to renew my Poetic License. Time to study for Mores
Goad. :-)

buy buy

wrote in message
oups.com...

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

[snip]

Bandplans and band usage are complicated issues where the ARRL or anyone
else is highly unlikely to be able to please everyone - the objective
needs
to be to work with the different interest groups towards compromises that
allow us to get to something that at least a significant majority can
accept
and say "I can live with that." If I become a member of the ARRL BoD I
would work with all of the interested parties in an effort to forge that
sort of result.

With all due respect, that's what everybody says. The trouble is with
the specifics. You've given us some good specifics, like support of a
'reasonable' subband for Morse Code only, and a similar 'reasonable'
subband for 'robots'.
The devil is in "what's reasonable"?

The way I see it there's probably no way to please everyone 100%.

Therefore, I think the solution is to work with all of the interested
"camps" to forge a compromise that at least a significant majority can
accept.
The optimum balance is probably something that will result in all of the
"camps" being able to say "It's not perfect in my ideal world, but I can
accept it and 'sign up' to support it."

I think the suggestion from the CW folks for a modest "CW only" segement at
the bottom of the band is reasonable and would ease a lot of concerns about
getting "squeezed out of existence."
I think that the proposal that some have made to "repurpose" the "refarming"
of the novice bands to provide a "digital playground" for the experimenters
who want to develop, test, and operate the higher speed, more robust digital
modes that the emergency management agencies want is also something that
merits consideration.

I agree that "robots" should not be allowed to take over the bands at the
expense of all of the other modes.

All of this would require some degree of compromise, but I think that's what
will be required to formulate something that gains widespread acceptance
instead of massive resistance.

In addition to significantly improving the general level of technical
knowledge and skill of hams,

That was a prime reason for "incentive licensing" 40 years ago!

I'm talking about improved educational programs ... it's clear that
"incentive licensing" created a huge schysm in the amateur community and
hasn't really worked. (I think part of the problem was linking increased
voice frequency privileges to the totally unrelated Morse test and the other
part was that it created in too many people's minds the idea that the
license meant you "knew all there was to know" - thereby removing the
motivation to progress even further.)

growing our numbers (both licensees and ARRL
members), protecting our spectrum, and getting more people trained for
and
involved in emergency communications, one of the MOST pressing problems
we
face is to reverse the trend of "compartmentalizing" ourselves into
"factions" whose whole world revolves around one mode or one activity,
because the resulting "turf wars," suspicion/mistrust/paranoia,
in-fighting,
and attacks on each other divide us in ways that both are bad for the ARS
as
it's seen externally and bad for the ARS internally as we get along with
(or
don't) each other.

We should ALL be "hams" (period) and work together cooperatively and
constructively going forward into the future on the truly important
issues
facing ham radio and the ARRL.

The trouble is that ham radio covers such a wide range of activities
that there's trouble finding common ground in some cases.

The common ground should be that we're all hams - with recognition that
different people have different operating interests and cooperating instead
of always being so defensive and turf-war oriented.

For example, you have folks who want to use equipment and modes that
are
decades old, and folks who think anything less than their concept of
SOTA is "obsolete". Folks who want more room for SSB (and even "hi-fi
SSB") and folks who want more room for digital. Folks who don't even
have a computer in the shack and folks who never actually listen to a
signal (they watch it on the waterfall display).

Appliance ops and homebrew-from-scratch folks. DXers, contesters,
ragchewers, emcomm folks. Those who are stuck with compromise and
stealth antennas and those with tons of aluminum aloft.

How do you get all those folks to see that there is value in what each
of them brings to the table?

Education, encouragement, and, in severe cases, peer pressure (through the
clubs is one way) to "play nicer together."

ALL hams should treat each other with
respect and courtesy, regardless of license class or operating
preferences.
Experienced hams need to welcome new hams with the spirit of patience and
helpfulness that "Elmering" embodies, rather than treating them as some
inferior form of life.

As mentioned before - that goes both ways.

That's true ... newbies shouldn't "cop an attitude" and neither should OTs.


--
73,
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
------------------------------------------------------
Life Member, ARRL
Life Member, QCWA (31424)
Member, TAPR
Member, AMSAT-NA
Member, LVARC (Lehigh Valley ARC)
Member, Lehigh County ARES/RACES
Fellow, The Radio Club of America
Senior Member, IEEE
Member, IEEE Standards Association
Chair, IEEE 802.22 WG on Wireless Regional Area Networks
------------------------------------------------------

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
cut

There should be, though. 15% or so of each band. I'm yet to see one
good reason not to do that.

I have yet to see a reason good or otherwise to do so

All I see is bunch of folks still promoting th idea that they and thier
specail mode deserve protections and prevledges deined the rest of us


So what is wrong with that? Everyone promotes their own thing

Then you are sick

Not everyone promotes thier own thing over the interest of the public



Say WHAT ??????? What school system did you attend? The KGB school of
anti Western teachings?

You call me sick? Your a flippin SOCIALIST, or worse.

In this me generation world, all that seems to go on is self promotion.

Dan/W4NTI

I get a real "kick" out of Lennie calling me those things. When all one has
to do is put his name in place and you have a perfect picture of Len
Anderson.

Amazing.

Dan/W4NTI

"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Len:

Your text was interesting...

I kind feel guilty though, that book I am working on, ""Amateur Worship is
a Mental Disorder"--I stole the idea from Michael Savage, a radio talk
show host, and his book "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder."

Please don't tell anyone, I am counting on only you and I knowing...

John

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:00:12 -0700, LenAnderson wrote:

From: John Smith on Aug 22, 3:22 pm

Dan:

What is "good for amateur radio" has to be "what is good for the people",
and NOT "what is good for my klick."

No, John, it IS for their clique...except they can't see anything
but their clique as being "amateur radio."

Which is what you are really
stating, it is just a bunch of "good ole cb buddies", but thinking of
themselves in some glorified manner!

To Dan the ARS stands for Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society.

Kind of a low-grade "one-world, one-government" kind of thing,
all molded around THEIR concept of how the hobby "is."

Dannie can't accept anything else but HIS beliefs. For other,
different ideas he gets hostile, volatile, tries to batter
the different to the floor tile.

Disgusting really... and yes, I
remember a time when it was NOT this way, you had a few anti-social
weirdos who were loners and thought themselves special because of a hobby
license, but that seems to have become catching and has almost infected
the whole lot, the sane ones are rather few and far between these days...

We differ, John. I can easily remember a mere two decades ago
on visiting the Lockheed ARC...when Lockheed was having a lot of
difficulties with the state and the city of Burbank. In general
a bunch of disheartening, don't-tell-me-nothing-because-we-rule
group of "extras" whose major dissatisfaction was really that
they were in imminent danger of being on LAY OFF.

Lockheed California eventually moved out entire from the Burbank
area (a division is still at AF Plant 42 in Palmdale) and ALL
the old Lockheed buildings have been razed, hardly any rubble is
left. The fabled Skunk Works in Building 82 was one of the first
to be torn down. The Lockheed ARC is but a shell of its former
self and the laid-off Lockheed workers (who didn't want to go to
Georgia) are off muttering in their isolated little corners.

The huge Lockheed production complex along Empire Avenue just
disappeared and, like a Phoenix from the ashes, the fabulous
new Empire Center of many, many stores and services, two office
buildings and two hotels grew on the place where all the famous
Lockheed aircraft were built. All that remains of Lockheed is
the silhouettes of the Vega, the Constellation, the P-38, and
the SR-71 on the parking lot section signs. Rebirth.

I was reminded of this from yesterday when my wife and I were at
a store in the Empire Center. At the large entrance we saw an old
geezer regaling a couple of younger women about his work at
Lockheed ("over there where building 15 was" "we built
airplanes!"). The young women were polite, smiled, but clearly
didn't find any interest or amusement at this. Eventually the
old geezer wound down and all left. In one way that's the way
it will be with U.S. amateur radio. Rebirth. The new replacing
the old. The old will become a memory, one not treasured so
emotionally as by the old-timers. The future will be different,
brighter, full of new things. New leaders will form and lead.
New-timers will enjoy the new environment. Oldsters will grouse
and bitch, complaining mightily about it not being as good as
"the old days." Of course not. "The old days" were only a
figment of imagination after all, a nostalgia of never-was, an
emotion of discovery only to individuals then new to radio.

"Amateur Worship is a Mental Disorder", is going to be the title of a
book
I am working on! grin

There ARE those of that disorder. They exist. They have
transported
themselves to their own imaginary fairyland, a lifestyle of
imagining
they are "masters of radio"...but "masters" only of an imaginary
world of the 30s and 40s long gone...when Kode was King and all was
simple and orderly, fixed in place.

I look forward to a FUTURE, not a past. I was in the past and
all wasn't as good as it is now. The future looks like a better
place, something to enjoy, to have fun in, free of the ties to
old standards and practices that are out of place now.

out old

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: John Smith on Aug 22, 3:22 pm


Dan:

What is "good for amateur radio" has to be "what is good for the
people",
and NOT "what is good for my klick."


No, John, it IS for their clique...except they can't see anything
but their clique as being "amateur radio."

You have a point, Len. There is an amateur radio clique. Those who are
radio amateurs are a part of it. You aren't.

More lies on your part

You and I are not part of the same clique



Which is what you are really
stating, it is just a bunch of "good ole cb buddies", but thinking of
themselves in some glorified manner!


To Dan the ARS stands for Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society.

Is there proof of your statement?

yes

your support of morse code welfare

cut

Thank goodness. Well at least "old friend" knows he is not in the group.

I for one am proud to hold a Amateur Radio License. I have NO REASON at all
to not be. On the other hand we have.......well you know who you are.

Dan/W4NTI