|
What irony! : "learn to spell steve"
assraped an old underage boyfriend wrote: wrote: wrote: Oh, the irony! indeed it is ironic that steve the spelling cop can't spell No, **** for brains, it's ironic because YOU make the most spelling errors of anybody who posts, you illiterate son of a bitch. wrong again No, you are too stupid to understand what I am talking about. The spelling cop that refuses to spell correctly is the irony Still, everybody is laughing at you, Marky. |
Policy Issue: Canadian Amateurs to Lose 220-222 MHz
K4YZ wrote: wrote: I've never called you "little." I have called you "Bozo" before, but I was just being kind. No...you were being Lenniesque. Steve, K4YZ If you say so herr dipschidt. |
What irony! : "learn to spell steve"
wrote: On 28 Jan 2006 08:16:51 -0800, wrote: assraped an old underage boyfriend wrote: wrote: wrote: Oh, the irony! indeed it is ironic that steve the spelling cop can't spell No, **** for brains, it's ironic because YOU make the most spelling errors of anybody who posts, you illiterate son of a bitch. wrong again No, you are too stupid to understand what I am talking about. nah you are too the too stupid to understand whtat you are tlaking about Post in English, dumbass. The spelling cop that refuses to spell correctly is the irony Still, everybody is laughing at you, Marky. more lies More stupidity from Ms. Morgan........... |
Policy Issue: Canadian Amateurs to Lose 220-222 MHz
wrote: From: Leo on Thurs, Jan 19 2006 5:30 pm On 18 Jan 2006 18:04:24 -0800, wrote: From: Leo on Jan 18, 2:53 pm On 17 Jan 2006 06:49:27 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote: So...Leo, what's the word from Canadian amateur radio on the IC reallocation of "220?" I have not been a user of the 220 MHz band (hmmm - maybe that's part of the problem!), and cannot add much to what the original ARRL bulletin stated. I do recall receiving warning bulletins from the RAC back in 2004 stating that the 220 - 222 MHz Amateur allocation was under review by Industry Canada, and we would lose it if we were not sufficiently active on it. Commercial interests (specifically for multi-use radios (MURS), trunked mobile and fixed wireless access applications, medical telemetry and utility telemetry applications) had petitioned for this spectrum to be released to them. In short - we did not sufficiently utilize this band - and lost it, despite significant lobbying by RAC to hang on to it. On the other side of the coin, there were more non-amateur radio users desiring VHF spectrum? [I will ignore some readers who want to carp about "big money interests" and other Bravo Sierra...] ofcourse the big money interest are forbiden unles the Coders can use em for meassge point like Jim on the CW network Goes to show ya that our Amateur frequency allocations are not crafted in stone - they can be taken away if we cannot demonstrate that we are actively using them! That's always the case. However, presenting a case is not always done properly (or realistically). In the USA there was a petition for the "60m band" for U.S. amteur use and the FCC granted only a few CHANNELS in that region of HF. That was in spite of other (non-amateur, non-broadcasting) users not using that part of the HF spectrum often or heavily. |
More Markie Mularkie
|
learn to spell steve
On 30 Jan 2006 03:50:11 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote:
_________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:34 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com