wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Jeff Hermann say use it or lose it is hogwash.

Really?

How much is 220-222 used in Canada?

Will 222-225 be overcrowded because
of the loss of 220-222?

What justification can there be for hams having
5 MHz of prime VHF spectrum if those 5 MHz
aren't being fully utilized?

Hey clown,

Brian,

I'm not a "clown".

What's with the name-calling? Are you desperate for
attention? Or do you think such behavior is somehow
justified because I disproved your claim?

I asked significant, relevant questions about the use
of 220-222 MHz by Canadian hams. Try answering
them - if you can.

In case you didn't know, 220-225 is not worldwide
exclusive amateur territory. If hams don't use it
enough, why shouldn't it be reassigned to
services that *will* use it?

why did you cut this: "and as America goes, so goes Canada."

Because it's not relevant. Also not really true in many cases.

We lost 220-222 about 15 years ago. Hardly proof of your claim.

Canada has universal health care - USA doesn't. Canada dropped
mandatory code testing some time back but worked out an
ingenious compromise. USA can't seem to find a consensus out
of 18 proposals.

Canada doesn't just follow everyhting the USA does.

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Jeff Hermann say use it or lose it is hogwash.

Really?

How much is 220-222 used in Canada?

Will 222-225 be overcrowded because
of the loss of 220-222?

What justification can there be for hams having
5 MHz of prime VHF spectrum if those 5 MHz
aren't being fully utilized?

Hey clown,

Brian,

I'm not a "clown".

not in brains opinion and not in my own

What's with the name-calling? Are you desperate for
attention? Or do you think such behavior is somehow
justified because I disproved your claim?

nah it is your blah sey attitude about it

you get into a lather at suggesting you neeed what you see as your BW
in HF but you blithely talk about giving away VHF as if it wee nothing

I asked significant, relevant questions about the use
of 220-222 MHz by Canadian hams. Try answering
them - if you can.

no you did not

In case you didn't know, 220-225 is not worldwide
exclusive amateur territory. If hams don't use it
enough, why shouldn't it be reassigned to
services that *will* use it?

more of your lectureing attitute try to hope from clown to asshole?
cut

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Jeff Hermann say use it or lose it is hogwash.

Really?

How much is 220-222 used in Canada?

Will 222-225 be overcrowded because
of the loss of 220-222?

What justification can there be for hams having
5 MHz of prime VHF spectrum if those 5 MHz
aren't being fully utilized?

Hey clown,

Brian,

I'm not a "clown".

not in brains opinion and not in my own

He is performing tricks.

What's with the name-calling? Are you desperate for
attention? Or do you think such behavior is somehow
justified because I disproved your claim?

nah it is your blah sey attitude about it

you get into a lather at suggesting you neeed what you see as your BW
in HF but you blithely talk about giving away VHF as if it wee nothing

Apparently he doesn't value VHF.

He cuts my post, and in agreeing with me, he demands I answer questions
making it appear as if we have an argument. Hi!

Strange little clown tricks.

I asked significant, relevant questions about the use
of 220-222 MHz by Canadian hams. Try answering
them - if you can.

no you did not

The facts:

1. Use it or lose it.

2. We lost it a long time ago.

3. Canada catches up and mimics our 220 allocations exactly.

In case you didn't know, 220-225 is not worldwide
exclusive amateur territory. If hams don't use it
enough, why shouldn't it be reassigned to
services that *will* use it?

more of your lectureing attitute try to hope from clown to asshole?
cut

Since 220 is not a worldwide allocation, Canada had no reason to
exactly mimic our plan.

That Jim sure is a smart feller.

wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Jeff Hermann say use it or lose it is hogwash.

Really?

How much is 220-222 used in Canada?

Will 222-225 be overcrowded because
of the loss of 220-222?

What justification can there be for hams having
5 MHz of prime VHF spectrum if those 5 MHz
aren't being fully utilized?

Hey clown,

Brian,

I'm not a "clown".

not in brains opinion and not in my own

He is performing tricks.

What's with the name-calling? Are you desperate for
attention? Or do you think such behavior is somehow
justified because I disproved your claim?

nah it is your blah sey attitude about it

you get into a lather at suggesting you neeed what you see as your BW
in HF but you blithely talk about giving away VHF as if it wee nothing

Apparently he doesn't value VHF.

He cuts my post, and in agreeing with me, he demands I answer questions
making it appear as if we have an argument. Hi!

Strange little clown tricks.

I asked significant, relevant questions about the use
of 220-222 MHz by Canadian hams. Try answering
them - if you can.

no you did not

The facts:

1. Use it or lose it.

2. We lost it a long time ago.

3. Canada catches up and mimics our 220 allocations exactly.

In case you didn't know, 220-225 is not worldwide
exclusive amateur territory. If hams don't use it
enough, why shouldn't it be reassigned to
services that *will* use it?

more of your lectureing attitute try to hope from clown to asshole?
cut

Since 220 is not a worldwide allocation, Canada had no reason to
exactly mimic our plan.

That Jim sure is a smart feller.

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Jeff Hermann say use it or lose it is hogwash.

Really?

How much is 220-222 used in Canada?

Will 222-225 be overcrowded because
of the loss of 220-222?

What justification can there be for hams having
5 MHz of prime VHF spectrum if those 5 MHz
aren't being fully utilized?

Hey clown,

Brian,

I'm not a "clown".

not in brains opinion and not in my own

But considering who and what the two of you are, that doesn't lend
much credence to the act.

What's with the name-calling? Are you desperate for
attention? Or do you think such behavior is somehow
justified because I disproved your claim?

nah it is your blah sey attitude about it

Nice try, Markie. A dictionary would have been better, though.

you get into a lather at suggesting you neeed what you see as your BW
in HF but you blithely talk about giving away VHF as if it wee nothing

No one said it was nothing, but these arguments about the
protection of our allocations have been going on for DECADES now yet
there is is relief.

The Spectrum Protection Act or some other legislation sounding
like it has been in committee ump-teen times now, Markie...How many
times have YOU written your representitives (in English) demanding that
they pass it?

I asked significant, relevant questions about the use
of 220-222 MHz by Canadian hams. Try answering
them - if you can.

no you did not

Sure he did. That you don't understand them or can't read them is
not relevent.

In case you didn't know, 220-225 is not worldwide
exclusive amateur territory. If hams don't use it
enough, why shouldn't it be reassigned to
services that *will* use it?

more of your lectureing attitute try to hope from clown to ###hole?

What's "lectureing" about it, Markie...!??!

It's a stone-cold fact.

The 220-225Mhz band wound up in North American Amateur's hands for
the most part as a buffer between commercial users and the Armed Forces
"band" from 225Mhz to 400Mhz (among other reasons). It was never meant
to be an unrevokable allocation...(Not that any are...) That we've
kept it this long has been nothing short of a miracle.

Steve, K4YZ

On 17 Jan 2006 06:36:01 -0800, K4YZ wrote:

The 220-225Mhz band wound up in North American Amateur's hands for
the most part as a buffer between commercial users and the Armed Forces
"band" from 225Mhz to 400Mhz (among other reasons). It was never meant
to be an unrevokable allocation...(Not that any are...) That we've
kept it this long has been nothing short of a miracle.

If they loes it we shoud give them half of oeurs becaues we don't need
all that much and we are theyr friends. I say give them a megahurtz
from 221 too 222.

raped_an_old_underaged_boyfriend wrote:
On 17 Jan 2006 06:36:01 -0800, K4YZ wrote:

The 220-225Mhz band wound up in North American Amateur's hands for
the most part as a buffer between commercial users and the Armed Forces
"band" from 225Mhz to 400Mhz (among other reasons). It was never meant
to be an unrevokable allocation...(Not that any are...) That we've
kept it this long has been nothing short of a miracle.

If they loes it we shoud give them half of oeurs becaues we don't need
all that much and we are theyr friends. I say give them a megahurtz
from 221 too 222.

Marky, you can't even operate 2 meters worth a darn.

wrote:
raped_an_old_underaged_boyfriend wrote:
steve comited a crimnal act (anying posting
On 17 Jan 2006 06:36:01 -0800, K4YZ wrote:

The 220-225Mhz band wound up in North American Amateur's hands for
the most part as a buffer between commercial users and the Armed Forces
"band" from 225Mhz to 400Mhz (among other reasons). It was never meant
to be an unrevokable allocation...(Not that any are...) That we've
kept it this long has been nothing short of a miracle.

If they loes it we shoud give them half of oeurs becaues we don't need
all that much and we are theyr friends. I say give them a megahurtz
from 221 too 222.

Marky, you can't even operate 2 meters worth a darn.

I do ok I am getting to like 2m SSB more consitant than 6m SSB and
queiter to operate

oTOH 222 is even quieter but few people on and 440 sssb i can leave on
all day and still satnd the static but still make some contact even a
bit on 1.2 g

all nice bands the range kida suck but range is being worked on by the
FCC

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Jeff Hermann say use it or lose it is hogwash.

Really?

How much is 220-222 used in Canada?

Will 222-225 be overcrowded because
of the loss of 220-222?

What justification can there be for hams having
5 MHz of prime VHF spectrum if those 5 MHz
aren't being fully utilized?

Hey clown,

Brian,

I'm not a "clown".

Fair enough. Yet you behave as a clown.

What's with the name-calling?

What's with the clown-like behavior?

Are you desperate for attention?

Are you desperate for a small win on RRAP?

Or do you think such behavior is somehow
justified because I disproved your claim?

Now there's a grand claim. The only thing you did was to clip my
statement that "as America goes, so goes Canada." We lost it for them.
Their government merely realigned their spectrum to match ours.

I asked significant, relevant questions about the use
of 220-222 MHz by Canadian hams. Try answering
them - if you can.

"Significant and relevant" to whom?

In case you didn't know, 220-225 is not worldwide
exclusive amateur territory. If hams don't use it
enough, why shouldn't it be reassigned to
services that *will* use it?

Herman says "use it or lose it" is hogwash. Talk to him about it.

why did you cut this: "and as America goes, so goes Canada."

Because it's not relevant. Also not really true in many cases.

I think you're a closet Canadian.

We lost 220-222 about 15 years ago. Hardly proof of your claim.

Ahem. Look more closely at their new 220 band.

Compare and contrast it to the USA 220 plan.

Canada has universal health care - USA doesn't. Canada dropped
mandatory code testing some time back but worked out an
ingenious compromise. USA can't seem to find a consensus out
of 18 proposals.

Canada doesn't just follow everyhting the USA does.

Hmmm? You sure now a lot about Canada in general.

Now go back and look at Canada's new 220 ham band.

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Jeff Hermann say use it or lose it is hogwash.

Really?

How much is 220-222 used in Canada?

Will 222-225 be overcrowded because
of the loss of 220-222?

What justification can there be for hams having
5 MHz of prime VHF spectrum if those 5 MHz
aren't being fully utilized?

Hey clown,

Brian,

I'm not a "clown".

What's with the name-calling? Are you desperate for
attention? Or do you think such behavior is somehow
justified because I disproved your claim?

Considering who you were replying to, Jim, was this question
really necessary...!??!

I asked significant, relevant questions about the use
of 220-222 MHz by Canadian hams. Try answering
them - if you can.

Ooopss...Two disqualifiers there, Jim..."significant" and
"relevant".

In case you didn't know, 220-225 is not worldwide
exclusive amateur territory. If hams don't use it
enough, why shouldn't it be reassigned to
services that *will* use it?

Makes sense. (Oooops...a third disqualifier...)

why did you cut this: "and as America goes, so goes Canada."

Because it's not relevant. Also not really true in many cases.

Brain must have some of his bloodline north of the border...Or his
head south of his umbilicus....

We lost 220-222 about 15 years ago. Hardly proof of your claim.

It was on it's way out the door in the mid 70's when there was a
move against it for "Class E" CB. Other ideas won the day, but it was
hardly the "overwhelming response" from the Amateur community that was
ultimately responsible.

Canada has universal health care - USA doesn't.

The seams of that system are starting to let loose. The holes in
some of their "safety net" make the one's in ours look microscopic in
cases...At the end of the day, I am glad I work in a US ER.

Canada dropped
mandatory code testing some time back but worked out an
ingenious compromise. USA can't seem to find a consensus out
of 18 proposals.

Canada doesn't just follow everything the USA does.

But in this case, with 90% of it's industry and end-users of the
radio spectrum within a couple hours drive of a US border, it made
sense.

Steve, K4YZ