Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Kalamazoo Cuckoo' ND8V | General | |||
Once upon a time in America there came to be a giant of an organization called the American Radio Relay League (ARRL). | General | |||
New ARRL Proposal | Policy | |||
The Pool | Policy | |||
Some comments on the NCVEC petition | Policy |