my own thought on regulation by bandwidth
 

given the whining from Steve and Jim about I do come to a conclusion
that if adpted it will result in a set rules that is largely ignored
and/or incorrectly applied till the FCC decides to drop the whole and
leave the matter in our hands (whcih is whee it wshould have been in
the first place,

thus it seems thta regulation by bandwidth my be a good intermedaite
step toward ending FCC mandates and exclsuive presere for Morse code

meaning it sounds like a decent idea if we can't go the end result in
one step

my own thought on regulation by bandwidth
 

an_old_friend wrote:
given the whining from Steve and Jim about I do come to a conclusion
that if adpted it will result in a set rules that is largely ignored
and/or incorrectly applied till the FCC decides to drop the whole and
leave the matter in our hands (whcih is whee it wshould have been in
the first place

More Markie Mularkie.

thus it seems thta regulation by bandwidth my be a good intermedaite
step toward ending FCC mandates and exclsuive presere for Morse code

It wasn't about a "preserve" for "Morse code", Markie. It's about
establishing operating parameters based upon bandwidth.

meaning it sounds like a decent idea if we can't go the end result in
one step

Trying to decode that now. Anyone got a Cray I can borrow?

Steve, K4YZ

my own thought on regulation by bandwidth
 

"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

an_old_friend wrote:
given the whining from Steve and Jim about I do come to a conclusion
that if adpted it will result in a set rules that is largely ignored
and/or incorrectly applied till the FCC decides to drop the whole and
leave the matter in our hands (whcih is whee it wshould have been in
the first place

More Markie Mularkie.

thus it seems thta regulation by bandwidth my be a good intermedaite
step toward ending FCC mandates and exclsuive presere for Morse code

It wasn't about a "preserve" for "Morse code", Markie. It's about
establishing operating parameters based upon bandwidth.

meaning it sounds like a decent idea if we can't go the end result in
one step

Trying to decode that now. Anyone got a Cray I can borrow?

Steve, K4YZ


Steve,

Since I've got to read his post (since you replied to it and sent it with
your reply), rather than trying to decode it, could we simply take up a
collection and buy him a spell checker? That would help a bit, but would
not help in understanding the ramblings very much ;)

For a second, I thought he was talking about theta regulation. That left me
puzzled for a couple of seconds :))


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

my own thought on regulation by bandwidth
 

On 15 Jan 2006 07:20:40 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote:


an_old_friend wrote:
given the whining from Steve and Jim about I do come to a conclusion
that if adpted it will result in a set rules that is largely ignored
and/or incorrectly applied till the FCC decides to drop the whole and
leave the matter in our hands (whcih is whee it wshould have been in
the first place

cut


thus it seems thta regulation by bandwidth my be a good intermedaite
step toward ending FCC mandates and exclsuive presere for Morse code

It wasn't about a "preserve" for "Morse code", Markie. It's about
establishing operating parameters based upon bandwidth.

your objects are about preserving a specail areas for more the
proposal would elimate them and replacewith a chaotic mess that will
be dropped in time most

meaning it sounds like a decent idea if we can't go the end result in
one step

Trying to decode that now. Anyone got a Cray I can borrow?

Steve, K4YZ

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

my own thought on regulation by bandwidth
 

Jim Hampton wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

an_old_friend wrote:
given the whining from Steve and Jim about I do come to a conclusion
that if adpted it will result in a set rules that is largely ignored
and/or incorrectly applied till the FCC decides to drop the whole and
leave the matter in our hands (whcih is whee it wshould have been in
the first place

More Markie Mularkie.

thus it seems thta regulation by bandwidth my be a good intermedaite
step toward ending FCC mandates and exclsuive presere for Morse code

It wasn't about a "preserve" for "Morse code", Markie. It's about
establishing operating parameters based upon bandwidth.

meaning it sounds like a decent idea if we can't go the end result in
one step

Trying to decode that now. Anyone got a Cray I can borrow?

Steve, K4YZ


Steve,

Since I've got to read his post (since you replied to it and sent it with
your reply), rather than trying to decode it, could we simply take up a
collection and buy him a spell checker? That would help a bit, but would
not help in understanding the ramblings very much ;)

For a second, I thought he was talking about theta regulation. That left me
puzzled for a couple of seconds :))

Hey Jim...Sorry about that. My apologies, Sir!

However I think it would be far more easy and practical for us to
invent "time travel", move to a day in the future when they've
discovered how to "erase" a human mind and then completely re-program
it. Perhaps then we could teach Markie how to read and write in
English.

But then maybe not...

73

Steve, K4YZ

steve confess his true desire mid control
 

K4YZ wrote:
cut
Hey Jim...Sorry about that. My apologies, Sir!

However I think it would be far more easy and practical for us to
invent "time travel", move to a day in the future when they've
discovered how to "erase" a human mind and then completely re-program
it. Perhaps then we could teach Markie how to read and write in
English.

that is clearly the world you think you wantto live in one where no
thought exist to distrub you

you have been called a neoNAZI before but the lable fit

But then maybe not...

73

Steve, K4YZ