dxAce wrote:
BS. 3995 would certainly be OK if it didn't propagate over here!

Based upon your logic, you should stop your digital ham transmissions
in the class B (general) allocation on 40m (7050-7100).

How about those SSTV transmissions that kill 14.220-14.230 and beyond?
They may have "enhanced the radio art" in the mid '60s but now they
are just anoying and take up a lot of bandwidth that could be used by
other people if one or two hams wouldn't transmit on it 24/7 without
listening to see if someone else is there.

So take your DRM and stick it where the sun don't shine.

You should come over here and try to operate on 80 and 40m. It would
give you some appreciation for how bad things are due to people who
don't care about others on the air.

BTW, do you actually have a name and a ham license?

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
The trouble with being a futurist is that when people get around to believing
you, it's too late. We lost. Google 2,000,000:Hams 0.

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:

dxAce wrote:
BS. 3995 would certainly be OK if it didn't propagate over here!

Based upon your logic, you should stop your digital ham transmissions
in the class B (general) allocation on 40m (7050-7100).

How about those SSTV transmissions that kill 14.220-14.230 and beyond?
They may have "enhanced the radio art" in the mid '60s but now they
are just anoying and take up a lot of bandwidth that could be used by
other people if one or two hams wouldn't transmit on it 24/7 without
listening to see if someone else is there.

So take your DRM and stick it where the sun don't shine.

You should come over here and try to operate on 80 and 40m. It would
give you some appreciation for how bad things are due to people who
don't care about others on the air.

BTW, do you actually have a name and a ham license?

Yes, I do.

But that actually has nothing what so ever to do with DRM = QRM, now does it,
'tard boy?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

GSM,

While, I would agree with most of what you have said.

I do take exception to this one statement.

BTW, do you actually have a name and a ham license?

1. This a SHORTWAVE : "Radio" : Recreation : NewsGroup
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/

AS IT IS WRITTEN - SO SHALL IT BE :
" Welcome to Rec.Radio.Shortwave (Shortwave) "
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/radio/monit...shortwave-faq/
NOTE - Hams (Who Have Their Own NewsGroups, Rec.Radio.Amateur.*)

2. It is NOT part of the AMATEUR : "Radio" : Recreation : NewsGroups
http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?...09768&expand=1
USENET :
rec.radio.amateur
rec.radio.amateur.antenna
rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors.* (1)
rec.radio.amateur.digital.* (2)
rec.radio.amateur.dx
rec.radio.amateur.equipment
rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
rec.radio.amateur.misc.* (1)
rec.radio.amateur.packet
rec.radio.amateur.policy
rec.radio.amateur.space
rec.radio.amateur.swap

3. SHORTWAVE : "Radio" : Recreation : NewsGroup
Is Equal To -and- Independent From the "Amateur" Groups
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/

4. Point-of-Fact - The Amateur Radio License and Call Sign or
Amateur Level of Technical Expertise is NOT a Requirement for
participation in the "Shortwave" Radio Recreation News Group.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/

5. The Topic Is - All Things "Shortwave" along with a-little-of-this
and a-little-of-that from the rest of the Radio Frequency Spectrum.

Conclusion :
While much respect is given to the Members of the Amateur
Radio Community (HAMs) by Shortwave Listeners (SWLs) :
The SHORTWAVE : "Radio" : Recreation : NewsGroup is
after all simply a Shortwave Listener's (SWL) Forum for those
who are interested in the general topic of Shortwave Radio.
[ An Amateur Radio License Is Not Required. ]

All Are Welcome :
Shortwave Listener's (SWL) and Amateur Radio (HAMs)
to the SHORTWAVE : "Radio" : Recreation : NewsGroup
and All have Equal Standing as USENET Members.


just setting here listening to the radio ~ RHF