How hard is it to understand what the words "radio" and "swap" mean.
You have a right to your opinions but why do you insist on spouting them
here?
THIS IS A SWAP GROUP!!!!!!!!!!!
Your activities drive people away from this group and makes it hard to
find things that may be of real interest if one is looking for RADIO
EQUIPMENT FOR SALE.
Don't bother to tell me what a dick I am (I already know)or how I'm not
in charge (I'm not) or how I can filter your inconsiderate posts (your
inconsiderate posts not mine). I don't respond to trolling.

Bob
KB1FRW
73 or whatever
Happy holidays and relax

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:04:30 -0800, Bill Turner
wrote:

Huh-uh! Apostrophes are allowed to pluralize non-standard words,
including acronyms. Thus QSL's is ok as a plural and so is 73's.

Perhaps in Swahili but not in English.

The arbitrary usage of pointless extra apostrophes
is mostly seen on advertising signs in rural southern states.

Educated people know the difference, although the "allowance"
you speak of, is popping up in more and more places as the acceptance
of this error becomes more and more widespread, both in Britain and
the U.S.

Very odd to me. I was taught the difference!

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:32:50 -0700, Dick
wrote:

It's all pretty simple when you look at the words. 73 is a CW
abbreviation for Best Regards. As no doubt hundreds before me have
pointed out, there is already an "s" at the end of regard. If you
write out 73's, it becomes Best Regards's. If you write that for a
while, instead of 73's, you will come to see how much it butchers the
English language. Regards is already a plural word. To add ('s) to
the end of regards is to pluralize a plural. My high school English
teacher would have a heart attack.

Clearly you didn't read the explanation for when 73s IS appropriate!

By the way it is 73s, NOT 73's

73's means - "The possession of the 73" which make's no sense at all.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:49:33 GMT, "Chas" wrote:

Actually Dick, I saw in one of the latest QST magazines a letter from
someone involved in the ARRL back in 1918 or so, having written "73s", plus
reading old CQ magazines from 1950, I have seen the use of "handle". Not to
say I like it or use these that way.

Chuck WG2A

Correct Chuck, and as I said, many radio amateurs have used both
expressions from time immemorial.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:33:21 GMT, Bob Allen LCT CO
wrote:

How hard is it to understand what the words "radio" and "swap" mean.
You have a right to your opinions but why do you insist on spouting them
here?
THIS IS A SWAP GROUP!!!!!!!!!!!

No it isn't!

It's a swap group.

Why are you talking about soap boxes here?

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 02:40:24 GMT, Mike Coslo
wrote:

hillbilly3302 wrote:

well Marty old habits are hard to break.... more than half the Hams out
there were x-CB'ers. nothing wrong with that. they will get it right
as time goes by.... I've been a HAM for 36 years and started in CB....
I think the proper term for that is two words. "seven three" no "s"

It seems a little odd for people to get stuffy about 73 vs 73's, when
both are designed for Morse CW.

If you are speaking, neither is "correct".

- Mike KB3EIA -

When was the last time you heard 73's sent on CW? Of course I have
only been licensed for 52 years, so I will have defer to those more
senior than me.

Dick - W6CCD

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:54:50 GMT, AF Four Kilo
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:15:05 +0900, "Brenda Ann"
wrote:

Nor, for that matter, are the Q-codes. Wasn't there a time when they were
not even allowed on phone comms??

Untrue.

Some of the grumblers might try to have you THINK that though!
There has always been a LOT of freedom of speech on the airwaves for
U.S. radio amateurs compared to other countries which used to have
some MAJOR restrictions on topics too.

I have to agree with that. Q-Codes have been used on amateur radio at
least since the 40's. Probably a long time before that.

Dick - W6CCD

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:19:31 GMT, "
wrote:

"Richard Cranium" wrote in message
. com...
" wrote in message
news:Q%lDb.121450$_M.630038@attbi_s54...
Marty:

73 or 73s .. the idea is the same and neither reduces intelligibility.

Not correct. "73" (singular) translates to "best wishes" (plural). 73s
would thus translate to "best wisheses", which definitely reduces
intelligibility.

Name or handle... the idea is the same and neither reduces
intelligibility.
Personally, I usually say "I hight Paul." After all, this is more
classically than either Name or Handle. It does reduce intelligibility,
of
course, but that seems to be a small price to pay in exchange for being
correct.

Whenever someone asks me for my "handle", I just say "My name is
Richard". That gets the point across pretty well.

73(s)

Paul AB0SI

"best wishes" is not a true plural. It is idiomatic. One can not parse a
language word by word.. Natural language does not work that way.

73s may grate on your ears, but the meaning is completely clear.

Paul


Well, the word is "regards", not "wishes", and regards is a plural
word. Regard is singular.

Dick - W6CCD

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 07:08:11 -0800, Bill Turner
wrote:

On 15 Dec 2003 15:45:54 -0800, (Richard Cranium)
wrote:

73s
would thus translate to "best wisheses", which definitely reduces
intelligibility.

_________________________________________________ ________

If you honestly believe that "73s" reduces intelligibility, your
communications skills are seriously impaired.

It absolutely does not reduce intelligibility, but it does show an
ignorance of the English language, much like the over-used expression
of today, "I seen it!" No problem with intelligibility there either
if you don't care how you sound to others.

Dick - W6CCD

Very nice reference. Thanks.

Dick - W6CCD

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 08:14:26 -0800, "Keyboard In The Wilderness"
wrote:

The first authentic use of 73 is in the publication The National Telegraphic
Review and Operators' Guide, first published in April 1857. Keep in mind it
started with telegraphic code use. Number codes were used by telegraphers
for common phrases.
These abbreviations were used in a manner similar to Q signals today.

Here's a partial list of old telegraphic number abbreviations: 1 – Wait 2 -
Important business 3 - What is the time? 6 - I am ready 7 - Are you ready?
12 - Do you understand? 13 - I understand 14 - What is the weather? 17 -
Lightning here 19 - Form 19 train order (used by RR) 21 - Stop to eat 23 -
All copy 24 - Repeat this back 30 - No more, end 31 - Form 31 train order
(used by RR) 44 - Answer promptly by wire 73 - Best regards 88 - Love and
kisses 92 - Deliver promptly 134 - Who is at the key?

For the History of 73 see URL:
http://ac6v.com/73.htm#73

It then becomes apparent that it is 73 NOT 73's, but many say 73's and
everyone knows what is meant.

Yes, I can remember the use of the word, "handle" long before the CB
days.

Dick - W6CCD

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:49:33 GMT, "Chas" wrote:

Actually Dick, I saw in one of the latest QST magazines a letter from
someone involved in the ARRL back in 1918 or so, having written "73s", plus
reading old CQ magazines from 1950, I have seen the use of "handle". Not to
say I like it or use these that way.

Chuck WG2A

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:29:09 GMT, AF Four Kilo
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:32:50 -0700, Dick
wrote:

It's all pretty simple when you look at the words. 73 is a CW
abbreviation for Best Regards. As no doubt hundreds before me have
pointed out, there is already an "s" at the end of regard. If you
write out 73's, it becomes Best Regards's. If you write that for a
while, instead of 73's, you will come to see how much it butchers the
English language. Regards is already a plural word. To add ('s) to
the end of regards is to pluralize a plural. My high school English
teacher would have a heart attack.

Clearly you didn't read the explanation for when 73s IS appropriate!

By the way it is 73s, NOT 73's

73's means - "The possession of the 73" which make's no sense at all.

Oh, I read it alright. I dismissed as something expressed by someone
who doesn't have a good command of the English language. Pick either
one you want - Regardss or Regards's. Neither are correct.

Dick - W6CCD

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:00:52 GMT, AF Four Kilo
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:13:15 GMT, "Marty B."
wrote:

Well to me 73`sss and "HANDLE" reminds me of CB`ers, on the ham bands
and I hate hearing it.

Wrong again. Hams have always said 73s. I have been hearing it on the
ham bands myself since 1963 when I started as an SWL, and you can read
it in the CQ and QST magazines from the 1940s and 50s so I don't know
when you strange campaigners got into this absurd obsession but you
are sadly mistaken.


There are always exceptions, but the question is, "what has been the
commonly accepted practice over the years?" Out of curiosity, I
picked a couple of QSTs off the shelf. One was from Nov 1968, and the
other from Aug 1947. I looked through every page and found the use of
73 once in each magazine. Nowhere did I see the use of 73s, and I
would challenge you to show common usage of the abbreviation 73s in
amateur magazines from the 40s and 50s. Of course I did see a note
from G6CL in the 1947 QST who suggested the use of 161 to shorten the
use of 73 and 88 together! :-)

Dick - W6CCD

You know Dean, the more I think about it, the more I think that is the
root of the disagreement. For those of us brought up on CW before we
could ever operate on phone, we would never, ever use 73s on CW. When
we graduated to phone, it was natural to continue the original meaning
of the abbreviation. Those who never used CW, or only had a casual
acquaintance with it, started *******izing the term by adding an S to
the end where it was never intended.

Dick - W6CCD

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:31:24 GMT,
(K5DH) wrote:

Funny how this is only a debate for 'phone ops. CW ops
just send "73", never "73s".


73,
Dean K5DH

hahahha
161's
iloveit

"Dick" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:00:52 GMT, AF Four Kilo
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:13:15 GMT, "Marty B."
wrote:

Well to me 73`sss and "HANDLE" reminds me of CB`ers, on the ham bands
and I hate hearing it.

Wrong again. Hams have always said 73s. I have been hearing it on the
ham bands myself since 1963 when I started as an SWL, and you can read
it in the CQ and QST magazines from the 1940s and 50s so I don't know
when you strange campaigners got into this absurd obsession but you
are sadly mistaken.


There are always exceptions, but the question is, "what has been the
commonly accepted practice over the years?" Out of curiosity, I
picked a couple of QSTs off the shelf. One was from Nov 1968, and the
other from Aug 1947. I looked through every page and found the use of
73 once in each magazine. Nowhere did I see the use of 73s, and I
would challenge you to show common usage of the abbreviation 73s in
amateur magazines from the 40s and 50s. Of course I did see a note
from G6CL in the 1947 QST who suggested the use of 161 to shorten the
use of 73 and 88 together! :-)

Dick - W6CCD

Bill Turner for President!!!!!!!


"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:33:21 GMT, Bob Allen LCT CO
wrote:

why do you insist on spouting them
here?
THIS IS A SWAP GROUP!!!!!!!!!!!

____________________

We're swapping ideas, aren't we? :-)

--
Bill W6WRT

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:41:08 -0800, Bill Turner
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:14:23 -0700, Dick wrote:

There are always exceptions, but the question is, "what has been the
commonly accepted practice over the years?" Out of curiosity, I
picked a couple of QSTs off the shelf.

____________________

When you wanted to find the "commonly accepted practice", why did you
quote QST instead of quoting actual over-the-air conversations?

Is the ARRL smarter than hams? :-)

I was just responding to an earlier comment by Brian that said,

"Wrong again. Hams have always said 73s. I have been hearing it on the
ham bands myself since 1963 when I started as an SWL, and you can read
it in the CQ and QST magazines from the 1940s and 50s so I don't know
when you strange campaigners got into this absurd obsession but you
are sadly mistaken."

So I looked at a couple of old QSTs to try and substantiate what he
was stating as fact. Couldn't find any reference to 73s. Of course
if I spent (wasted) enough time at it I could probably find a 73s
somewhere in those years, but it wouldn't prove that hams "have always
said 73s", which I strongly disagree with. Maybe in jolly old England
where he came from it was the norm, but it sure wasn't here in the
U.S. when I got licensed in 1951.

I'm going to crawl back in my hole now.

73, Dick - W6CCD

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:52:55 -0700, Dick
wrote:


It seems a little odd for people to get stuffy about 73 vs 73's, when
both are designed for Morse CW.

If you are speaking, neither is "correct".

- Mike KB3EIA -

When was the last time you heard 73's sent on CW? Of course I have
only been licensed for 52 years, so I will have defer to those more
senior than me.

Dick - W6CCD

It's OK - we didn't ask Mike anyway. He probably doesn't use CW or he
would realize that "73" is always used on CW, but on phone it is
quite commonly stated as "73s" whether the whiners like it or not!

Merry holidays!

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:42:44 -0800, Bill Turner
wrote:

The first intelligent, unemotional comment on the subject I've ever seen
in my 45+ years of hamming.

'Bout damn time.

--
Bill W6WRT

Bill, I have told you a MILLION TIMES not to exaggerate!