In looking back at old ham publications from the early 60's, as well as
license guides with operating techniques explained, I have seen the
reference to "handle" as appropriate terminology, well before the CB influx.
The resistance to the use became evident (at least around here), when 2M got
populated by herds of former cb'ers, and I'm not talking no code, I'm
talking 1970-80 era, who did everything they could to distance themselves
from "Chicken Band" and pretend that they were never there. For a while, the
"name" was used on VHF, while oldtimers on HF, especially CW, would refer to
"handles". It has since died away.
And if 73 causes such consternation, imaging what someone who wished you
88's would bring!!

"Bill" wrote in message . ..
In looking back at old ham publications from the early 60's, as well as
license guides with operating techniques explained, I have seen the
reference to "handle" as appropriate terminology, well before the CB influx.
The resistance to the use became evident (at least around here), when 2M got
populated by herds of former cb'ers, and I'm not talking no code, I'm
talking 1970-80 era, who did everything they could to distance themselves
from "Chicken Band" and pretend that they were never there. For a while, the
"name" was used on VHF, while oldtimers on HF, especially CW, would refer to
"handles". It has since died away.
And if 73 causes such consternation, imaging what someone who wished you
88's would bring!!

bill is it necessary for you to rub salt in old wounds???? don't
confuse the issue with facts.....we all know that present day hams
were never into cb radio and that's a fact jack.....well got to go
take a 10-100 and give stevo a 42...be back in a minute.....

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 19:05:38 GMT, "Bill"
wrote:

In looking back at old ham publications from the early 60's, as well as
license guides with operating techniques explained, I have seen the
reference to "handle" as appropriate terminology, well before the CB influx.


Of course this is correct.
To suggest otherwise reveals the ignorance of the writer.
An innocent enough mistake, but just brought about by their lack of
experience in this grand ol' avocation!