| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
July 18th 04, 04:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#3
July 18th 04, 08:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes: By whom? What "whom?" Living in the past again, I see.... No. For tomorrow. Been in the past. Then he shouldn't be making the rules for it...right? RIGHT! :-) What did you do back then, Len? Already told you. And why are you still living in the past? 1994 was TEN YEARS AGO ;-) ;-) How perceptive! 2004 - 1994 = 10! Marvelous. You didn't have to take off your shoes to prove it! :-) How is it wrong? Anything said against your opinions is automatically WRONG. Ho hum. MOS 281.6 - Microwave Radio Relay Operations and Service Supervisor plus brevet MOSs of Fixed Station Transmitter Operations and Service, Carrier Systems Operations and Service. [the "point-6" in that old MOS numbering is the indicator of supervisory duties which I had as an E-5 S/Sgt] 1953 to 1956. "Three up and one down" after just 2 1/2 years. Earned. So? That was your *job*, wasn't it, Len? Assignment. [get with military nomenclature...] What's interesting is that you don;t mention that there were more than 700 *other* people at ADA when you were there... Yes, at Transmitters (Camp Tomlinson), Receivers (Camp Owada), Control, Tape Relay at Chuo Kogyo (later inside North Camp Drake). Eugene Rosenbaum was one of the Transmitters assignees. I've mentioned him before, also SFC Don Ross (Maintenance NCO, had all commercial and top ham licenses of that time), Capt William P. Boss, OIC (Officer In Charge) of Transmitters (ham license). Gene has a ham license, lives in Long Island, NY, he and wife just got back from a European tour. I don't mention the photographic detachment either (for about two decades later the photo people were also categorized as part of Signal Corps). Photo wasn't involved in radio communications. So...did you work at all those places or just talk about them? Yes, I worked IN and AT all those things. Are you the new security chief of the personnel department? Feel free to write all those companies and check up. Here's a bird...I flip it to you... Were you in sole charge, or part of a much larger team? I never worked in a shoe company, "in charge of soles." Pbthbthbth... What company does Rev. Jim work for? Choo-choo factory? With over 700 people, when you were there. Yet you don't mention the team, just yourself. Interesting, very interesting. About 700 in the Batalion at four different sites and with three different billets. I've RE-mentioned the people I mentioned before; see above. I've also mentioned Jim Brendage, a civilian engineer (DAC) whom I've been in contact with much later (retired, lives in CA) plus some USAF people. USAF took over responsibility of the ADA facilities in 1963 as part of Army downsizing in Central Honshu. I could mention lots of others but they don't have the beloved ham license yet continued to operate and maintain facilities without it or any need for morsemanship. I find it supremely interesting that you don't know a damn thing about HF communications other than ham radio and what you are spoon- fed by QST and the league. And they manage quite well without you, Len. That's the way the system is organized. It works. So? So sue if ya don't like it. :-) How is that relevant to amateur radio? Nothing amateurish about it. You're not the FCC, Len. You are not the FCC either. So? Actually, there are a few hams at FCC, making the rules and recommendations about those rules. Not required in their Statement of Work. Didn't you read yours? More importantly, those folks are professional regulatory people. You're not. You sure as hell aren't a "professional regulator!" You're just a wanna-be regulator. Riiiiiight...keep the beepers in charge of hum raddio...those mighty macho morsemen keeping the airwaves pristine with the musick of morse as they did in the old, old days. Archaic Radio Service, the ARS of yeasteryear! [all rise...] Sounds like you are jealous, Len. Sounds like you've got NO sense of humor when you be tweaked. Poor baby. A wanna-be regulator and can't control your steam. Just a spectator. No. One of a team, several teams. Doing work. Making things happen. Making a bit of money, too. Just another groundpounder. Heck, even I can use the lingo. But you keep reliving the past, leaving out the important details. "Groundpounder?" That's a military term. You never served. Try not to be a wanna-be sojer too. Not nice. Let's see...a fella who doesn't know squat about military comms comes in here all filthy-languaged with sexual inuendo and tells all "I never did what I said I did." I then describe (again) what I did and where, both in military work and civilian work and he still calls it wrong. Now you come in here thinking "you speak the lingo" and say it was all no good, "living in the past." You don't know squat about aerospace, Spaceman Spiff. [your cartoon quit a decade ago] It is. But you're just a spectator there, too. Yes. So? You seem to have lost touch with the issue in here...the creation reason issue being the retention or elimination of the code test for an amateur radio license. You keep trying to misdirect these non-discussions into some weird "desire" for a ham ticket I'm supposed to have. Such as: What really burns your bacon is that even with all your alleged professional experience, the FCC won't act on your recommendations and those of us who actually *are* radio amateurs won't bow down to you. INCORRECT. WRONG. I know the process of legislation and rule-making and accept that. Everyone gets a chance to comment at the FCC and the FCC has the near-final regulatory say on U.S. civil radio (courts can rule on that later but that does not happen often). All must live with the decisions on civil radio matters, even if they are not individually acceptible. That's how it is in a democratic-principle government. Your allegation of some kind of weird "personal vendetta" is just that, a weird thing. You can't abide the thought of losing the morse code test so, therefore, you think that all those trying to eliminate it are abnormal in some regard. Not so. What IS abnormal is the stridency of the PCTA in the maintenance of a code test for a ham license without any regard to the changing times or the fact that morse code manual telegraphy is going down the tubes in all of radio communications except amateurism. You cannot justify modern-day rules based on antiquated reasons which no longer apply. But, you met those antiquated rules and now insist that all newcomers meet those rules. Why? I don't know why you are still so adamant about it, can only speculate. And despite all your verbiage, you can't get some of us to respond in kind to your name calling and other word games. TS. Someone wants to play nasty with me, I play nastier. No problem. Been there, done that, lots of times. How, Len? How yourself, Kimosabe. Ugh. By requiring a simple one-time 5 wpm code test? By requiring ANY rate code test. You can NO longer justify its existance by "treaty." You can NO longer justify its usefulness by anything but tired, trite, old phrases that ceased being applicable decades ago. All you or your PCTA ilk can "justify" is all the denigration and name-calling and general negative inuendo you put on those that want to eliminate the code test. Not nice. But, you "justify" it by all kinds of tricks and message subject misdirections, by calling yourself "superior" to others because you met old standards. No sweat to me. If the code test stays, then I hang in there trying to get rid of it. If the code test is eliminated, then I be satisfied. Methinks you dost protest too much. Don't you mean "doth" mistah spear-shaker? :-) |
|
#4
July 20th 04, 12:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes: In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: By whom? What "whom?" You-m ;-) Living in the past again, I see.... No. Yes. For tomorrow. Been in the past. The past is all you talk about, Len. Then he shouldn't be making the rules for it...right? RIGHT! :-) Then neither should *you* be making the rules for amateur radio - right? ;-) ;-) What did you do back then, Len? Already told you. No, you told us where you were, not what you did. How is it wrong? Anything said against your opinions is automatically WRONG. No, it isn't. You're wrong about that! ;-) ;-) ;-) MOS 281.6 - Microwave Radio Relay Operations and Service Supervisor plus brevet MOSs of Fixed Station Transmitter Operations and Service, Carrier Systems Operations and Service. [the "point-6" in that old MOS numbering is the indicator of supervisory duties which I had as an E-5 S/Sgt] 1953 to 1956. "Three up and one down" after just 2 1/2 years. Earned. So? That was your *job*, wasn't it, Len? Assignment. [get with military nomenclature...] Job. What's interesting is that you don;t mention that there were more than 700 *other* people at ADA when you were there... Yes, at Transmitters (Camp Tomlinson), Receivers (Camp Owada), Control, Tape Relay at Chuo Kogyo (later inside North Camp Drake). 700 people is a lot of people. Eugene Rosenbaum was one of the Transmitters assignees. I've mentioned him before, also SFC Don Ross (Maintenance NCO, had all commercial and top ham licenses of that time), Capt William P. Boss, OIC (Officer In Charge) of Transmitters (ham license). Gene has a ham license, lives in Long Island, NY, he and wife just got back from a European tour. I don't know any of those people. You mention them once or twice, and your exploits at ADA about once a day on average. I don't mention the photographic detachment either (for about two decades later the photo people were also categorized as part of Signal Corps). Photo wasn't involved in radio communications. 700 people is a lot of people. So...did you work at all those places or just talk about them? Yes, I worked IN and AT all those things. And how does that make you more qualified than others to determine amateur radio policy? Are you the new security chief of the personnel department? Feel free to write all those companies and check up. Here's a bird...I flip it to you... Nice *professional* behavior..... Were you in sole charge, or part of a much larger team? I never worked in a shoe company, "in charge of soles." Pbthbthbth... Very grown-up of you, Len. What company does Rev. Jim work for? Who is "Rev. Jim"? With over 700 people, when you were there. Yet you don't mention the team, just yourself. Interesting, very interesting. About 700 in the Batalion at four different sites and with three different billets. I've RE-mentioned the people I mentioned before; see above. I've also mentioned Jim Brendage, a civilian engineer (DAC) whom I've been in contact with much later (retired, lives in CA) plus some USAF people. USAF took over responsibility of the ADA facilities in 1963 as part of Army downsizing in Central Honshu. I could mention lots of others but they don't have the beloved ham license yet continued to operate and maintain facilities without it or any need for morsemanship. How is that in any way significant to amateur radio policy in 2004? I find it supremely interesting that you don't know a damn thing about HF communications other than ham radio and what you are spoon- fed by QST and the league. You're simply wrong about that, Len. I know quite a bit about HF radio communications - and the ARRL is just one information source. I recall many exchanges between you and K8MN (a career State Department employee) in which you did not accept his explanation of Morse Code use in State Department radio communications. He was there, you weren't, yet you don't accept his statements simply because they proved you wrong on some minor point or other. As if you knew more than he about State Department HF communications. Riiight! Then there's the infamous "sphincter post" of yours, where you ranted over a true story by a USCG (that's a branch of the US military) radio operator who was *assigned* to operate Morse Code from a shore station. Not in the 1930s but many decades later. It really, reallly bothered you that somebody in "professional" "big-time" radio actually had true stories to tell about Morse Code on the air. Now you'll probably dismiss all this as "living in the past" and such, but you don't get a clean slate today after such behavior. You've never disowned any of those rants and insults. How is that relevant to amateur radio? Nothing amateurish about it. Then it's not relevant, and you're just spouting off because you don't have any relevant qualifications. You're not the FCC, Len. You are not the FCC either. So? So don't act like you know better than others what amateur radio policy and regulations should be. Actually, there are a few hams at FCC, making the rules and recommendations about those rules. Not required in their Statement of Work. Didn't you read yours? My what? ;-) More importantly, those folks are professional regulatory people. You're not. You sure as hell aren't a "professional regulator!" You're just a wanna-be regulator. That's not me, Len. I'm just a radio amateur. You're not. Riiiiiight...keep the beepers in charge of hum raddio...those mighty macho morsemen keeping the airwaves pristine with the musick of morse as they did in the old, old days. Archaic Radio Service, the ARS of yeasteryear! [all rise...] Sounds like you are jealous, Len. Sounds like you've got NO sense of humor when you be tweaked. I was right - you're jealous. Obviously very jealous. Poor baby. A wanna-be regulator and can't control your steam. I'm not the one calling people names or telling them to shut up. You are. Just a spectator. No. One of a team, several teams. Doing work. Making things happen. Making a bit of money, too. Is that your only criteria - money? If I have more money than you, or am paid more money, does that mean I'm right and you're wrong? Just another groundpounder. Heck, even I can use the lingo. But you keep reliving the past, leaving out the important details. "Groundpounder?" That's a military term. You never served. So? You're not a radio amateur. Try not to be a wanna-be sojer too. Not nice. I'm not a wanna-be. You are ;-) Let's see...a fella who doesn't know squat about military comms comes in here all filthy-languaged with sexual inuendo and tells all "I never did what I said I did." That's not me. I then describe (again) what I did and where, both in military work and civilian work and he still calls it wrong. That's not me either. Now you come in here thinking "you speak the lingo" and say it was all no good, "living in the past." You tell others they are living in the past, and then you do the same thing to a much greater degree. Are there words and phrases which I must not use because I was never in the military, Len? Words like "groundpounder"? SNAFU? FUBAR? "Augered-in"? "Six turning and four burning"? Will you now tell me to "Shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel" (direct quote of you!) ? And you don't explain how some experiences of 50 odd years ago somehow make you qualified to determine policy in a radio service that you have never been part of. Odd, very odd. Also illogical. You don't know squat about aerospace, Yes, I do. I really do, Len. Not at a professional level, but I do have a bit of knowledge. More than you have about amateur radio. Thosde facts seem to bother you no end. It is. But you're just a spectator there, too. Yes. So? So? You seem to have lost touch with the issue in here... No, I haven't. the creation reason issue being the retention or elimination of the code test for an amateur radio license. Really? ;-) You keep trying to misdirect these non-discussions into some weird "desire" for a ham ticket I'm supposed to have. You said you were going for an Extra right out of the box 54 months ago yesterday. Hasn't happened yet. You haven't even tried. That kinda messes up your credibility. Such as: What really burns your bacon is that even with all your alleged professional experience, the FCC won't act on your recommendations and those of us who actually *are* radio amateurs won't bow down to you. INCORRECT. WRONG. No, it's quite correct, quite right, as evidenced by your diatribes here and in ECFS. I know the process of legislation and rule-making and accept that. oooooooooo ;-) Everyone gets a chance to comment at the FCC and the FCC has the near-final regulatory say on U.S. civil radio (courts can rule on that later but that does not happen often). Civics 101. 9th grade stuff ;-) All must live with the decisions on civil radio matters, even if they are not individually acceptible. Then live with the code test, Len. That's how it is in a democratic-principle government. I know. Here's another democratic-principle thing: Majority opinion counts for something. And when the issue is discussed, the majority of those bothering to express an opinion support a Morse code test for at least some classes of ham license in the USA. Even without a treaty requirement. Back when the issue was discussed in FCC comments, (1998), the majority of those who commented not only wanted code tests but wanted at least two code test speeds. Not the majority of comments - the majority of *people*. That fact was revealed by someone in "No-Code International", so you cannot claim the data gathering was biased for the result. You can spam the ECFS but you're still just one person, and a nonparticipant at that. You can call your opponents names but that doesn't change anyone's mind on the issue. Your allegation of some kind of weird "personal vendetta" is just that, a weird thing. It *is* a weird thing that you are so fixated on a single issue in a radio service where you play no part and have no place. It *is* a weird thing that you spend so much time calling people names, making fun of their jobs, education, ethnicity, military service, background, gender, and many other attributes when all they have done is to disagree with you, or show that your statements are incorrect. It *is* a weird thing that you support an age requirement of up to 14 years for an amateur radio license even though you cannot name a *single instance* where the youth of an amateur radio licensee has caused on-air problems. (The USA has never had an age requirementfor any class of amateur radio license). You can't abide the thought of losing the morse code test Sure I can. It was lost for the Technician license back in 1991. That wasn't a good idea, but I learned to live with it. Heck, way back in 1998 or so, and many times since then, I discussed license structures that would allow individual amateurs to choose which tests they would take. No Morse code if they didn't want it. So you're wrong - again! so, therefore, you think that all those trying to eliminate it are abnormal in some regard. Not so. All anyone has to do is observe your behavior, Len. What IS abnormal is the stridency of the PCTA in the maintenance of a code test for a ham license without any regard to the changing times or the fact that morse code manual telegraphy is going down the tubes in all of radio communications except amateurism. Why is that "abnormal"? What *is* abnormal is lumping together all people who happen to share a common opinion on one issue of regulation and treating them as if they have all insulted you in the same way. That's what you do here. An amateur license is for amateur radio, not other radio services. Amateur radio is a unique service, as are all the other radio services, with its own rules, goals, basis and purpose. (If it wasn't unique, it would have no reason to exist as a separate service). Amateurs use Morse code extensively. So it makes sense to require some basic skill in its use. And that's what the 5 wpm test is - basic skill. You cannot justify modern-day rules based on antiquated reasons which no longer apply. That's true. However, there are modern reasons which do apply. But, you met those antiquated rules and now insist that all newcomers meet those rules. Which antiquated rules? Why? A Morse code test for an amateur radio license is a good idea. It's not antiquated. That's why. I don't know why you are still so adamant about it, can only speculate. I simply think it's a good idea. Hams use Morse, it's a big part of amateur radio *today*, therefore it should be tested. Why you are so obsessed over a simple test in a radio service where you are just a spectator is the mystery. And despite all your verbiage, you can't get some of us to respond in kind to your name calling and other word games. TS. Someone wants to play nasty with me, I play nastier. No problem. No, you play nasty even with those who are civil with you. Like me. Been there, done that, lots of times. By requiring a simple one-time 5 wpm code test? By requiring ANY rate code test. Learn to live with it. You can NO longer justify its existance by "treaty." Don't have to. You can NO longer justify its usefulness by anything but tired, trite, old phrases that ceased being applicable decades ago. Ad hominem attack rather than facts. All you or your PCTA ilk can "justify" is all the denigration and name-calling and general negative inuendo you put on those that want to eliminate the code test. Where have I called anyone a name, Len? Where's the "negative innuendo"? That's what *you* do. Not nice. No, you're not. ;-) But, you "justify" it by all kinds of tricks and message subject misdirections, by calling yourself "superior" to others because you met old standards. Where have I called myself superior? C'mon, show the post. Or are you afraid of Google, because of what else is archived there? No sweat to me. If the code test stays, then I hang in there trying to get rid of it. If the code test is eliminated, then I be satisfied. Why? You're not a radio amateur, have never been one, and obviously have no intention of being one. You play no part in amatuer radio, yet you seem to think that some ancient non-amateur experience somehow qualifies you to tell others how amateur radio should be regulated. And to endlessly insult them for daring to disagree with you. And you are obsessed with this code test thing as if it were some sort of moral crusade in which you are the standard-bearer against some imagined injustice. Why? |
|
#5
July 18th 04, 11:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: FCC Morse testing at 16 and 20 WPM
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 7/18/2004 10:42 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: What has nursie done in that other "SOME" of radio? Answrer: Nottadamnthing. :-) Then he shouldn't be making the rules for it...right? I don't! And I see Lennie is making typos! Must be ANGRY ANGRY ANGRY ! ! ! =) Also zero-point-zero experience in "emergency communications". WRONG. Use Rev. Jim's Time Mashine and go back to 1994. Some earth-shaking news awaits you, nursie. What did you do back then, Len? And why are you still living in the past? 1994 was TEN YEARS AGO ;-) ;-) And even MORE typos. He's REALLY mad! His "traffic handling" experience was as a radio clerk in the Army in the FIFTIES, and his experience in practical avionics goes back to his days as a STUDENT (never licensed) pilot back when Lear organ-grinder radios were the "state of the art". WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. Tsk, tsk, tsk. How is it wrong? It's not. At least according to his very own words. Maybe he finally joined that REACT group...?!?! MOS 281.6 - Microwave Radio Relay Operations and Service Supervisor plus brevet MOSs of Fixed Station Transmitter Operations and Service, Carrier Systems Operations and Service. [the "point-6" in that old MOS numbering is the indicator of supervisory duties which I had as an E-5 S/Sgt] 1953 to 1956. "Three up and one down" after just 2 1/2 years. Earned. So? That was your *job*, wasn't it, Len? NOW he was a STAFF SERGEANT! For the last eight years he's been insisting he was "only" a Sergeant. Guess he figured after the battlefield sacrifices he made and all the fights he's fought in this forum he deserved a promotion. Congratulations, Lennie! What's interesting is that you don;t mention that there were more than 700 *other* people at ADA when you were there... Of course not! HE handles ALL one-point-two million of those messages! Him! Alone! "Practical avionics" includes airborne radar (both military and civilian), airborne radionavigation equipment (TACAN, DME, VOR, Localizer, Glideslope, and Marker Beacon) plus several missle systems which few will know about, such as the old Hughes Aircraft "Falcon" series or "Maverick." That at, in chronological order, Ramo-Wooldridge (the "R" and "W" of TRW now), Micro-Radionics Inc., Van Nuys, CA, EOS [Electro-Optical Systems] a division of Xerox, Pasadena, CA (mostly spacecraft stuff), RCA Corporation EASD (Electro- magnetic and Aviation Systems Division), Van Nuys, CA, Hughes Aircraft Missle Division (Hughes for the 2nd time, this at the same buildings once leased by R-W), Canoga Park, CA, and Teledyne Electronics, Newbury Park, CA [designers and manufacturers of military transponders, what civilians call "IFF"]. Wanna talk how that marvelous VOR works? No problem...old NARCO box or an RCA 3 1/2" instrument package that has it all...Nav and Com, with MB and LOC and GS all packed in behind the OBS. Wanna talk ground station VOR or TACAN? No problem there, either. Wanna talk on-the-air while airborne? No problem, done that too and not just with some UNICOM at a grass field. More like the Western Airlines maintenance facility at LAX. So...did you work at all those places or just talk about them? Were you in sole charge, or part of a much larger team? Hey...just how many fl;oors can a janitor clean at once anyway, Jim...?!?! He HAD to have had help! As for experience in aeronautical navigation he's pretty well shown us what he "knows" in here. BTW, oh great and ignorant bird of the radio universe, the Army didn't have a "message center" at ADA. Other Army message centers fed it and were fed in turn...ADA kept the radio circuits working. With over 700 people, when you were there. Yet you don't mention the team, just yourself. Interesting, very interesting. Not "interesting", Jim...just status quo.... They still do that as they did at Fort Irwin in 1989 for regimental level field radio (quite a bit different than 35 years prior). And they manage quite well without you, Len. No manual telegraphy in the 50s, not in the 80s, the 90s, or this new millennium. So? Sunnuvagun! Who would a thought it? No CW! :-) How is that relevant to amateur radio? It's not. But it's all the Putz has to hold on to, so he'll keep reciting it over and over and over and..... Would you want HIM making binding decisions for you in regards to Amateur Radio policy? Yes, why trust the FCC to regulate amateur radio? You're not the FCC, Len. Uh oh! Don't tell HIM that! None at the FCC need have ham licenses to do that. Actually, there are a few hams at FCC, making the rules and recommendations about those rules. More importantly, those folks are professional regulatory people. You're not. Riiiiiight...keep the beepers in charge of hum raddio...those mighty macho morsemen keeping the airwaves pristine with the musick of morse as they did in the old, old days. Archaic Radio Service, the ARS of yeasteryear! [all rise...] Sounds like you are jealous, Len. More foolish than jealous. Want radio OPERATING? Sure. No problem. Done it from land, from water, from a cockpit while aloft. Want space comms? Sorry, you can't do that yet, NASA can't afford to send Morose Dysfunctionals off on expensive spaceships. I'll just stand in the JPL mission control room (as I've done for a few missions) and watch the live data come in from Mars or wherever. That be happy. I've "worked" a station ON the moon. Stalker Stevie never did. Just a spectator. Naaaaaaah...I just bounced signals off the moon. Lennie hasn't done that. Goldstone more fun place, though it be hot, hot. Clear Lake fun for a visit but I wouldn't wanna work there ("failure no option" in the old days, not quite so now). Wanna get up at Oh-Dark- Thirty to prep telemetry for an avionics package on a fast mover? Done that too. Edwards. China Lake. Kern County Airport #7 (Mojave). Phooey, like my mornings quiet and late. Who needs all that sweat to push envelopes? :-) Given my sweat, pushed an envelope a couple times, sweated in the labs producing goodness and newness, seen it work. Just another groundpounder. Heck, even I can use the lingo. But you keep reliving the past, leaving out the important details. I am sure that Lennie pushed a LOT of envelopes...That broom was able to collect a lot of debris. Ham radio would be fun. It is. But you're just a spectator there, too. It IS fun! What really burns your bacon is that even with all your alleged professional experience, the FCC won't act on your recommendations and those of us who actually *are* radio amateurs won't bow down to you. And despite all your verbiage, you can't get some of us to respond in kind to your name calling and other word games. Bingo! But, all the "intelligent people" wanna recreate the hoary halcion days of the 1920s and 1930s. How, Len? By requiring a simple one-time 5 wpm code test? Methinks you dost protest too much. Methinks he is still marking time in 1953, defending the ramparts of ADA against any idea of anyone other than him knowing how a radio works. Sucks to be Lennie! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Response to "21st Century" Part One (Code Test) | Policy | |||
| My response to Jim Wiley, KL7CC | Policy | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1366  October 17 2003 | Dx | |||
| Low reenlistment rate | Policy | |||
| NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. | Policy | |||
Hybrid Mode
