"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...


KØHB wrote:

"Michael Coslo" wrote


I do not believe that one way transmissions should be legal on the
amateur bands.

Period.



No bulletins about hurricane Katrina and communications emergency
activations?

Not unless it is part of an emergency net, and therefore inherently part
of two way conversations. If it is just a broadcast, turn on Fox News or
CNN.

No code practice sessions?

No. With the dropping of Element 1, code testing can now be self taught.
Get on the air, and find someone who will QSO wit ya. And no anyhow.


With the dropping of the code testing, it will be even more important to
have the code practice transmissions. There will be fewer Elmers available
to teach those wish to learn.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...


KØHB wrote:

"Michael Coslo" wrote


I do not believe that one way transmissions should be legal on the
amateur bands.

Period.



No bulletins about hurricane Katrina and communications emergency
activations?

Not unless it is part of an emergency net, and therefore inherently part
of two way conversations. If it is just a broadcast, turn on Fox News or
CNN.

No code practice sessions?

No. With the dropping of Element 1, code testing can now be self taught.
Get on the air, and find someone who will QSO wit ya. And no anyhow.

No remote control of satellites?

That is part of establishing (or cutting off) two way communications

No remote control of model airplanes?

Is that us?


It is currently allowed under the FCC rules. And some people do use it for
that. I forget the details since I don't get into remote control models.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...


[snip]


See, it isn't to hard to have my opinion on this. It is at least as
consistent as the Byzantine qualifications that people try to use to
justify W1AW broadcasts versus K1MAN bulletins!

Some of us think perhaps a little more consistent.....

- Mike KB3EIA -


I've heard both the K1MAN transmissions and the W1AW transmissions. They
are so far apart that it doesn't take "Byzantine qualifications" to separate
the two.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Michael Coslo wrote:
No remote control of model airplanes?


Is that us?

Yep, six meters.

Dee:

Kinda of like the "Jehovah Witnesses" and the Catholics? Or, kinda like
the republicans and the democrats? Or, kinda like the left wing and the
right wing? Or, kinda like the vegetarians and the meat eaters?

Point is, if one can--the other can too!!!

John

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:45:36 -0400, Dee Flint wrote:


"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...


[snip]


See, it isn't to hard to have my opinion on this. It is at least as
consistent as the Byzantine qualifications that people try to use to
justify W1AW broadcasts versus K1MAN bulletins!

Some of us think perhaps a little more consistent.....

- Mike KB3EIA -


I've heard both the K1MAN transmissions and the W1AW transmissions. They
are so far apart that it doesn't take "Byzantine qualifications" to separate
the two.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Michael Coslo wrote:
Dave wrote:

"K=D8HB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Michael Coslo" wrote


I do not believe that one way transmissions should be legal on the
amateur bands.

Period.


No bulletins about hurricane Katrina and communications emergency
activations?

No code practice sessions?

No remote control of satellites?

No remote control of model airplanes?

No remote control of repeaters?

No telemetry from satellites?

No propagation beacons?

No APRS? (Not even in balloons?)

No auxiliary links between remote elements of a repeater system?

No................

"Period"

Damn, Mike, you one ultra-conservative summabitch!

73, de Hans, K0HB


don't forget, you have to call cq until someone answers you, otherwise =
it
would be a one-way transmission! so you better be darn sure there is
someone that is going to answer you before you call cq.

Negative.

Unless a person is some kind of nut case where they just sit and call
CQ without any intention of establishing a QSO, they are trying to
engage in a two-way conversation.

Is K1MAN trying to engage in a QSO?

Is ARRL trying to engage in a QSO?

Is someone calling CQ trying to engage in a QSO?

Someone using a repeater?


Presumably, the answers are no, no, yes, yes.

See, it isn't to hard to have my opinion on this. It is at least as
consistent as the Byzantine qualifications that people try to use to
justify W1AW broadcasts versus K1MAN bulletins!

Some of us think perhaps a little more consistent.....

- Mike KB3EIA -

Who'se listening to W1AW anyway? I mean, except for field day points.

Shut down Hiram and Baxter and be done with it.

"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Dee:

Kinda of like the "Jehovah Witnesses" and the Catholics? Or, kinda like
the republicans and the democrats? Or, kinda like the left wing and the
right wing? Or, kinda like the vegetarians and the meat eaters?

Point is, if one can--the other can too!!!

John


No your comparison is not valid. In the case of W1AW & K1MAN, the point is
that one adheres to the rules as they exist at this time and the other does
not. If you study the "history" of amateur radio, those rules were crafted
to allow W1AW to do exactly what it was doing at the time and they adhere to
those same requirements today. If K1MAN adhered to those rules, it would
not be possible to stop him. But he chose not too. If you think W1AW ought
to go too, then work to change the rules.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

If you think W1AW ought
to go too, then work to change the rules.

The problem with this is many have tried to change the rules regarding
information bulletins and the FCC has dismissed them all. The FCC last
time someone purposal to change the rules regarding Information
Bulletins (Which was W5YI) back in the 90's said they would not hear
any rule changes regarding information bulletin again.

Todd N9OGL

No your comparison is not valid. In the case of W1AW & K1MAN, the point is
that one adheres to the rules as they exist at this time and the other does
not. If you study the "history" of amateur radio, those rules were crafted
to allow W1AW to do exactly what it was doing at the time and they adhere to
those same requirements today. If K1MAN adhered to those rules, it would
not be possible to stop him. But he chose not too. If you think W1AW ought
to go too, then work to change the rules.

The problem is the rules are very vague. There is a thin line between
broadcasting and information bulletins but here is a list of things
K1MAN SHOULD of done.

1. Make sure the frequency wasn't in uses. If the frequency was in use
then he should of moved to a different fequency.
2. Stay at the control point while the transmission was going on
3. Don't avertise or talk about his website.

If he would of done this he would not be in the trouble he's in now.

Todd N9OGL

Dee Flint wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...


K=D8HB wrote:
cut
No. With the dropping of Element 1, code testing can now be self taught.
Get on the air, and find someone who will QSO wit ya. And no anyhow.


With the dropping of the code testing, it will be even more important to
have the code practice transmissions. There will be fewer Elmers availab=
le
to teach those wish to learn.

What? is there a part of the NPRM I missed like carting off the Code
users to some kind of death camp?

The ending of code testing will not reduce the number of code using
hams.

Time may do that though the actions of the grim reaper and the failure
of Code users to recruit others to replace them, but I doubt that will
kill CW USE or learning of the mode

Further with computers and programs in existance today any one that
wishes to make the attempt to learn Morse Code has the tools to do so
=20
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE