I am presently QRV from 160 to 2 meters.

I am in the process of putting up my beam on my recently installed tower and
hazer. This will be for 20/15/10, and six meters.

Dan/W4NTI

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com...
[snip]
How many folks on rrap have an 80 meter setup? As in "at least a G5RV
that works on 80, 35 feet up at least") There's W4NTI, N2EY, K8MN,
K0HB, and probably W3RV.

I do ... 160m-70cm here ... with digital modes as well as voice.

[snip]

Let's cut to the chase. It's about more room for 'phone and
less for Morse Code and digital modes. Some folks talk big
about "new directions" and "modernization" and "fresh ideas",
but what they really mean is more bandspace for SSB.

I, for one, do NOT support more bandspace for SSB ... I think it's
unnecessary.
The main problems are on contest weekends and a lot of those problems are
caused by too much testosterone and not enough operating courtesy from
*some( but not all) contesters and the "retaliations" from some equally
discourteous non-contesters.


Is that what is best? More room for SSB and AM, less for
CW and digital modes?

No ... see above.

--
73,
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
------------------------------------------------------
Life Member, ARRL
Life Member, QCWA (31424)
Member, TAPR
Member, AMSAT-NA
Member, LVARC (Lehigh Valley ARC)
Member, Lehigh County ARES/RACES
Fellow, The Radio Club of America
Senior Member, IEEE
Member, IEEE Standards Association
Chair, IEEE 802.22 WG on Wireless Regional Area Networks
------------------------------------------------------

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: John Smith on Aug 22, 3:22 pm


Dan:

What is "good for amateur radio" has to be "what is good for the
people",
and NOT "what is good for my klick."


No, John, it IS for their clique...except they can't see anything
but their clique as being "amateur radio."

You have a point, Len. There is an amateur radio clique. Those who are
radio amateurs are a part of it. You aren't.

More lies on your part

You and I are not part of the same clique



Which is what you are really
stating, it is just a bunch of "good ole cb buddies", but thinking of
themselves in some glorified manner!


To Dan the ARS stands for Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society.

Is there proof of your statement?

yes

your support of morse code welfare

cut

Thank goodness. Well at least "old friend" knows he is not in the group.

I for one am proud to hold a Amateur Radio License. I have NO REASON at all
to not be. On the other hand we have.......well you know who you are.

So am I proud of my license just not proud of many of the other holders
of them, esp those that put their mode ahead of the interests of the
rest of us

Dan/W4NTI

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

[snip]

Bandplans and band usage are complicated issues where the ARRL or anyone
else is highly unlikely to be able to please everyone - the objective
needs
to be to work with the different interest groups towards compromises that
allow us to get to something that at least a significant majority can
accept
and say "I can live with that." If I become a member of the ARRL BoD I
would work with all of the interested parties in an effort to forge that
sort of result.

With all due respect, that's what everybody says. The trouble is with
the specifics. You've given us some good specifics, like support of a
'reasonable' subband for Morse Code only, and a similar 'reasonable'
subband for 'robots'.
The devil is in "what's reasonable"?

The way I see it there's probably no way to please everyone
100%.

That's a given.

Therefore, I think the solution is to work with all of the
interested
"camps" to forge a compromise that at least a significant
majority can accept.
The optimum balance is probably something that will
result in all of the
"camps" being able to say "It's not perfect in my
ideal world, but I can
accept it and 'sign up' to support it."

Definition of "consensus".

However the specifics are where the arguing will be.

I think the suggestion from the CW folks for a modest
"CW only" segement at
the bottom of the band is reasonable and would ease a lot of
concerns about getting "squeezed out of existence."

Yup.

Would also tend to gather up the activity rather than spread it out.

I think that the proposal that some have made to "repurpose"
the "refarming"
of the novice bands to provide a "digital playground" for the
experimenters
who want to develop, test, and operate the higher speed, more
robust digital
modes that the emergency management agencies want is also
something that merits consideration.

There was an ARRL proposal some time back to "refarm" the Novice bands
- which was just a slick way of saying "use them for SSB". Some of us
(including both you and me, IIRC) commented that a better use would be
to create that "digital playground", where all modes except analog
voice/image would be allowed - with primary priority to digital modes
not allowed elsewhere.

I agree that "robots" should not be allowed to take over the
bands at the expense of all of the other modes.

Or even *any* other modes.

All of this would require some degree of compromise, but I
think that's what
will be required to formulate something that gains widespread
acceptance instead of massive resistance.

Key question: Will the digital playground include the robots?

Biggest problem: Convincing FCC to accept moving the Novices and Tech
Pluses down into the "General" part of the band.

For example, suppose 80 were "refarmed" like this:

3500-3575: Morse Code only
3575-3675: Digital and Morse Code, bandwidth less than 1000 Hz
3675-3725: "Digital playground" - all documented digital modes
(including Morse Code) regardless of bandwidth.

Extras have the whole band
Generals and Advanceds have all but 3500-3525
Novices and Tech Pluses have 3525-3575

In addition to significantly improving the
general level of technical
knowledge and skill of hams,

That was a prime reason for "incentive licensing"
40 years ago!

I'm talking about improved educational programs ...
it's clear that
"incentive licensing" created a huge schysm in
the amateur community and
hasn't really worked.

I think the big problem was that the causes of the apparent
problems were misunderstood.

There was a time when, to be a ham with an effective station, you
needed to a pretty good mix of technical knowledge, skill, and other
resources. There wasn't much manufactured equipment for hams, and what
did exist was very expensive by the average incomes of the day.

And what hams used not only had to be inexpensive, it had to be usable
without a lot of test equipment.

Then as technology, manufacturing and affluence advanced, more and more
hams simply bought their equipment. And as the reliability improved,
and operation simplified, the need to know how it all worked went down.
And those who were less technically inclined found it easier to be
hams.

For quite some years now we've had rigs that require almost no
technical knowledge to operate. No tune-up, no critical adjustments,
self-protected against many operating errors. And so complex that most
*professionals* wouldn't try to build one or even fix one without a lot
of specialized test gear and information.

Incentive licensing couldn't reverse that trend. How will voluntary
education programs do it if the hams themselves don't want it?

And remember all those arguments used against the Morse Code test? Most
of them can be used against the written tests as well, particularly the
General and Extra writtens.

(I think part of the
problem was linking increased
voice frequency privileges to the totally unrelated Morse test

The original ARRL proposal would have only required a written test.

Remember too that at the time (1960s) there was a real need for Morse
Code proficient radio operators.

But most of all, consider that for the unrelated privileges of the
bottom of four HF bands, Generals had to pass *two* written exams.

and the other
part was that it created in too many people's minds the idea
that the
license meant you "knew all there was to know" - thereby
removing the
motivation to progress even further.)

Nope.

Long before incentive licensing, there were hams who thought that
because they passed the test they were fully qualified. I recall hams
who, when they passed the General, would sell their Novice setup, buy a
manufactured transceiver, give away their Handbooks and other
materials, and consider themselves "done" with the serious learning of
radio.

growing our numbers (both licensees and ARRL
members), protecting our spectrum, and getting more people trained for
and
involved in emergency communications, one of the MOST pressing problems
we
face is to reverse the trend of "compartmentalizing" ourselves into
"factions" whose whole world revolves around one mode or one activity,
because the resulting "turf wars," suspicion/mistrust/paranoia,
in-fighting,
and attacks on each other divide us in ways that both are bad for the ARS
as
it's seen externally and bad for the ARS internally as we get along with
(or
don't) each other.

We should ALL be "hams" (period) and work together cooperatively and
constructively going forward into the future on the truly important
issues
facing ham radio and the ARRL.

The trouble is that ham radio covers such a wide range of activities
that there's trouble finding common ground in some cases.

The common ground should be that we're all hams - with
recognition that
different people have different operating interests and
cooperating instead
of always being so defensive and turf-war oriented.

Agreed!

For example, you have folks who want to use
equipment and modes that
are
decades old, and folks who think anything
less than their concept of
SOTA is "obsolete". Folks who want more room for SSB
(and even "hi-fi
SSB") and folks who want more room for digital.
Folks who don't even
have a computer in the shack and folks who never
actually listen to a
signal (they watch it on the waterfall display).

Appliance ops and homebrew-from-scratch folks.
DXers, contesters,
ragchewers, emcomm folks. Those who are stuck with
compromise and
stealth antennas and those with tons of aluminum aloft.

How do you get all those folks to see that there is
value in what each
of them brings to the table?

Education, encouragement, and, in severe cases, peer pressure
(through the
clubs is one way) to "play nicer together."

ALL hams should treat each other with
respect and courtesy, regardless of license class or operating
preferences.
Experienced hams need to welcome new hams with the spirit of patience and
helpfulness that "Elmering" embodies, rather than treating them as some
inferior form of life.

As mentioned before - that goes both ways.

That's true ... newbies shouldn't "cop an attitude" and neither should OTs.

Works for me!

73 de Jim, N2EY

Len:

I would like to encourage you to an amateur license, it is men like you
who will restore the caliber of the hobby... in some ways, your text
reminds me of the "old phart" who coached me on how to be a decent "old
phart." (well, I have been indecent too, but only around those of the
opposite sex--with their permission mind you! grin)

John

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:34:35 -0700, LenAnderson wrote:


Len:

You might have said, I missed it if that is the case, when/if CW is dead,
are you going to grab your extra ticket?

Maybe, maybe not. That's MY option, not based on the puerile
taunts of middle-schoolers who are of middle age going "nyah,
nyah, can't get a ticket, can't get a ticket!!!" :-)

Hmmm...I started out in HF communications with much more "action"
than the average, doing 24/7 comms with high-power (up to 40 KW)
transmitters shooting across the Pacific, plus doing VHF, UHF,
and - finally - multi-channel microwave radio relay over a half
century ago...winding up as an operations and maintenance
supervisor NCO. Then, on release from active duty, getting a
First 'Phone at an FCC field office (no COLEMs then) and working
four broadcast stations as vacation relief or on weekends or full
time for WREX-TV to gain enough money to come out west...having
already interviewed for and secured a job at Hughes Aircraft.
That led to a whole career, major major change to electronics
engineering winding up as senior staff in design. I'm supposed
to get a ham license to "prove I know something about radio?!?!?"

I don't have anything to "prove" to a bunch of yokels who want
to recreate the 1930s and 1940s in radiotelegraphy! Geezus,
gimme a break from those neanderthallers! What the fork do
think a ham license IS...some kind of Nobel Award for Science?!?
:-)

Amateur radio is fun, a recreational avocation done not for money
but for personal pleasure. It involves NO different radio physics
than any other radio service but it allows all the choice of
buying state-of-the-art radios to use or in building them from
their own designs. It requires a license to transmit RF due to a
federal law (an act of Congress) that created a federal regulatory
agency for ALL civil radio. The mindset of many hase been
"conditioned" by a certain membership organization to be much,
much more, a virtual lifestyle that has gotten too deep into the
myth and fantasy of long-ago times and dreams of glory and heroism
that never happened.

One argument is that "a ham can have their OWN station." Yes, I've
had "my own station" or properly, one-third of it in a business
partnership with two others. I've built/converted three "stations"
and checked them thoroughly befoe selling them, never once "using"
them or caring to use them. I've designed and built two other
transceivers for CB, one a prototype for a CB company in Burbank
that went bankrupt when faced with off-shore CB products cut them
out of profit action.

"I can work the world on radio with an amateur license!!!" Yes,
and I could pick up a handset in Tokyo, at ADA Control, and talk
to Seattle, Anchorage, San Francisco, Hawaii, or Okinawa any time
of the day or night, as I did for a while in 1955...without any
"license" or even any specific HF with/without SSB schooling of
any kind. I can "talk" to the rest of the world any time I want
to on the Internet, and have, plus being able to share images
with dozens of long-time friends (from pre-Internet days) faster
than by surface mail, uninterrupted by vagaries of the ionosphere.

"I can explore new radio territory and advance the state of the
radio art" with a ham license. What the fork do some of these
cretins think I was DOING FOR A LIVING since 1956? Without a ham
license I've legally transmitted RF on frequencies ranging through
EM bands from LF into EHF, on up to 4mm wavelengths. Gotten one
patent as sole inventor, had a terrific time in the labs and in the
field, still do it once in a while.

I once "worked a station" ON the moon. No moonbounce stuff. I
have to learn morse code in order to do THAT as an amateur?!?
(I don't have to test for morse code at VHF and up, just for
frequencies below 30 MHz...where I began doing HF communications
a half century before...without having to know or use morse code
then or any time afterwards)

If so, ya wanna meet down on 3.840 and give art a run for his money--in a
gentlemanly way of course. Don't go with disruptive actions myself...
debate and argument yes, trouble no... suspect you might be the same...
could be fun, ya never know... grin

No. If anyplace on ham bands, it would be on 20m where a bunch
of ex-RCA Corporation folks hang out on Saturday mornings. Talk
there is shared-interest stuff, not the personal polemics of
self-propelled radio potentates. Listen for KD6JG and W6MJN,
among others. I know them by their real names, not callsigns.

"I can be FEDERALLY-AUTHORIZED with MY OWN CALLSIGN if I get a
ham license!!!" Wow, ain't that something (like I've already
done that, but not with a ham license). I know where to get a
good ham sandwich nearby, the vendors needing only a Health
Department license to operate. [great pastrami at one place]

I DO need to renew my Poetic License. Time to study for Mores
Goad. :-)

buy buy

From: John Smith on Aug 23, 8:23 pm

Len:

I would like to encourage you to an amateur license, it is men like you
who will restore the caliber of the hobby... in some ways, your text
reminds me of the "old phart" who coached me on how to be a decent "old
phart." (well, I have been indecent too, but only around those of the
opposite sex--with their permission mind you! grin)

Sorry, John, but encouragment requires much training into
being a human modem working with a 161-year-old code set.
Further, I would have to go into detoxification of ANY THOUGHT
of CHANGING AMATEUR RADIO FROM WHAT IT IS! Dan da Morse Man
has SPOKEN! Change is NOT allowed.

Dan da Macho Morse Man speaks in FIFTY CALIBER forbidding ALL
change.

Dan is a hidebound, set-in-concrete-with-armor-plate traditionalist
conservative ready to go into combat with Weapons of Morse
Dedication to rid the world of upstart, liberal (euywww, spit)
thoughts of EVER removing the morse code test!

Dan is in his command track right now directing traffic (through
the nearest 2m repeater of course), ready to Flash Fire any
least sign of disturbance of his thoughts. Meanwhile, from an
undisclosed location, I am silently watching, monitoring all this
from a high UAV loaded with missles...taking aim... :-)

This is NOT about having fun with amateur radio, doing hobby
things for personal pleasure. This is WAR to Dan da Morse Man.
All do as HE SAY!

bip bip

"Dee Flint" wrote in news:xpWdnWeP27TJM5beRVn-
:


wrote in message
oups.com...
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Dan/W4NTI wrote:

[snip]

How many folks on rrap have an 80 meter setup? As in "at least a G5RV
that works on 80, 35 feet up at least") There's W4NTI, N2EY, K8MN,
K0HB, and probably W3RV.

Out of how many?

For 80m, I'm set up so I can choose between a G5RV, 80m skyloop, ground
mounted vertical, or random wire.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE




I confess I am using a random end fed wire (270 feet long, I have a 2 acre
lot, heavily wooded) admittedly far too low off the ground. However, it
does get out on 80 well enough to work some DX, or at least Europe anyway,
and I've worked VK6 on it on 40 (split). OTOH, on 160 it doesn't work worth
a d*mn, no doubt due to the low height. It also doesn't tune well on 15,
but is OK on the other high bands.

One day I'll get my tower up, but that'll mostly help me on the high bands.
I have a tribander and beams for 6m and 70cm to go up there. I also do some
mobile and portable HF, although I haven't yet got the current car set up.

Alun, N3KIP

wrote in
oups.com:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

[snip]

Bandplans and band usage are complicated issues where the ARRL or
anyone else is highly unlikely to be able to please everyone - the
objective needs to be to work with the different interest groups
towards compromises that allow us to get to something that at least
a significant majority can accept and say "I can live with that."
If I become a member of the ARRL BoD I would work with all of the
interested parties in an effort to forge that sort of result.

With all due respect, that's what everybody says. The trouble is
with the specifics. You've given us some good specifics, like
support of a 'reasonable' subband for Morse Code only, and a similar
'reasonable' subband for 'robots'.
The devil is in "what's reasonable"?

The way I see it there's probably no way to please everyone 100%.

That's a given.

Therefore, I think the solution is to work with all of the interested
"camps" to forge a compromise that at least a significant
majority can accept.
The optimum balance is probably something that will
result in all of the
"camps" being able to say "It's not perfect in my
ideal world, but I can
accept it and 'sign up' to support it."

Definition of "consensus".

However the specifics are where the arguing will be.

I think the suggestion from the CW folks for a modest
"CW only" segement at
the bottom of the band is reasonable and would ease a lot of concerns
about getting "squeezed out of existence."

Yup.

Would also tend to gather up the activity rather than spread it out.

I think that the proposal that some have made to "repurpose"
the "refarming"
of the novice bands to provide a "digital playground" for the
experimenters who want to develop, test, and operate the higher speed,
more robust digital
modes that the emergency management agencies want is also something
that merits consideration.

There was an ARRL proposal some time back to "refarm" the Novice bands
- which was just a slick way of saying "use them for SSB". Some of us
(including both you and me, IIRC) commented that a better use would be
to create that "digital playground", where all modes except analog
voice/image would be allowed - with primary priority to digital modes
not allowed elsewhere.

I agree that "robots" should not be allowed to take over the bands at
the expense of all of the other modes.

Or even *any* other modes.

All of this would require some degree of compromise, but I
think that's what
will be required to formulate something that gains widespread
acceptance instead of massive resistance.

Key question: Will the digital playground include the robots?

Biggest problem: Convincing FCC to accept moving the Novices and Tech
Pluses down into the "General" part of the band.

For example, suppose 80 were "refarmed" like this:

3500-3575: Morse Code only
3575-3675: Digital and Morse Code, bandwidth less than 1000 Hz
3675-3725: "Digital playground" - all documented digital modes
(including Morse Code) regardless of bandwidth.

Extras have the whole band
Generals and Advanceds have all but 3500-3525
Novices and Tech Pluses have 3525-3575

In addition to significantly improving the
general level of technical knowledge and skill of hams,

That was a prime reason for "incentive licensing" 40 years ago!

I'm talking about improved educational programs ...
it's clear that
"incentive licensing" created a huge schysm in
the amateur community and hasn't really worked.

I think the big problem was that the causes of the apparent
problems were misunderstood.

There was a time when, to be a ham with an effective station, you
needed to a pretty good mix of technical knowledge, skill, and other
resources. There wasn't much manufactured equipment for hams, and what
did exist was very expensive by the average incomes of the day.

And what hams used not only had to be inexpensive, it had to be usable
without a lot of test equipment.

Then as technology, manufacturing and affluence advanced, more and more
hams simply bought their equipment. And as the reliability improved,
and operation simplified, the need to know how it all worked went down.
And those who were less technically inclined found it easier to be
hams.

For quite some years now we've had rigs that require almost no
technical knowledge to operate. No tune-up, no critical adjustments,
self-protected against many operating errors. And so complex that most
*professionals* wouldn't try to build one or even fix one without a lot
of specialized test gear and information.

Incentive licensing couldn't reverse that trend. How will voluntary
education programs do it if the hams themselves don't want it?

And remember all those arguments used against the Morse Code test? Most
of them can be used against the written tests as well, particularly the
General and Extra writtens.

(I think part of the
problem was linking increased
voice frequency privileges to the totally unrelated Morse test

The original ARRL proposal would have only required a written test.

Remember too that at the time (1960s) there was a real need for Morse
Code proficient radio operators.

But most of all, consider that for the unrelated privileges of the
bottom of four HF bands, Generals had to pass *two* written exams.

and the other
part was that it created in too many people's minds the idea
that the
license meant you "knew all there was to know" - thereby
removing the
motivation to progress even further.)

Nope.

Long before incentive licensing, there were hams who thought that
because they passed the test they were fully qualified. I recall hams
who, when they passed the General, would sell their Novice setup, buy a
manufactured transceiver, give away their Handbooks and other
materials, and consider themselves "done" with the serious learning of
radio.

growing our numbers (both licensees and ARRL
members), protecting our spectrum, and getting more people trained
for and involved in emergency communications, one of the MOST
pressing problems we face is to reverse the trend of
"compartmentalizing" ourselves into "factions" whose whole world
revolves around one mode or one activity, because the resulting
"turf wars," suspicion/mistrust/paranoia, in-fighting, and attacks
on each other divide us in ways that both are bad for the ARS as
it's seen externally and bad for the ARS internally as we get along
with (or don't) each other.

We should ALL be "hams" (period) and work together cooperatively
and constructively going forward into the future on the truly
important issues facing ham radio and the ARRL.

The trouble is that ham radio covers such a wide range of activities
that there's trouble finding common ground in some cases.

The common ground should be that we're all hams - with
recognition that
different people have different operating interests and
cooperating instead
of always being so defensive and turf-war oriented.

Agreed!

For example, you have folks who want to use
equipment and modes that are
decades old, and folks who think anything
less than their concept of
SOTA is "obsolete". Folks who want more room for SSB
(and even "hi-fi
SSB") and folks who want more room for digital.
Folks who don't even
have a computer in the shack and folks who never
actually listen to a
signal (they watch it on the waterfall display).

Appliance ops and homebrew-from-scratch folks.
DXers, contesters,
ragchewers, emcomm folks. Those who are stuck with
compromise and
stealth antennas and those with tons of aluminum aloft.

How do you get all those folks to see that there is
value in what each of them brings to the table?

Education, encouragement, and, in severe cases, peer pressure
(through the
clubs is one way) to "play nicer together."

ALL hams should treat each other with
respect and courtesy, regardless of license class or operating
preferences. Experienced hams need to welcome new hams with the
spirit of patience and helpfulness that "Elmering" embodies, rather
than treating them as some inferior form of life.

As mentioned before - that goes both ways.

That's true ... newbies shouldn't "cop an attitude" and neither
should OTs.

Works for me!

73 de Jim, N2EY



Yhr FCC has already agreed to let the Novices and Tech plusses use the
General frequencies for CW. It's mentionned in passing in the NPRM.
However, I think they do envisage simply turning over an equivalent amount
of spectrum to phone, that is to say equivalent to the size of the current
Novice CW subbands.

Alun L. Palmer wrote:

Yhr FCC has already agreed to let the Novices and Tech plusses use the General frequencies for CW.

Where?

It's mentionned in passing in the NPRM.
However, I think they do envisage simply turning over an
equivalent amount
of spectrum to phone, that is to say equivalent to the size of the current Novice CW subbands.

Not in NPRM 05-235. I just reread it - they specifically deny almost
everything that is mentioned. Changes to the test process, new license
classes, more license classes, fewer license classes, more privileges,
free upgrades, and much more, are all discussed and specifically
*denied* by FCC. FCC mentions several times that if Novices,
Technicians, and Technician Pluses want more privileges, all they will
have to do is pass one or two written tests. They even mention that all
Tech Pluses and Novices have to do *right now* to get lots more
privileges is to take those written tests.

After all the discussion, the *only* proposed change is to eliminate
Element 1. No other changes are proposed by FCC.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
...
wrote in
oups.com:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


Yhr FCC has already agreed to let the Novices and Tech plusses use the
General frequencies for CW. It's mentionned in passing in the NPRM.
However, I think they do envisage simply turning over an equivalent amount
of spectrum to phone, that is to say equivalent to the size of the current
Novice CW subbands.


No that is not what the FCC has agreed to as of yet. They mention that
there is another proposal out there to do this but they have not acted on
it. There wording does seem to indicate that they favor the change though.
It's not a really hot issue as there are very few active Novices and Tech
Plus amateurs out there. Most of the active ones have upgraded and it's
irrelevant to the inactive ones. Hopefully it will encourage them to become
more active since there is much more activity in the General portion of the
band.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: John Smith on Aug 22, 3:22 pm


Dan:

What is "good for amateur radio" has to be "what is good for the
people",
and NOT "what is good for my klick."


No, John, it IS for their clique...except they can't see anything
but their clique as being "amateur radio."

You have a point, Len. There is an amateur radio clique. Those who
are
radio amateurs are a part of it. You aren't.

More lies on your part

You and I are not part of the same clique



Which is what you are really
stating, it is just a bunch of "good ole cb buddies", but thinking
of
themselves in some glorified manner!


To Dan the ARS stands for Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society.

Is there proof of your statement?

yes

your support of morse code welfare

cut

Thank goodness. Well at least "old friend" knows he is not in the
group.

I for one am proud to hold a Amateur Radio License. I have NO REASON at
all
to not be. On the other hand we have.......well you know who you are.

So am I proud of my license just not proud of many of the other holders
of them, esp those that put their mode ahead of the interests of the
rest of us

And by that you are infering that I do that, eh? Give me an example.
Besides a quote from Lennie that is.

Dan/W4NTI